Vote NO on Three Rivers Hospital Bond

Before voters commit $48 million for hospital construction in Hospital District #1, they deserve solid county-wide information to confirm how best to meet the medical needs of the residents of Okanogan County. We don’t have that information, and the current proposal asks voters to commit to 30 years of increased property taxes and $48 million for new construction without the county-wide data showing that this is the best way to spend the money.

Committing money, without studying county-wide data, locks in the current system, and stands in the way of designing what might be better. Perhaps a county-wide study would support a central facility with outlying 24-hour urgent care centers. Maybe something else...but good information is the way to find the best use of limited health care tax dollars.

Three Rivers Hospital is financially fragile. New Medicaid reductions mean even less financial stability. We are living at a time when things are tough for hospitals to make ends meet. There is less money coming in as people struggle to afford health insurance and reductions in reimbursements from Medicaid will go into effect this next year. An analysis by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform (CHQPR) warns

that 720 rural hospitals—representing roughly one-third of all rural facilities nationwide

—are at risk of shutting down due to the severe financial distress, greatly exacerbated by the Medicaid cuts authorized by the One Big Beautiful Bill. Three Rivers Hospital is clearly in this category of vulnerability. The $48 million bond doesn’t help with the hospital’s strained costs of operations. It would only fund new construction. If Three Rivers Hospital fails, residents here would get decades of increased taxes, but no hospital.

How much could the $48 million bond proposal cost residents? A home valued at

$400,000 would see an increase of $292 in property taxes each year. That amounts to

$8,760 in increased housing costs over the next thirty years. For a home valued at

$600,000 it would mean an increase of $438 in housing-related costs per year—an increase of $13,140 in taxes over the 30-year life of the bond proposal. Voters should keep in mind that these costs will translate into higher housing costs for all property—owned, leased, or rented. Business owners would also be subject to these property tax increases on all assessed business property.

Voters in Okanogan County do not have unlimited budgets. If voters approve this $48 million bond proposal, what happens when other public entities ask for new bonds and levies such as our Fire District, our School District or our County? Many important but competing needs will create tough decisions.

There’s no doubt that voters in Okanogan County care deeply about the availability, quality, and cost of hospital and health care services. So do the members of the Okanogan Health Care Planning Group—a coalition of retired health care professionals, hospital administrators and concerned citizens dedicated to optimizing rural health care in Okanogan County. You can find out more about our group at our website: https:// www.planokanoganhealth.net/ .

Our group is not anti-tax. In fact, we supported the emergency services levy that was on the ballot on August 4 of this year, and we are pleased that it was approved. But the current $48 million bond proposal warrants better information. Before voters agree to spend that kind of money, they deserve to know that they’re getting the very best plan, based on solid county-wide information. Because we don’t have that information, the Okanogan Health Care Planning Group is encouraging voters to VOTE NO on the $48 million bond proposal.

Mel Sorensen, Peter Bauer, Laura Brumfield, David Clement, and Pat Leigh

Okanogan County