Answers still elusive
During the recent Connellsville City Council meeting, we misspoke when we said the director of the Fayette County Behavioral Health Administration signed the contract with Uniontown Hospital and Value Behavioral Health. She verbally approved the contract. We stand corrected.
Our position remains that false information to a contracted payor (VBH) was given about Highlands Hospital and that the verbal agreement was not admitted to until five months after many requests for an explanation.
We would like to address several points that Fayette County Commissioner Al Ambrosini made.
He stated that the state mandates two inpatient providers per county. There are many counties in the state that have no hospital at all and about 18 with only one hospital. So that mandate makes no sense.
He also stated that the county does not negotiate rates with providers. When we contact VBH to renegotiate our rates, we are told to contact the county. Again, we're simply asking who do we have to go to for answers?
Highlands has an exemplary record, according to the Pennsylvania DPW Quality Review Report of April 12. We are one of only two hospitals in 13 counties to be labeled a Value Selected Program due to our performance in length of stay and readmissions.
So if it's not our performance record or how many facilities are needed per county, we can only conclude that Uniontown was awarded a contract in an attempt to close our doors.
Finally, if being “emotional” about the possibility of losing our jobs is politicizing, then call us guilty.
& Karen Blocker
The writers are Highlands Hospital employees.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.