To the Editor:
I have read with interest letters to the editor concerning the attempt by Mid Coast Hospital (Goliath) to take control of Parkview Hospital (David).
Though I have not examined their balance sheet, some of the losses in Parkview’s revenue can be attributed to uncollected patient debt, failure of the state to meet its financial obligations, and the rising cost of materials and supplies.
Merger with either entity will not necessarily reduce costs, as some claim, although standalone hospitals like Parkview are realizing the wisdom in partnering with a health care system. Rumford and Bridgton have affiliated with CMHC and the results are two of the lowestcost hospitals in the state.
Which “competitor” will be most likely to retain the distinctive qualities that have been the hallmark of patient care given to those who have chosen Parkview Hospital? The philosophy and motivation of the administration is a key factor.
Parkview chose to affiliate with Lewiston, continuing a long-standing, congenial relationship, and has continued to operate under Parkview’s founding principles and philosophy. Ownership of Parkview’s assets will remain with its current board; it will still oversee operations, and it will retain its taxexempt status. It will continue to operate as a faith-based hospital.
My interactions over many years have made me acutely aware of the spirit of animosity toward Parkview Hospital on the part of the administration and some employees of Mid- Coast Hospital.
My perception then and now is that the Mid Coast administration and their supporters will not be happy until they have eliminated Parkview and its commitment to whole-body, faith-based care from the Brunswick landscape. It has been their long-term goal.
Pious talk about reducing the cost of medical care and transporting patients to Lewiston is merely a cover for eliminating competition, eliminating patient choice and complete control of the medical care of the populace in the Mid Coast area. I, for one, am not buying into it.
Gail Card
Bowdoin
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less