Non-Profit v. For-Profit
Dear Editor: During a recent commercial flight, I began thinking about the changes with air travel that have been put in place over years. Obviously the airline companies’ business models focus on maximizing revenues.
In years gone by, a traveler purchased an airline ticket which provided a comfortable seat, baggage service and perhaps beverage and light meal service. First class was an additional expense. Now luggage service, many seat selections (some quite cramped), and food service incur fees in addition to the price of a ticket. The added costs are most burdensome for those with limited financial resources.
It seems that the business model for (non-proft) SEARHC is similar to the (for-profit) airline companies, as reflected in the recent changes made to the home health program. SEARHC’s program represents a significant change from the home care previously provided to our community. The Medicare-certified Home Health program provided nursing care and physical/occupational therapies that Medicare covered at 100 percent (covered services). SEARHC has changed to an outpatient home-based program that separates out those services. Less resources will be directed towards areas that are less profitable (nursing) and more towards higher reimbursement services: physical and occupational therapy, emergency and inpatient services. Home care services are available but restructured for an increased revenue stream. The impact of this decision will be borne by the individual patient and family experiencing lower nurse/patient hours and services and increased out-of-pocket fees and co-pays. The added costs and diminished services are most burdensome for those with limited financial resources.
Elizabeth (Bitsy) Mosher,
RN/FNP, retired
Sitka resident, 46 years
Two Kinds of Tourists
Dear Editor: I want to thank Thor Christenson for reminding our Assembly (and the rest of us) that we have two kinds of tourists who come to Sitka each summer. Our city government seems to be emphasizing the cruise ship passengers who bring lots of numbers and who patronize ‘‘summer’’ businesses like curio shops and fast foods.
Some of these businesses choose not to remain in Sitka during the winter. They board up their stores – as in Juneau and Skagway. The other kind of tourist comes for several days to experience our beautiful surroundings – to fish and hike and meet local folk. These visitors patronize a wide range of year-round Sitka businesses: short-term rentals, grocery stores, outdoor supply stores, charter boats, car rentals, fuel, restaurants, etc. They also buy ‘‘tourist’’ souvenirs and local art. By using resources that we have in place year-round they sustain our community.
The community of Sitka is, indeed, a destination for tourists. We have natural beauty, attentive neighbors, thick-textured arts, science which supports both our classrooms and our fishing fleet, comfortable shopping streets. When I first came to Sitka in 1975 I quipped: ‘‘three cars ahead of me at our one stop light is a traffic jam.’’ Much of this is not available to huge numbers of part-day cruise ship tourists. Are less-polluting buses and limits on downtown sidewalk packing sufficient to sustain sense of community?
Tax income vs. maintenance of Sitka’s ‘‘quality of life’’ seem to me to be the dominant drivers of city support. It would be interesting to compare the taxes each tourist group brings to Sitka. I assume that 580,000 part-day visitors (those who bought a cruise trip which stops briefly in Sitka) spend more than fewer multi-day visitors. Is the difference in tax revenue enough to risk a fundamental change of Sitka from stable community to tourist attraction? Should tourist money ‘‘feed’’ year-round small local businesses or a single mega-business?
I would like to see information comparing these options and asking for community preference between ‘‘cruise ship tourist destination’’ and ‘‘sustainable community’’ as goals for Sitka planners.
David S. Steward, Sitka
