Community Hospital
Dear Editor: Change is an extraordinarily difficult thing. Even more difficult is change that affects friends, neighbors, and acquaintances in ways that are negative or perceived negatively. Then there is change that just comes, advancing with frightening inevitability, which the best of efforts cannot stop.
After three years of study while on the Assembly and 32 years of observation as a citizen and consumer of the services of the Sitka Community Hospital, we are now being assailed by all three of these changes affecting one of our most cherished institutions. Change is here. It may be painful. But, if we approach this time of change wisely, the community can be stronger in the long run economically, less expensive to live in, and have more and better health care.
Virtually every outside observer has stated clearly that SCH has no mid- to long-term future. Whether funded fully by SCH (Stroudwater), funded jointly (ECG), independent (Huebner), or a respondent to the RFP to manage the hospital (Quorum), each has stated that there is no path forward for the hospital. Board members past and present recognize this. Even the CEO has stated it on more than one occasion, most recently at the Aug. 14 meeting, though it was later reported in the media that he thought there was a “narrow path forward.”
Most damning is the Huebner report, which evaluated the SCH on the industry standards in key areas. It found our hospital to be on ‘‘life support’’ in every economic respect, even with significant moneys currently provided by the city for operations and capital projects. Quorum, given the chance to make considerable money managing our hospital, not only passed on that opportunity, but suggested going with a competitor. In my experience, that is unheard of.
Let me state clearly that the staff of the hospital are not to blame. On a recent visit attending to a friend in emergency care, I observed competent, passionate, and concerned staff from the physicians to the nurses, to the head of maintenance. It is not a surprise that these people would be concerned and upset with discussion, then plans for anything untoward to happen to a profession and institution that they have dedicated their lives to. I get it. I do not blame them. I would and have fought for things I loved as well.
But as an Assemblyman, I cannot view things individually, but as a piece of the whole city. I have consistently sought to keep Sitka sustainable over my term through cuts and modest increases in revenue. The risk engendered to the entire city, by an enterprise without a real path to success, as measured by multiple experts in the field, is untenable. To not accept an offer, which will eliminate all financial responsibility to the city in the short and long term, is irresponsible.
When SCH was instituted, there was no alternative health care for the city’s non-tribal members. This is one of the biggest changes that I have personally observed and experienced across the state. As it has evolved over the ’80s, ’90s, and now the 21st Century, it has taken its toll on SCH to the point where it and SEARHC are splitting the local health care dollars. The difference is that SEARHC netted $24 million last year, while SCH lost money on operations yet again. These earnings allow SEARHC to fund their own capital projects and a new $100 million hospital. It is unclear where the new imaging equipment needed at SCH is coming from, much less the major structural work needed over time. It has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is going to have to be the people of Sitka. With the offer pending from SEARHC it would again be irresponsible to not have them take all of the capital costs now and into the future.
If the CBS elects to keep the SCH, it will be forced to put any and all money it needs into it, as failure of the hospital would result in a $30 million pension bill due, which the city would have no ability to pay back without significant contributions from the citizenry. The SEARHC offer relieves the city of that burden.
The offer in total would lower electric rates, provide nearly 250 new jobs in the new hospital with all current CBS employees guaranteed jobs and bring in high paying providers. This would eliminate much of the need for ‘‘travellers’’ who work part-time here and take money they earn here, elsewhere.
The CBS has been a victim of reduced funding from outside sources, crumbling infrastructure, and a populace reluctant to increase revenue. We can no longer afford, nor do we need to afford, to provide health care to Sitkans as a city service.
There will be impacts beyond the hospital, certainly. The Assembly cannot subsidize the hospital’s existence simply to ensure the survival in their current form private businesses. But after three years of studying this issue and hearing from numerous experts in the business side of hospitals, it should be clear to all that change has finally caught up with our hospital.
A review of the economic impact of a change in the status of SCH, in light of the risks associated with current performance, is unnecessary. Moving this decision into the future any longer is, again, irresponsible. Additionally, due to any negotiations which would have to take place between CBS and SEARHC, it cannot be clear as to what to even study, since we don’t know the exact plans they may have for transition.
I want to conclude by reiterating that the staff of SCH is passionate, caring, and professional. They certainly do not bear any blame for the current situation. I am not sure that anyone is. SCH, like all of us, are victims of inevitable and unstoppable change.
Bob Potrzuski, Sitka
SCH Support
Dear Editor: I have lived here for 55 years and even when there were only 3,500 people in Sitka we had two hospitals and it worked well.
I strongly support the employees at SEARHC. They are good people. The issue I have is with SEARHC’s senior management and the various consultants they have interacted with. Their goal has clearly been to place SCH in a negative light and they have worked to make SCH less successful. A key way they have done this is to use federal dollars (citizen tax dollars), to unfairly compete with SCH. This is illegal. They cannot take funds from the federal government to buy up the only competition in Sitka. What do you think buying the Totten property right in front of the SCH for a walk-in clinic is? Predatory use of federal dollars? SEARHC moved their walk-in clinic from the Center for Community building, put up signs all over the place, and never put SEARHC on any signs.
Look at SEARHC’s RFP proposal. Their testimony to the Assembly on Aug. 13 is vastly different from what is in the proposal.
In the proposal they say they will hire the SCH staff and integrate the two sets of employees into one. A question from the Assembly asked if SEARHC would agree that they will hire all SCH employee. Their answer? They said they can give no guarantees, that they would try and hire as there were openings but they could not guarantee SCH people would have the same job or the same salary as at SCH. We will lose jobs in Sitka if this comes to pass.
Another question from the Assembly – SEARHC competes within Sitka, especially with the two pharmacies in Sitka. The question from the Assembly – Will you be competing with the pharmacies? SEARHC’s answer – Yes.
We have Assembly members whoappear to be in favor of selling to SEARHC and who do not want an advisory vote and will not allow one. What are they afraid of? John Holst and I started a ballot initiative that would require waiting one year and letting the new CEO have a chance. The response from the attorney and city staff was that our initiative was not legal because the ballot would be deciding the hospital could not be sold. This is not what we were asking. We just wanted a year of hard work under new management before selling it. I think SEARHC will still be interested in a year.
I am worried sick over what is happening in Sitka. I told myself to let it go as it seems to be a done deal. But I remember my father, Ned Blatchley, worrying about the need for a middle school many years ago and he said, I am a Sitkan and I am going to do everything I can to get funding for the middle school. He and others on the school board worked hard and made it work. It was completed one month after he passed.
I cannot give up on our hospital.
Nancy Blatchley Davis, Sitka
