Bold claim: a pivotal health-care decision is stirring a growing chorus of concern about how Confluence Health is shaping its future. But here’s where it gets controversial: two recent open letters from Confluence Health physicians and former leaders challenge the plan for a new cancer center and question the system’s broader leadership dynamics.
Two distinct letters surfaced after the Wenatchee Valley Medical Group urged pausing the $60 million cancer center project, arguing physicians were left out of the initial planning. The group urged Confluence Health leadership to include cancer specialists in the decision-making process.
The first letter, authored by oncologists Dr. Nicholas Kummer, Dr. Mitchell Garrison, and Dr. Julie Smith, mirrors those concerns. They write that a substantial share of scarce health-care capital has been committed to a second cancer center without meaningful input from the cancer physicians who have served the community for decades. They emphasize that neither they nor their colleagues were included in the decision or the strategic planning phases. They present themselves as “community members deeply invested in oncology care” and note they have no financial stake tied to the location of the cancer center.
They point out that Chelan County and neighboring Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan counties already access a comprehensive, fully accredited program that participates in the National Cancer Institute’s standards, yet argue Confluence Health’s cancer program could be strengthened. At present, patients must travel to Seattle or Spokane for certain imaging, procedures, and surgeries not available locally. They also warn that parts of the cancer-care ecosystem have contracted, including neurosurgical capacity, colorectal surgery, imaging, oncology mental health support, case management, and interventional radiology resources. This fragmentation erodes trust and disproportionately harms communities with extra barriers to care, such as Okanogan and Grant Counties. Their duty, they assert, is to reduce disparities and broaden access for all.
The letter outlines several improvements for cancer care that are not addressed by the current plans for the new center, such as advanced diagnostic imaging and interventional services that Confluence Health would not provide in the new facility, whose focus is to expand exam rooms and infusion chairs.
The Mares Campus, where Confluence Health already runs a cancer center, hosts other departments—urology, surgery, radiology, gastroenterology, and primary care—that frequently interact with oncology. The physicians warn that building a new center two miles away could disrupt this daily collaboration. They argue that directing $60 million, plus potential financing costs, toward a second center may further contract services and weaken the system that supports cancer care, diverting resources away from achieving clinical excellence.
The second letter comes from former Confluence Health CEO Peter Rutherford and former Central Washington Hospital CEO Jack Evans. It raises concern about the affiliation between Confluence Health and the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, a partnership scheduled to end in 2027 unless renegotiated. The two recount that the 2013 merger formed Confluence Health on a vision that they claim is now under threat.
Their letter notes that in October, Rutherford was contacted by the Confluence Health Board for an interview related to an investigation after a medical group letter reported that a broad majority of physicians expressed a lack of confidence in the current Confluence Health CEO, Andrew Jones. The board reportedly found no grounds for removing Jones.
The authors pose a broader question: how can a health system function effectively when most of its physicians feel unheard and disengaged? They ask what Confluence Health plans to do to mend this critical relationship.
They also stress that approving the cancer center project without substantial strategic input or proper vetting highlights the need for collaboration and transparency. They caution that major capital investments must be weighed not only by their promise but also by their opportunity costs—every dollar directed to one project limits investment elsewhere. They advocate for robust physician engagement and clear communication to sustain trust within the organization and with the community."
