It is too late to help William Bobbitt Paschall, who died in December at Franklin Regional Medical Center in Louisburg after elective knee surgery. Paschall, 76, of Henderson, wasn't a good candidate for surgery -- he had heart trouble, diabetes, lung disease, emphysema and one kidney.

But the surgery proceeded, and federal investigations resulting from a complaint about Paschall's case have turned up other problems at the hospital -- many of them. The investigators' findings include that the hospital didn't have an "organized surgical service" that would have included a roster of surgeons and information as to which surgeries they could perform. Federal officials also found the anesthesiology services to be inadequate, a lack of organization in nursing services and what appears to be sloppy record-keeping and communications regarding lab work, patients' histories and on other issues.

Investigators were so alarmed that federal regulators plan to cut off the hospital's Medicare and Medicaid funding on June 22. That is a drastic step.

The News & Observer's Sam LaGrone and Joseph Neff reported Sunday that the hospital, which is owned by Health Management Associates of Naples, Fla., reported $11 million in profits in both 2005 and 2006. The hospital wants to move to Youngsville from Louisburg, something state officials would have to approve. They have turned down the idea, twice.

In Paschall's case, it seems flags that should have been alarming were ignored, and information about his risks and condition simply didn't get to the right people. The case serves as a sad example, but a clear example, of the value of federal oversight and of exhaustive investigations that perhaps will help prevent tragic events such as this one in the future. Other cases also were examined, and investigators found that some other surgeries proceeded without adequate preliminary physical examinations.

Of course it's disturbing that these problems weren't identified earlier. Investigators found that the hospital didn't even respond to any of 37 patient grievances filed in January and February. Is that indicative of overall communications problems, or just an inexcusable attitude toward grievances? Does the hospital have procedures in place to ensure that inadequate performance of duties, no matter who might be involved, will be addressed?

This kind of situation can't help but contribute to a general concern about the for-profit hospital industry. Would the fact that there is a profit motive -- and a sizable profit apparently is there to be had -- prompt some institutions to cut corners in the name of efficiency? Perhaps not, but it is a fair question. And how can hospitals ignore or fail to meet many federal safety standards, which is what investigators found in this case? Isn't someone monitoring that compliance?

It is too late for William Bobbitt Paschall. But it is not too late to ensure greater safety for other patients, provided that federal regulators and those charged with oversight follow up the investigations of this episode.