Increasing number of beds causes debt, decreases quality
The Seattle Times asserts that 80 seriously sick children were denied care at Children’s hospital during a 10-month-period due to lack of beds [“City should approve Seattle Children’s plan,” Opinion, Feb. 13].
Since few patients linger more than 30 days in a hospital bed, this would average out to less than eight children per month. Given that Children’s currently has 250 beds, it might make sense to expand that number to 258.
Instead, The Times recommends expanding the hospital to 600 beds, more than doubling the size of the hospital. What will the hospital do with the extra 342 beds? Since a hospital is a business, it will do whatever it has to do to fill them in order to earn enough revenue to pay off the new debt. It will beat the bushes far and wide for sick children — not necessarily a bad thing — but given the current lack of demand, the hospital will resort to filling those beds with any child with a broken bone, a runny nose or hiccups. The number of cars in the area will increase, wrecking already decrepit roads and infrastructure and congesting traffic.
We are better off with a small, full, quality hospital than a gigantic house of cards that will cut quality in order to pay off the new debt because it won’t be able to fill the new beds. If the enlarged hospital goes bankrupt, the final result will be the end of a fabulous facility with a great reputation and Seattle will be the loser.
— Dick Dickinson, Seattle