Hospital move doesn't feel like a win to patient

 Not that long ago there was an editorial that addressed the joining of the two hospitals in some manner here in the valley. They said that it appeared to be a win-win situation. 

I have to wonder who they thought was doing the winning? Certainly not the people who need the care. What it really means in my mind is lack of choice and a monopoly on our health care. One does not have to have a degree in higher math to figure out that the larger facility must make a lot of (real) profit to be able to buy up all the real estate they have and to buy out the majority of the doctors along with it. 

Here has been my experience with a doctor I have gone to for 29 years. After this doctor’s office was bought by the hospital, after asking for an appointment, I was told I needed a referral from another doctor as a new patient (if I could get an appointment), who in all probability also works for the hospital and after all that wait six weeks for an appointment to see the doctor I wanted to see in the first place.

What that really means is two doctor visits at double the cost to get one visit with the doctor I wanted AND needed to see in the first place. NO concern at all as to why I needed to see the doctor, not even a question as why I needed a appointment. 

Now I suppose my option would be I could go to the emergency room, which after charging a lot of money would probably call in the doctor I wanted in the first place. I bet if there were more letter writers, they would be telling the same type of stories. Dr. Kileys letter in a recent edition of the Inter Lake told it like it is: The hospitals can charge what they want and we the consumers have to bear it. 

If there is anyone out there including the writers of the editorial that can explain to me just how a monopoly of any kind benefits those who NEED their products or services, I am more than ready to listen. —Glen Hook, Kalispell