Disgraceful
The Tribune ran a piece that was such an obviously contrived hit piece against the Great Falls Clinic that they ought to be ashamed. I mean it; who the hell is running things down there?
The opening paragraphs described how a 16 year old quadriplegic girl received a letter from the Great Falls Clinic explaining that her physician was leaving the Clinic. But, according to the Tribune, "the letter never indicated that Garver was actually still in town, just leaving the Clinic and opening his own office." The reporter went on to quote the girl's father: "Things like this are pretty traumatic for her" and the reporter continued that the girl had seen this physician for 7 years and had come to trust him.
The clear implication is that the eeeeevil, cooooold, heeeartless Clinic, without a care for its patients, sent out a nastygram to a poor, teenage quadriplegic. Oh, but wait. Keep reading. Because the second to last paragraph of the article, 5 pages later, states that the father "did say he knew that Garver was leaving the Clinic and intends to follow him to his new practice, [no free ads here; just at the Tribune], at _____________. There, [the girl] can still receive [Garver's] care. They have plenty of insurance."
So, let me get this straight. The family knew he was leaving the Clinic and knew he was opening his new practice. But the story opens by clearly suggesting that this girl was shocked and traumatized. Can you say "contrived?" Can you say "mislead?" Can you say "untrustworthy?" How about "shameful," "shameless," or even "amateur hour?"
There's more. If a professional leaves his group, whether doctor, attorney, engineer, or accountant, is the Tribune suggesting that it is the group's obligation to contact patients and clients and inform them of their new competitor? "Dear Client: Accountant Bob is leaving our firm. He will be setting up a competing practice at _______. His new number will be ____. We strongly encourage you to take all of your work to our new competitor!"
Maybe this reporter, Ms. Cates, should stick to reporting on "fun in a flash" instead of breathlessly covering run of the mill commercial transactions as though they're important.
One more thing: non-compete agreements. They're legal in this instance. They're not used to try to "rule Great Falls," so why would Ms. Cates quote a "source" who says that? Did she ask her "source" how much money the Clinic invests in hiring a new doctor? Did she ask her "source" whether the doctor knowingly agreed to the contract provision? Did she ask her "source" whether this doctor had ever benefited financially from a non-compete provision when other doctors left the Clinic?
Did Ms. Cates ask Benefis representatives if they have ever asked a physician to sign a non-compete?
Did she do any...research... whatsoever...besides talking to a few people?
The Fibune owes the Clinic an apology.
Disclaimer: I have appeared as an attorney for Essentia Health.
14 comments:
My son, a junior in college, received that same letter from the Great Falls Clinic. He hasn't gone to the clinic in 5 years or more! I was bewildered as to why, then I read the Great Falls Tribune. The Tribune and the Great Falls Clinic have both left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Many of the great Doctors are either leaving or retiring, I wonder why?
Anonymous, why does the Clinic sending this letter leave you with a bad taste in your mouth? What do you think is wrong about it?
Clearly the Clinic wrote the letter for business reasons, to maintain patient base by trying to keep any patients from following their doctor out of the clinic partnership. I’m sure the wording was purposely vague as to informing patients what their doctor’s new situation was. I doubt an analysis was done to verify it was in the patient’s best interest to remain with a clinic doctor. I have no problem with that they are a business. It’s when the GF Clinic hides behind the sacred doctor/patient relationship in shielding from critisim their specialty hospital and bristle against accusations that they are doing it for self interested business reason that I call a spade a spade. The clinic is a multi-million dollar business why shouldn’t it act or be treated/regulated as one.
Geeguy- are non compete clauses generally enforceable? Or, are the amounts small enough it’s not worth litigating. Seems like it would be easy to manufacture justification for leaving a job/partnership without penalty for not also leaving the community. I think both Benefis and the Clinic do us no favors with this kind of control over doctors. All businesses pay significantly to recruit employees but very few could get away with this. I could see it if you trained the employee with some special unique to your business. A skill they didn’t have before employment with you, but that’s not the case here. I agree the Tribune “Datelined” this piece to justify front page positioning, if only they could have gotten a photo of the disabled girl on the shores of the Missouri looking over the water as she pondered her dilemma.
Yes, they are generally enforceable in these situations.
And you have to remember that, according to news reports and the Secretary of State, the Clinic is not an employer/employee relationship, but is in fact a partnership. It is entirely legal for partners to provide for non-competes on dissolution. (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/28/2/28-2-705.htm) A partnership is an extremely intimate business relationship, and the law recognizes that it is eminently reasonable for partners to agree not to compete with each other after dissolution. To say that "very few could get away with this" is inaccurate. Any business organized as a partnership can "get away with it."
For don't forget, this is a matter of agreement. No one forced Dr. Garver to come here, no one forced him to sign the contract, no one forced him to join the Clinic. He did it by choice.
"Fibune"
Yup.
Completely with you on this.
Here's the part that baffles me:
"Cherish is a 16-year-old spastic quadriplegic who can't read, write or speak," said her father Bill Aldridge. "Things like this are pretty traumatic for her," Aldridge said."
Wait a minute - if she can't read, and the article states that the Aldridges will follow Dr Garver to his new practice, then how can this be "pretty traumatic" for her? She is still going to see the same doctor - the one that she has an established relationship with. Unless her father read the letter to her and said or implied that she wouldn't be able to see Dr Garver anymore, how did this traumatize her?
I'm not criticizing the Aldridge family - like GeeGuy, I fault the Trib and the reporter for twisting this story for "maximum sensation."
I recently got a letter from a doctor I had gone to for about 10 years. He stated that he was leaving, moving to a clinic in a nearby town, and that due to a non-compete agreement, he would not be able to see any of his "old" patients for two years!
While I certainly thought that was excessive, I did not hold the clinic he worked for responsible. He had made the deal - unfortunately in this case, his patients have to pay the price.
Just goes to show you that Business is Business and Love is Bullshit. (OK, maybe not LOVE, but you get the picture). Didn't even make the paper here. Come to think of it, I do feel a little traumatized. Maybe I should call the tip line.
Sue
Nothing surprises me concerning the local rag pretending to be a newspaper. An echo chamber for Benefis, run by hacks. The National Enquirer is more of a newspaper than the Trib.
I think that any organization that puts money/competion over the safety and well being of another human being/patient has got a screw loose somewhere.
I'm obviously "NOT" a big fan of the Great Falls Clinic, nor am I just jumping the gate over Benefis and their little Russia business practices.
If a doctor, lawer, car mechanic -- want's to strike out on his own and make a good go of it, then by golly, let 'em do it.
The benefit would be in it for us by way of lower, or otherwise, realistic prices as a result of the "direct competition".
Holy false premise, GiftShoppeGuy. Please produce, or at least identify, the evidence supporting your assertion that the Clinic values "money/competion [sic] over the safety and well being of another human being/patient." You're smearing with a pretty broad brush.
And I'm guessing you wouldn't be quite so quick to throw out all of the contractual provisions that presently exist for your benefit in the name of "realistic prices."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's something about this whole Benefis/Clinic thing that leads to short on facts, long on opinion.
Not smearing anyone.
I pay whatever medical that comes my way, and am glad to do it.
My take on Benefis, convincing the state that they were the only ones that needed to be here already didn't sit well,(the ink was dry on the agreements even before the public was invited to comment) and then, to claim a not for profit status to gain favor, only to turn accounts over to "for profit" agencies after only 90 days, regardless of whether or not you were in good standings with your accounts.
I also take issue with the good ole boy policies with regard to the kinds of partnerships that places like the Great Falls Clinic indulges in.
It's all about the money, plain and simple. We aren't allowed, by certain nefarious agreements amongst "partners", to save money, and obtain services for reasonable costs.
Granted, the medical services in and of themselves, in North Central Montana collectively, are mostly, beyond compare.
It's the "money grubbing business practices", and the politics behind them, that I take full issue with, and, head on too, I might add.
So long as money is the bottom line over any kind of good service or talented physician, our medical services will not come to realize their fullest potential.
The choice is ultimately ours to make....
Go to Great Falls Clinic, pay through the nose, while your physician makes less money, or, see to and attend to your medical needs in the world of private practice, where you pay less, even up to more than half, and your physician still makes a tidy profit.
I absolutely will not put my money into someone elses pocket just because they say it's the thing to do. I don't put my faith into insidious contractual provisions presumably *designed to protect me... I have an attorney for that. The types of contractual provisions that we are discussing here are written by and for, only those who wish to turn a tidy profit at our expense...
After watching all of the whining and complaining that's gone on between our medical factions in this community down in Helena over the past year, I'm of the mind to just telling Benefis to knock it off and compete... And, if these "presumed contractual provisions" were such a good thing, why do we find ourselves looking for a lower price?
I'll take my pocket book and my business into the world of private practice, and leave all of the marketing specialists and corporate hotshots out of it any day of the week.
Physicians in private practice are seemingly much more candid and relaxed... they smile more, and are seemingly much less hurried in their dealings. And they usually don't employ the use of domestic budget busting corporate tactics that both Benefis and the Great Falls Clinic employ.
GSG, since I obviously have no life, posting comments on a blog on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, I'll take a shot at this.
I am not sure if your statements stem from a serious factual misunderstanding, fundamental socialist tendencies, or simple naiveté, but they are very wrong nonetheless.
First, you say you can "go to Great Falls Clinic, pay through the nose, while your physician makes less money." Um, did you know that the Clinic is owned by the doctors? So, how is it that your doctor makes less money at the Clinic? You're assuming some sort of profit or overhead going to non-physicians, and your assumption is absolutely false.
Second, competition agreements are not "nefarious" simply because you don't like them. Do you have the slightest idea what it costs to recruit a physician? Do you know what a physician/partner takes from the Clinic? Or do you not care because you simply assume that doctors exist for your benefit, and any negotiations on their part to protect their own financial interests necessarily sacrifices patient care.
You're a businessman. Please enlighten us with all of the contracts you have negotiated solely to benefit others besides yourself. Or are you placing physicians in a special, pseudo-slave category?
By the way, the "insidious contractual provisions" are not designed to protect you. They are designed and negotiated to protect the interests of the parties. Explain why two peoples' contracts are any of your business? Just because you say so? Because you don't like them? Because you think you should have the final say as to what your medical care is worth?
When I say, "it's all about the money", I'm coming from just such a position that claims company autonomy.
This would be really great If I were the only guy in town that did what I did.... The sky would be the limit on my prices. But there are many others in my same industry here, so I price services competitively. If I didn't, I would go out of business.
Lets say for a moment, that I am the only one here. And that I charged $5.00 per foot to just place and finish concrete.
Then lets say, now all of a sudden, 3 other contractors came to town, all doing the same thing I do.
Now lets say, contractor #1 decided to charge $2.50 per foot to place and finish....
Where would I be with my $5.00 per foot??..
What would happen to me and my business if folks all piled in to get the $2.50 per foot price??..
Would I go to Helena to whine and cry and complain about "the other guy" and his $2.50 per foot prices??..
Or... would I have the nads settle in and price accordingly?
And what if I signed on a partner?
Well, okay, here I now have this partner, who after a couple of years decides to strike out on his own.
What should I do?
Would there be a partner contract involved? And if so, would I hold him to it? Telling him to go get his own clients?
Am I that afraid, or lazy to compete that I would have to hide behind an agreement such as that?
Now here we go with "it's all about the money".... again.
I'm not wrapped up so tight with any kind of monopoly that I would have to worry about what the other guy does.
Now if we still had Columbus and Deaconess, along with a few others, I think you would be surprised to find some lower prices on medical care around here.
Though I wholly support business, and the right to conduct it, I do not support the current corporate mindset that says we have to protect ourselves from competition by squashing it altogether with "certain nefarious agreements".
I speak, from the monitary prospective of having to actually deal with the business offices of both, Benefis and The Great Falls Clinic.... and truly, I am not at all impressed with the tactics of either. You can run a good business and be profitable at the same time, without having to run roughshod all over your client base.
Sure... I could run the same tactics... but then again, I don't have the luxary of a monopoly, or the privilege to go running off to the state for protection every time someone comes along that wants to compete with me.
And, if I ever did have partners.. I would never stoop so low as to admit that I was afraid of a little competition by making them sign "certain nefarious agreements"..... If this presumed "partner" had established himself with various clients throughout the course of his work with us? Then I would fully expect him to continue servicing these accounts... afterall, he did work for and earn their trust.... It should be the same for any doctor that strikes out on his own.
Post a Comment