Cost of Unisured On EPs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
752
We had a thread a while back and someone made the comment that they way I complain about the uninsured it sounds like I'm paying their bills out of my own pocket. Well we all know that we are. I was thinking about how much that is. Here are my musings:
My group = 30 docs
We all absorb the cost of seeing the uninsured equally so that cost is /30
An average ER visit that we dont get paid for = $150
$150/30=$5, My group pays/loses $150 per uninsured visit and I personally lose $5 per uninsured visit.
My group sees ~ 100000 pts/ year
If our payer mix is 25% uninsured (which is conservative) that = 25000 uninsured visits per year.
$150x25000=$3,750,000 cost to my group
$3750000/30=$125000 cost to me personally per year to treat the uninsured.
This assumes you're in an eat what you kill setting and doesn't take into account overhead costs.
As an added bit of irony if I could have 2 years of those losses back I could pay off my loans.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Some would argue that those are not really "losses" but unrealized gains, which may not be the same thing depending on your point of view. Two things that are true losses however, are:

1) Malpractice cost - While the uninsured may not pay (and the vast majority don't pay anything), we still have to pay malpractice insurance for that patient. Depending on where you practice, that can add up to some pretty significant out-of-pocket costs for uninsured care. Back when I was practicing in Florida, I'd estimate that the malpractice cost of your 25,000/30 uninsured patients per year to be:

25,000/30 = 833 no-pay patients per year per physician
833 * $20 malpractice premium per patient (probably about right in Miami give or take a few dollars) = $16,600

That's $16K that a Miami physician would be paying to provide free care.

2) Administrative and billing costs - Even though the uninsured generally don't pay, you still have to pay all your staff and billers for processing the paperwork, which probably runs a few dollars per patient visit.

Add it all up and it's not unreasonable to expect to pay $20,000 a year to spend your time and energy providing free medical care.

For those of us in California, the next vote brings up Proposition 67 which would add a small monthly tax to residential telephone bills to help partially cover the cost of uninsured patients and the burden they impose to physicians, hospitals, EMS, and fire departments. I'm campaigning hard for this one!
 
Sessamoid said:
Some would argue that those are not really "losses" but unrealized gains, which may not be the same thing depending on your point of view.

I would argue that these are real losses because this doesn't just represent the loss of opportunity to see paying pts, this is work that is done and not reimbursed.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We should remember, however, that fees for paying patients are augmented to afford the care for the smaller, but increasing percentage of uninsured patients. Therefore, while reimbursements continue to decline, the overall net loss of caring for the unisured is off-set, to some degree by paying patients.

Unfortunately however, the CYA attitude that predominates medicine affects the economy of the entire system.
 
docflanny said:
We should remember, however, that fees for paying patients are augmented to afford the care for the smaller, but increasing percentage of uninsured patients. Therefore, while reimbursements continue to decline, the overall net loss of caring for the unisured is off-set, to some degree by paying patients.

Unfortunately however, the CYA attitude that predominates medicine affects the economy of the entire system.
That's a pleasant theory, but it's becoming less and less true. Not only the government (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid), but also our private insurers, are pressuring us to accept lower and lower reimbursement schedules as they either feel the pinch or want to make their shareholders richer (at our expense).

Which would I prefer, higher payments from a lower proportion of insured patients, or lower patients from a higher proportion of insured patients? Well, for the patients, the benefit is obviously in favor of having more people covered. So for that reason I'd be willing to accept somewhat lower payment schedules if we could find a way to cover everybody. It would also make it a lot easier to convince consultants and primaries to admit some of these currently uninsured train wrecks.
 
The people who end up paying more to cover the uninsured are the working uninsured who don't have coverage but also aren't so destitute as to have no way to pay anything. That is a travesty IMHO.

C
 
Sessamoid said:
That's a pleasant theory, but it's becoming less and less true. Not only the government (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid), but also our private insurers, are pressuring us to accept lower and lower reimbursement schedules as they either feel the pinch or want to make their shareholders richer (at our expense).

Solution: buy shares in insurance companies. Doesn't really solve the problem, but it's nice looking band-aid for awhile.

-S
 
So as I was ordering a ~$2000 work up on an uninsured alcoholic homeless guy who basically lives in the ER I started to wonder how much the cost of caring for this dude adds on to my health insurance premiums. I know that there are several guys with well over a million of unpaid hospital bills. Lets say the hospital marks up its costs by 200%. That's ~$300,000 in real costs that must get recouped from somewhere. If my ED sees 50,000 per year that's $6 per pt that gets added on for this guy alone. And we have ~25% no pay.
 
And doctors think malpractice is the biggest problem... :rolleyes:

Sessamoid said:
Which would I prefer, higher payments from a lower proportion of insured patients, or lower patients from a higher proportion of insured patients? Well, for the patients, the benefit is obviously in favor of having more people covered. So for that reason I'd be willing to accept somewhat lower payment schedules if we could find a way to cover everybody. It would also make it a lot easier to convince consultants and primaries to admit some of these currently uninsured train wrecks.

You've got my opinion covered.
 
docB, are you sure that 100% of your uninsured patients are not paying their bills? I realize that a lot of the uninsured are not going to pay one red cent, but surely there is a percentage of your uninsureds that are paying some of their bill.

In the south the typical such patient is going to be your self-employed farmer type with no private insurance but who is going to pay off his medical bill if it takes him 20 years.

I realize these patients aren't putting much of a dent in the costs to you, but I was wondering if you had any hard data from your practice about how many uninsured patients are trying to pay off their bills.
 
USCDiver said:
docB, are you sure that 100% of your uninsured patients are not paying their bills? I realize that a lot of the uninsured are not going to pay one red cent, but surely there is a percentage of your uninsureds that are paying some of their bill.

In the south the typical such patient is going to be your self-employed farmer type with no private insurance but who is going to pay off his medical bill if it takes him 20 years.

I realize these patients aren't putting much of a dent in the costs to you, but I was wondering if you had any hard data from your practice about how many uninsured patients are trying to pay off their bills.

I don't know how many of the uninsured try to pay. And for the record I think that the uninsured and underinsured who try to pay are getting screwed worse than anyone else. I would however bet that the number of uninsured that pay about equals the number of insured that get denied or are for some reason not reimbursed. So again it all comes down to payer mix.
 
USCDiver said:
docB, are you sure that 100% of your uninsured patients are not paying their bills? I realize that a lot of the uninsured are not going to pay one red cent, but surely there is a percentage of your uninsureds that are paying some of their bill.

In the south the typical such patient is going to be your self-employed farmer type with no private insurance but who is going to pay off his medical bill if it takes him 20 years.
From my experience, which is in urban EDs, the uninsured who pay their bills are an almost negligible percentage of the total uninsured patient population. A good deal less than 5% last time I checked our numbers.

You should amend your statement to read, "In the rural south." In the urban southern cities, it's no different than big cities anywhere else, having worked in one of those big southern cities. No insurance == no reimbursement.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Another timely article.....if you're interested. It's kinda related to the discussion.


Poor, Uninsured Don't Fill Emergency Rooms -- Study

Tue Oct 19, 5:41 PM ET

U.S. National - Reuters

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new study on emergency rooms disputes the common wisdom that the poor and uninsured are filling them up.



In fact, more than 80 percent of patients seen in emergency rooms have health insurance and a usual source of health care such as a primary care physician, doctors reported on Tuesday.....


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041019/us_nm/health_emergencies_dc_4
 
There seems to be this rumor in the medical profession that uninsured people don't have to pay their hospital bills. It simply isn't true. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US. So it is true that those people (the ones who file for backruptcy) aren't paying their bills. But far more of the working poor uninsured don't go bankrupt. They just spend a long time (sometimes the rest of their lives) paying off their medical bills one month at a time. A $150 ER visit, even for the working poor, will not take the rest of a lifetime to pay of course, so most of these bills are paid off with time.

Those patients that are destitute enough to not have a dime to pay anything, and nothing to lose because they are so poor they have no assets, are the only ones who actually qualify for public insurance like medicaid.
 
Bumping this because of a parallel discussion in the "Getting Sued For the Homeless" thread. Someone asked how a doc could lose money by seeing the homeless when most EPs are paid by the hour. The original post tries to answer that.
 
docB said:
Bumping this because of a parallel discussion in the "Getting Sued For the Homeless" thread. Someone asked how a doc could lose money by seeing the homeless when most EPs are paid by the hour. The original post tries to answer that.

Thanks, docB, good discussion. My education is proceeding <g>.
 
All of these depressing thoughts almost make me wish I gone into law instead of medicine. At least then I'd be on the winning side.
 
General Veers, I find your lack of faith... disturbing. ;)
 
docB said:
We had a thread a while back and someone made the comment that they way I complain about the uninsured it sounds like I'm paying their bills out of my own pocket. Well we all know that we are. I was thinking about how much that is. Here are my musings:
My group = 30 docs
We all absorb the cost of seeing the uninsured equally so that cost is /30
An average ER visit that we dont get paid for = $150
$150/30=$5, My group pays/loses $150 per uninsured visit and I personally lose $5 per uninsured visit.
My group sees ~ 100000 pts/ year
If our payer mix is 25% uninsured (which is conservative) that = 25000 uninsured visits per year.
$150x25000=$3,750,000 cost to my group
$3750000/30=$125000 cost to me personally per year to treat the uninsured.
This assumes you're in an eat what you kill setting and doesn't take into account overhead costs.
As an added bit of irony if I could have 2 years of those losses back I could pay off my loans.

Hmmm from your calculations your pretax take home pay is....$375,000?!!!
Dude, No one will have sympathy for you NO ONE. Show your crocodile tears to pediatricians and psychiatrists pulling down 100K total/year.

Cry me a GD river bro, seriously. :laugh:
 
LADoc00 said:
Hmmm from your calculations your pretax take home pay is....$375,000?!!!
Dude, No one will have sympathy for you NO ONE. Show your crocodile tears to pediatricians and psychiatrists pulling down 100K total/year.

Cry me a GD river bro, seriously. :laugh:
I can tell you've never actually practiced medicine before. Your knowledge of the financial aspects of medicine is clearly lacking.

375K would be if all the remainder of his patient base had private insurance. In any but the most lofty neighborhoods, a significant percentage (perhaps 20%) of your patient base will be Medicaid, which pays perhaps 15-20% of that $150 average per visit. Let's say 20% of the patient base pays 20% of the average cost.

The 375K is also before any administrative and malpractice costs. Malpractice will run you anywhere from 30K to 120K in EM, so take that off the top (say 60K). Of the reminder, around 30% will go to administrative/billing costs, leaving you about 70% of the rest. That leaves around 150K, before taxes. I'm just guessing at these estimates, and the malpractice may vary quite a bit, but in my experience most of the assumptions are at least in the world of the reasonable.

Why don't you actually learn something about a topic before you start spouting off to attending physicians about "crying a GD river"?

edit: either that or you're just trolling, which looking back at your posting history...
 
LADoc00 said:
Hmmm from your calculations your pretax take home pay is....$375,000?!!!
Dude, No one will have sympathy for you NO ONE. Show your crocodile tears to pediatricians and psychiatrists pulling down 100K total/year.

Cry me a GD river bro, seriously. :laugh:
OK, lets examine this snide, insulting jab and give it a serious analysis (more than it deserves but oh well). If you assume my group sees 100000 pts per year and 25% are uninsured that means that 75% are insured. I guessed at an avarage reimbursement for an ED visit at ~$150. So (75,000 x $150)/30 does = $375,000. Now, I can assure you that I don't make that. The reasons are that my company pays my malpractice before it pays me. We actually see more than 25% uninsured. Most of our "insured" are medicaid which brings our average reimbursement below $150/pt.

The thing I resent the most about LADoc00's attitude is that it argues that if you are making money you deserve to be forced to dole out free care. This beggs the question of how little do you have to make before you don't have to be forced by the government to work for the indigent for free. LADoc00 seems to think that $100,000 low so should they be insulated from seeing the poor? What about someone making $200,000? Any number you name is just arbitrary.

There is a very prevelant attitude among the public that docs make huge sums of money and that we therefore deserve to be forced to work for free, get sued visciously and get taxed into submission. Beware of this sentiment because as reimbursement drops and med mal rates rise and the personal costs of getting sued go up the taxes, suits and unfunded mandates don't get any cheaper. All of these things conspire to limit our earning power and consequently our ability to save, retire and support our families.
 
docB said:
OK, lets examine this snide, insulting jab and give it a serious analysis (more than it deserves but oh well). If you assume my group sees 100000 pts per year and 25% are uninsured that means that 75% are insured. I guessed at an avarage reimbursement for an ED visit at ~$150. So (75,000 x $150)/30 does = $375,000. Now, I can assure you that I don't make that. The reasons are that my company pays my malpractice before it pays me. We actually see more than 25% uninsured. Most of our "insured" are medicaid which brings our average reimbursement below $150/pt.

The thing I resent the most about LADoc00's attitude is that it argues that if you are making money you deserve to be forced to dole out free care. This beggs the question of how little do you have to make before you don't have to be forced by the government to work for the indigent for free. LADoc00 seems to think that $100,000 low so should they be insulated from seeing the poor? What about someone making $200,000? Any number you name is just arbitrary.

There is a very prevelant attitude among the public that docs make huge sums of money and that we therefore deserve to be forced to work for free, get sued visciously and get taxed into submission. Beware of this sentiment because as reimbursement drops and med mal rates rise and the personal costs of getting sued go up the taxes, suits and unfunded mandates don't get any cheaper. All of these things conspire to limit our earning power and consequently our ability to save, retire and support our families.

I find it absolutely hilarious that EM docs think they are hit with an unfair share of the cost of the uninsured merely because they feel like they should be rolling in $$$. EVERYONE is taking hits. The situation (although most obvious here) is far from unique to EM services. Im not saying you should be forced to do anything, but bro you chose EM! I would think knowing full well this situation you describe. If you dont want to provide services to the poor(which obviously you dont) why didnt you train in plastics? Better yet you could become famous by leading a band of med student EM wannabees and securing the US-Mexican border to prevent more uninsured from tainting your payer mix. :laugh:
Sorry to be harsh, I do understand your situation and think EM is somewhat more likely to be abused by uninsured than say Derm. I just think the whole thing is funny.

*Your situation is like training to be a prison guard then whining about all the criminals you have work with.
 
LADoc00 said:
I find it absolutely hilarious that EM docs think they are hit with an unfair share of the cost of the uninsured merely because they feel like they should be rolling in $$$. EVERYONE is taking hits. The situation (although most obvious here) is far from unique to EM services. Im not saying you should be forced to do anything, but bro you chose EM! I would think knowing full well this situation you describe. If you dont want to provide services to the poor(which obviously you dont) why didnt you train in plastics? Better yet you could become famous by leading a band of med student EM wannabees and securing the US-Mexican border to prevent more uninsured from tainting your payer mix. :laugh:
Sorry to be harsh, I do understand your situation and think EM is somewhat more likely to be abused by uninsured than say Derm. I just think the whole thing is funny.

*Your situation is like training to be a prison guard then whining about all the criminals you have work with.
It's totally appropriate to talk about this problem in this forum because it will let the students and residents better understand this acpect of EM. ER docs are hit with an unfair share of the uninsured. EMTALA doesn't apply to PMD offices. They singled out one part of the healthcare system and said you will bear this burden. I don't think ER docs should be rolling in $$$ but I also don't think I should have to work for free. I hope that as more people learn how unfair the system is it can be changed to something more equitable. If people in medicine have your attitude we'll never be able to get any of the bad things about the system changed.
 
This essay crossed my desk today, and I thought I'd share it - not meant as a critique of anyone's point of view, but I like the way he describes the specialty, journeying all the way to the depths of calling it slavery, yet finds something positive at the end.

'Written by an ER doc, Edwin Leap:
One morning last summer I went to a local ophthalmology office to have an assessment for refractive surgery. I was the only patient in what would be considered a palatial facility by emergency department standards. The nurses and receptionists were all smiles. The floor was clean as a whistle. The marble counter tops sparkled. I filled out my tome of waivers and waited to be seen. I was escorted to the exam room by a very pleasant nurse who did tonometry, mapped my cornea and performed numerous exams that I probably wouldn't have understood if I'd read a book on them. I was then seen by a very friendly ophthalmologist with whom I had a great chat. I was pronounced a superior candidate, escorted back to the waiting room to speak to a scheduler, then given a can of soda and allowed to watch "Dances with Wolves" on the big screen TV in the waiting room (being too dilated to read). When my wife came to pick me up, I didn't want to leave. Wow. What a wonderful experience. But it was wonderful for more reasons than the courtesy that I received. It was a learning experience because it was a study in contrast to my own career.

My learning experience didn't have to do with improving my own customer service, or the cleanliness of my facility, or the smiles on our nurses' faces. It wasn't (although it crossed my mind) a learning experience about how my life might have been if I'd chosen a different specialty. It was, however, a profound insight into what a unique job emergency medicine is, and about how proud we should all be. I could have come away angry, given the cost of refractive surgery. But I wasn't. I could have been envious of the quiet environment and the nice furniture and sculpture. But my patients would just use sculpture to hold empty potato chip bags and cigarette packs. I did, however, come away disappointed in the way we treat our specialty and ourselves, for we are our own worst detractors and critics. There are countless reasons that we emergency physicians should be impressed with ourselves. But mostly, they have to do with the things that conspire to make our practice of medicine difficult, and which we somehow manage to overcome each day.

First, we practice in a specialty unlike any other, for we are self-proclaimed experts in an indefinable field of knowledge. Day in and day out, night after night we make snap decisions in two hours that would give most physicians hypertension and heartburn. We collate the half-truths presented as history with physical data that makes medical school look like fiction, then try to establish diagnoses in patients who often have problems that are far more social, psychiatric or purely imagined than physical. We deal with complaints that aren't found in any textbook, or we face medical nightmares so complex that all we can do is establish the ABC's and punt. We are a creative group of cowgirls and cowboys. We also practice in an environment that is as close to a legal minefield as the metaphor will allow. In spite of our requirement to see patients for free, we always run the risk of multi-million dollar lawsuits as thanks for providing that free care. And even as lawsuits loom all around, we are counseled to cut costs by ordering less, admitting less and taking more risk.

Furthermore, as if the contingency suits weren't bad enough, we have to face the growing specter of federal accusations of fraud for honest errors in a hopelessly complex system of billing codes. Likewise, we are the victims of social engineering. Since the government can't actually provide free care to everyone (nothing actually being free anyway), they creatively found a way to make us do it via EMTALA. This must surely be one of the biggest unfunded mandates in history, in which we fundamentally work as slaves to the federal government. (To be compelled to work without compensation being the very essence of slavery). And it isn't just the government. Our comrades in the specialty are continually coming up with more ways that we should be the instruments of social intervention, whether it is via mandatory reporting of domestic violence, counseling our patients about substance abuse, or immunizing in the E.D. There simply aren't enough hours in a shift to do all this for the people who might conceivably benefit from it. Thus, we come to expect too much of our limited time and then are led to feel guilty about it.

And in the midst of the madness, we are constantly reminded to be aware of the "customer service" aspect of our specialty. However well the customer service model might work in the general marketplace, it fails when the service must be provided for free. Imagine how long any industry or small business would remain solvent if it were compelled to give its services or products with only the possibility of payment. What if a department store were forced to give everyone clothes (everyone needs clothes, right?), and were not allowed to ask for payment on the spot? What if a barber could bill for haircuts, but not ask for compensation at the time the service was provided? No other industry that I can think of is forced to work under such conditions.

Finally, we don't practice a specialty that promotes long life and well being. We work odd, varying hours which disturb our sleep cycles. Not only are we awake in the wee hours of the night, we are awake and stressed. We eat poorly, drink too much caffeine and do too few things to promote our personal happiness. Furthermore, we are constantly exposed to the risk of communicable diseases or violence in our workplace. And every minute of every shift, anything imaginable can come through the door, whether on an ambulance stretcher or in the arms of a distraught parent. It may be an apneic child, it may be an exsanguinating gang member, it's all ours to sort through and try to save. When we fail, we have the equally horrific task of telling family members, then watching as they scream and slump to the floor. As an unforgettable illustration, one terrible night this past summer, my partner and I cared for another of our partners who sustained a lethal head injury in an MVA on the way home from a shift. Could we close the doors, hang a wreath and mourn? Of course not, for the patients kept on coming. What can I say? Surreal doesn't begin to describe our job.

So I'm weary of criticism. I think we are amazing. I think we do incredible things in conditions that most practitioners would find simply unbearable. We work hard, we work fast, we try to be nice when we are being cursed, we endure the disdain of other specialties who consider us incompetent (except after 5pm), and through it all, we manage to actually care for the people who come to us. They aren't always nice and they don't always pay us, but most of the time they need us and sometimes they actually appreciate us. You see, we are the white knights of medicine.

That may sound a bit melodramatic, but we are the members of the medical community who always do the right thing no matter what. We do it because we were trained to, because we consider it honorable and because the law requires it. We are in battle day and night. We always get to do the things no one else wants to do, to the people no one else wants to care for, like lumbar punctures on AIDS patients, sexual assault exams, "pre-jail screenings" of drunk felons and psychiatric commitments after hours. This is our world, these are our people. And someone has to do it.

In the end, I love what I do. My schedule is reasonable. I have time off with my wife and children. I make a good living. I meet lots of people, some nice, some not so much. Some normal, some bizarre. I usually know what's going to be in the newspaper before it comes out. Sometimes I bond with sociopaths; sometimes I act like one myself. I perform interesting procedures and make fascinating diagnoses. I am constantly entertained by waves of mind-numbing human stupidity. I talk to the dying and I talk to their families. And even though it may not always be fair, no one gets turned away for lack of money, so I get to view the world of medicine from the moral high ground.

I ultimately had my refractive surgery in the beautiful office with the nice marble and smiling nurses. And I didn't complain. Everyone chooses his or her own path. I'm proud I chose mine. And I encourage all my sisters and brothers in the specialty to be proud, because we provide an invaluable service to society. We mustn't let anyone tell us otherwise. As a specialty, we should try a little harder to praise our fellow troops and take pride in our role. And we should learn more often to ignore the volumes of negative studies and articles that seem to tell us, month after month, how poorly we serve the public. But most of all, we should never let ourselves believe that what we do, and the way we do it, is anything less than heroic.'
 
Top