Dear Dr. Modlin,
We…read moregenuinely appreciated the positive impact of your first adjustment on our 5-week-old son -- it helped tremendously, which is why we returned for a follow-up appointment.
However, when we scheduled that follow-up, we were never informed that the appointment would not be honored unless we committed to a treatment plan. We were presented with a recommendation for 10 visits, which felt excessive to us given the significant improvement we had already seen after the initial adjustment, and no effort was made to discuss a more flexible approach that we might have felt comfortable with.
We were also very concerned by the lack of transparency regarding the financial terms of the treatment plan. The staff member who met with us was unable or unwilling to give us a definitive answer as to whether we would incur a penalty if we chose not to complete all 10 visits. Despite our repeated attempts to clarify -- including providing hypothetical scenarios, such as discontinuing after only one or two additional appointments if Guy continued improving -- we were only told that we would "possibly" be charged. My husband and I are both educated, working professionals, and yet neither of us could understand the staff member's vague responses to our straightforward questions, which strongly suggested that the arrangement was not transparent.
What was most surprising and ultimately very offensive to us (what was the main motivator for me sending this note) was that Guy's scheduled follow-up appointment was not honored once we declined to commit to the treatment plan. As a parent of three children, you know firsthand the amount of effort and planning required to get out the door with a six-week-old infant. We took time off work, drove 40 minutes for a confirmed appointment, only to be told that he would not be treated. Given that the appointment had already been scheduled, it was clear that availability existed. The decision to withhold treatment because we did not agree to 10 future visits made us feel that financial commitment had become the priority over patient care.
Additionally, our son was crying hard when we arrived, so we were surprised that instead of beginning treatment, we were first brought into your office for a detailed discussion about future visits and payment arrangements. At the time, that alone felt surprising and poorly timed. Once his scheduled appointment was ultimately refused, however, we better understood why the business discussion had taken priority before any attempt was made to treat or comfort him.
Frankly, the lack of transparency before our arrival for the scheduled appointment was extremely off-putting. We had already paid $100 the prior week for the initial consultation, in addition to the $48 adjustment fee, at which time this policy and treatment-plan requirement could -- and should -- have been clearly explained. It really seems like a bait and switch. The requirement to commit to a treatment plan is, of course, the practice's prerogative, but it should have been clearly disclosed from the very first visit.
It also left us questioning the sincerity of the otherwise pleasant interaction we experienced the week prior, including the thoughtful card we later received from you.
Ultimately, this experience left a very bad taste in our mouths and struck us as bad business -- neither simple nor southern.
That said, we genuinely hope that you and your team can ensure future interactions are more transparent and patient-focused.
Nathan, Morgan & Guy MacNerland
