What Are the "Top 3" Changes Needed to Improve US Healthcare?

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

mshheaddoc

Howdy
Moderator Emeritus
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
43,154
Reaction score
92
Medscape posted an article on this with Physician responses .... If you aren't a member and can't read the article, just sign up (its free).

I thought some of there comments were interesting and wondered if you disagreed or agreed, and what you thought?

This is a hot topic of debate and looks more to problem than just the realm of insurance issues.
 
#1 is making the patient the payer - either directly, or let them deal with the various insurance companies.

#2 is repeal EMTALA (and HIPPA while we're at it). Unfunded federal mandates just cost patients and taxpayers $$$

#3 is decriminalize use (not sale) of illicit drugs - let the drug seekers and abusers have all they want. Fewer crimes, fewer ED visits due to trauma, and fewer (after a bit) drug abusers.
 
#1 is making the patient the payer - either directly, or let them deal with the various insurance companies.

#2 is repeal EMTALA (and HIPPA while we're at it). Unfunded federal mandates just cost patients and taxpayers $$$

#3 is decriminalize use (not sale) of illicit drugs - let the drug seekers and abusers have all they want. Fewer crimes, fewer ED visits due to trauma, and fewer (after a bit) drug abusers.

I'm okay w/ the 1st two but the third one does not compute. If decriminalizing didn't decrease the ETOH business why do you think that it would help w/ other drugs???

My 3 would be:

1) Change to the payment system/insurance system. You can't go to Walmart and then we you get to the check out line say "I'm only going to pay $.40 on the dollar, but that is what happens to medical bills.

2) Cap malpractice payouts and force more patient responsibility.

3) Increase communication between doctors. I understand that medicine is a business but the patients should come first before the money or our pride.
 
#1 is making the patient the payer - either directly, or let them deal with the various insurance companies.

#2 is repeal EMTALA (and HIPPA while we're at it). Unfunded federal mandates just cost patients and taxpayers $$$

#3 is decriminalize use (not sale) of illicit drugs - let the drug seekers and abusers have all they want. Fewer crimes, fewer ED visits due to trauma, and fewer (after a bit) drug abusers.

1 and 2 are perfect. I want exactly what you want.

Forget 3, it will fix itself when you put in #1. Want drugs? Come pay for an ER visit..

My number 3 would be what was suggested Dr_Feelgood... Put cap on malpractice. Very critical for Doctors to feel safe to practice normal medicine instead of defensive medicine.
 
Decriminalizing illict drugs would be a revolutionary move, one that I would love to see happen, but doubt I will.

Regarding the alcohol industry -- the very dismal failure that was Prohibition should tell people that banning susbtances doesn't work; in fact, it creates organized crime, gross inflation of the cost of the product, and throws a ton of otherwise benign people in jail at an astronomical cost to taxpayers, not to mention emotional costs to families.

The very fact that alcohol and cigarettes is legal whereas marijuana and amphetamines, etc., are not is monstrously hypocritical and just shows the tremendous effect wealthy lobbyists have on our legislators.

Legalize the drugs. Standardize the doses. Tax them at exorbitant rates like tobacco and reinvest the profits into drug education. Eliminate accidental overdoses. Save billions of taxpayer dollars by removing drug-related "criminals" from the courts and prisons. Eliminate the need for organized underground crime. Keep dollars in America. Reduce inflated insurance costs incurred by ER-hopping drug seekers. Stop prosecuting innocent people and respect adults' right to make their own decisions.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but could you expound upon why EMTALA should be repealed? I do not have any personal experience, and on the surface of my internet research, I do not understand why it is a costly burden to the medical profession. Aren't hospitals obligated to accept emergencies? Does the problem arise from the fact that "unstable" patients are taking up hospital space and the hospitals are stuck with the bill ergo the physicians do not get paid for the patient?

I do understand HIPPA I think, but I don't understand why its such a burden. I know that the paper trail and additional bureaucracy is probably cumbersome, but is there some deeper problem that it has caused?

I'm not doubting the points made, but I am certainly looking for clarification.
 
I agree with flighterdoc.....repeal EMTALA and HIPAA

My suggestions though would be:
1. Criminalize/otherwise ban serious discussion of a socialized medicine system for the US
2. Require anyone that isn't physically unable to move (not just "disabled") to work off their debt to Medicaid by paving roads, doing public works construction, picking up roadkill, mowing, etc.
3. Requiring anyone of breeding age who is on Medicaid or similar programs to be on injectable birth control
4. Require malpractice suits to go through a physician review board established jointly between the state government and the state medical association before ever proceeding through the courts. Basically let other doctors decide whether you committed malpractice, not a bunch of high school educated Joe Blows who wouldn't recognize proper care if it ran up and bit them on the ass.
5. Cap payouts to any successful malpractice claim to level of the patient's annual income after taxes.
6. Reinstitute the tactic of debtor's prison for anyone who doesn't pay their hospital bills.
 
1. pay first, then get your money back from the insurance companies. In other words the patient is the customer to the insurance company, let them get their money back.
2. Allow all physicians to charge what they want for a treatment, procedure, visit. Let the market supply and demand curve dicatate services.
3. Make the insurance companies pay the patients within one week of submiting the claim.
4. cap malpractice.
5. EMTALA reform.

Sorry could not resist the 4 and 5 but had to have 1, 2 and 3. 😀
 
Pardon my ignorance, but could you expound upon why EMTALA should be repealed?

I take it you've never worked in an ER? :laugh:
 
1. pay first, then get your money back from the insurance companies. In other words the patient is the customer to the insurance company, let them get their money back.
2. Allow all physicians to charge what they want for a treatment, procedure, visit. Let the market supply and demand curve dicatate services.
3. Make the insurance companies pay the patients within one week of submiting the claim.
Agreed! 100%!
 
Pardon my ignorance, but could you expound upon why EMTALA should be repealed? I do not have any personal experience, and on the surface of my internet research, I do not understand why it is a costly burden to the medical profession. Aren't hospitals obligated to accept emergencies? Does the problem arise from the fact that "unstable" patients are taking up hospital space and the hospitals are stuck with the bill ergo the physicians do not get paid for the patient?

:laugh: don't worry. The problem with EMTALA is not the unstable pts, it's that everyone who presents to the ED is required to recieve a "medical screen" no matter how trivial their complaint is. So you get a bunch of freeloaders who go to the ED for free medical treatment with absolutly no intention of every paying the bill. That's the problem with EMTALA.
 
These changes seem more like the "top 3 ways to make things easier for physicians" list.

By the way, does anyone see the irony in proposing some changes to make it harder for people to get healthcare and then simultaneously saying we need to stop people from coming to the ED. If they had healthcare, they wouldn't need to go to the ED!

And saying that one of the top three problems with the U.S. healthcare system is that anyone can go to an emergency room is, uh, well, I can't think of a nice word.
 
And saying that one of the top three problems with the U.S. healthcare system is that anyone can go to an emergency room is, uh, well, I can't think of a nice word.

I can't think of a nice word either for the many freeloaders who go to the ED for every cough and sniffle with no plans to ever pay for the care. My home state is having a hard time maintaining their Level 1 trauma center due to the massive burden of no-pays and the law reimbursment rates of Medicare/caid.
 
I can't think of a nice word either for the many freeloaders who go to the ED for every cough and sniffle with no plans to ever pay for the care. My home state is having a hard time maintaining their Level 1 trauma center due to the massive burden of no-pays and the law reimbursment rates of Medicare/caid.

Beetlerum really just likes to run around and complain about how all doctors are evil people seeking to earn money after their training. His responses in some alternative threads suggest that we should be looking to the noble profession of medical malpractice plaintiff litigation as our moral compass.

The real problem in healthcare just HAS to be all of those evil doctors that didn't get the memo. They are supposed to be so highly altruistic, that flushing ones life and financial stability down the toilet would seem like a logical step to them. They should also not mind that other NON-PHYSICIANS who have never even seen the inside of an ED are perfectly willing to set policy that makes all of the ED guys spend 1/3 of their time working for free with FULL liability exposure 🙄 .
 
I can't think of a nice word either for the many freeloaders who go to the ED for every cough and sniffle with no plans to ever pay for the care. My home state is having a hard time maintaining their Level 1 trauma center due to the massive burden of no-pays and the law reimbursment rates of Medicare/caid.

Dude, they don't have any other healthcare or they wouldn't go to the ED. (Anyway, the ones who do, or can afford to, end up paying. They do get billed after all.) And even if it is obnoxious when people overuse the ED, and I agree it is, it is far worse than obnoxious to take the position that people should not be able to get emergency care if they can't afford it. I mean, the fact that you would compare people coming to the ED for non emergencies with letting people not get emergency care if they need it is pretty frightening. I thought this thread was going to discuss the actual major problems in our healthcare system, of which there are many. Instead it's just a whinefest

I do agree we need better screening systems in the ED.
 
Dude, they don't have any other healthcare or they wouldn't go to the ED. (Anyway, the ones who do, or can afford to, end up paying. They do get billed after all.) And even if it is obnoxious when people overuse the ED, and I agree it is, it is far worse than obnoxious to take the position that people should not be able to get emergency care if they can't afford it. I mean, the fact that you would compare people coming to the ED for non emergencies with letting people not get emergency care if they need it is pretty frightening. I thought this thread was going to discuss the actual major problems in our healthcare system, of which there are many. Instead it's just a whinefest

I do agree we need better screening systems in the ED.

You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. I never said those who truly have emergencies should not be offered emergency care because of the ability to stay. But the ED system is abused, massively, and it's having it's toll, and that would be obvious if you looked at the rash of ED closures in especially overburdened states such as California. The ED is used disproportionately by patients without insurance and patients with Medicaid. Just a few backing articles to this claim.

Commonwealth Fund. National Comparative Survey of Minority Health Care. New York: Commonwealth Fund,1995 .

Krieger N, Rowley DL, Herman AA, Avery B, Phillips MJ. Racism, sexism and social class: implications for the studies of health, disease, and well-being. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9 (6 suppl):82 -122.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Emergency Departments: Unevenly Affected by Growth and Change in Patient Use. Publication No. B-251319. Washington, DC, Jan 1993.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. Use of Emergency Rooms by Medicaid Recipients. Washington, DC, 1992.

Pane GA, Farner MC, Salness KA. Health care access problems of medically indigent emergency department walk-in patients. Ann Emerg Med. 1991; 20:730 -3.

Petersen LA, Burstin HR, O'Neil AC, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Nonurgent emergency department visits—the effect of having a regular doctor.Med Care . 1998; 26:1249 -55.

Baker DW, Stevens CD, Brook RH. Regular source of ambulatory care and medical care utilization by patients presenting to a public hospital emergency department. JAMA. 1994;271 : 1909-12​

and if you want exact numbers, it's falls out to Medicaid/State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (19.7 percent), Medicare (15.4 percent), and self-payment (which does not include patient copayments and deductibles) (14.5 percent) or 49.6% falling into reduced pay or potential no pay area while 38% had insurance. And yes, health care in the ED is expensive, an astounding 86.8% of ED visits result in some sort of diagnostic and screening services being ordered. Imaging was provided at 40.7 percent of visits in 2002. All numbers from 2002

Number of visits: 110.2 million
Number of injury-related visits: 41.3 million
Number of visits per 100 persons: 38.2
Most commonly diagnosed condition: stomach and abdominal pain
Percent of visits with patient seen in less than 15 minutes: 22
Average time spent in emergency department: 3.3 hours
Percent of visits resulting in hospital admission: 14
Percent of visits resulting in intensive care unit or coronary care unit admission: 1.1​

this is an upwards trend of close to 25%(if I remember my numbers) compared to 15 years ago. this is unacceptable and therehas to be some sort of change to force these people out of the EDs and into primary care with cost-effective medicine can be performed.
 
You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. I never said those who truly have emergencies should not be offered emergency care because of the ability to stay. But the ED system is abused, massively, and it's having it's toll, and that would be obvious if you looked at the rash of ED closures in especially overburdened states such as California. The ED is used disproportionately by patients without insurance and patients with Medicaid. Just a few backing articles to this claim.

Commonwealth Fund. National Comparative Survey of Minority Health Care. New York: Commonwealth Fund,1995 .

Krieger N, Rowley DL, Herman AA, Avery B, Phillips MJ. Racism, sexism and social class: implications for the studies of health, disease, and well-being. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9 (6 suppl):82 -122.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Emergency Departments: Unevenly Affected by Growth and Change in Patient Use. Publication No. B-251319. Washington, DC, Jan 1993.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. Use of Emergency Rooms by Medicaid Recipients. Washington, DC, 1992.

Pane GA, Farner MC, Salness KA. Health care access problems of medically indigent emergency department walk-in patients. Ann Emerg Med. 1991; 20:730 -3.

Petersen LA, Burstin HR, O'Neil AC, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Nonurgent emergency department visits—the effect of having a regular doctor.Med Care . 1998; 26:1249 -55.

Baker DW, Stevens CD, Brook RH. Regular source of ambulatory care and medical care utilization by patients presenting to a public hospital emergency department. JAMA. 1994;271 : 1909-12​

and if you want exact numbers, it's falls out to Medicaid/State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (19.7 percent), Medicare (15.4 percent), and self-payment (which does not include patient copayments and deductibles) (14.5 percent) or 49.6% falling into reduced pay or potential no pay area while 38% had insurance. And yes, health care in the ED is expensive, an astounding 86.8% of ED visits result in some sort of diagnostic and screening services being ordered. Imaging was provided at 40.7 percent of visits in 2002. All numbers from 2002

Number of visits: 110.2 million
Number of injury-related visits: 41.3 million
Number of visits per 100 persons: 38.2
Most commonly diagnosed condition: stomach and abdominal pain
Percent of visits with patient seen in less than 15 minutes: 22
Average time spent in emergency department: 3.3 hours
Percent of visits resulting in hospital admission: 14
Percent of visits resulting in intensive care unit or coronary care unit admission: 1.1​

this is an upwards trend of close to 25%(if I remember my numbers) compared to 15 years ago. this is unacceptable and therehas to be some sort of change to force these people out of the EDs and into primary care with cost-effective medicine can be performed.

Fair enough, though my responses were not just to you. I guess it's true you never said we need to repeal EMTALA. My point, though, was that they don't have any choice, because they don't really have access to any other care. If we give people better access to primary care, then that won't happen. Calling them freeloaders is a little harsh. And at least 20% of those patients (probably up to 30%) were children. Yeah, I guess we should ban those parents from taking their children to the ED when they have no other source of care.

I don't know what the point of citing all the studies was. I never said these patients didn't account for a large percentage. Although it's unclear from your numbers which percentage actually don't pay at all. Medicaid and SCHIP are insurance. People on Medicaid are entitled to use their insurance to get care. Is it clear that the Medicaid reimbursement is more insufficient for ED care than other care? Perhaps, but I don't know.
 
Beetlerum really just likes to run around and complain about how all doctors are evil people seeking to earn money after their training. His responses in some alternative threads suggest that we should be looking to the noble profession of medical malpractice plaintiff litigation as our moral compass.

Hah, ha.

The real problem in healthcare just HAS to be all of those evil doctors that didn't get the memo. They are supposed to be so highly altruistic, that flushing ones life and financial stability down the toilet would seem like a logical step to them.

i think it's pretty clear from SDN that doctors are not always altruistic.

When you say things about "flushing ones life and financial stability down the toilet," it begins to get a little ridiculous. Medicine is possibly the most financially stable profession in existence, yet on SDN this gets twisted into medicine being a vow of poverty.

I have a lot more time in med school than I did when I worked. Again, same thing to financial stability. Of course doctors work very hard (like other professionals), but after residency, doctors have more flexibility than most other professions. In most specialties you can choose to work part-time if you're willing to give up money. Not too many people in law or business can do that. Yet again on SDN all lifestyle positives are ignored and there's endless whining about how medicine is a lifestyle sacrifice that no one outside medicine could possibly understand.

They should also not mind that other NON-PHYSICIANS who have never even seen the inside of an ED are perfectly willing to set policy that makes all of the ED guys spend 1/3 of their time working for free with FULL liability exposure 🙄 .

Not sure what you're talking about here.
 
Fair enough, though my responses were not just to you. I guess it's true you never said we need to repeal EMTALA. My point, though, was that they don't have any choice, because they don't really have access to any other care. If we give people better access to primary care, then that won't happen. Calling them freeloaders is a little harsh. And at least 20% of those patients (probably up to 30%) were children. Yeah, I guess we should ban those parents from taking their children to the ED when they have no other source of care..

It's not harsh, it's the truth. Whether you like it or not, those who do not pay and even those with government insurance are driving up costs for the rest of us because they force the hospitals to increase the costs to those who actually pay. So yeah, they're freeloading. I'm all about preventivie medicine and helping those who honestly need help, but having an unfunded law which forces the hospitals to absorb the cost of all those without money for trivial complaint is NOT the answer to inadequate health care access.
 
Dude, they don't have any other healthcare or they wouldn't go to the ED. (Anyway, the ones who do, or can afford to, end up paying. They do get billed after all.) And even if it is obnoxious when people overuse the ED, and I agree it is, it is far worse than obnoxious to take the position that people should not be able to get emergency care if they can't afford it. I mean, the fact that you would compare people coming to the ED for non emergencies with letting people not get emergency care if they need it is pretty frightening. I thought this thread was going to discuss the actual major problems in our healthcare system, of which there are many. Instead it's just a whinefest

I do agree we need better screening systems in the ED.

Dude. So wrong. So very wrong. If that were the case nobody with medicaid would ever show up at the ED with a minor, minor, sometimes criminally minor, complaint.

A lot of people with insurance use the ED because they don't want to slap down twenty or thirty dollars of their hard-earned beer and cigarette money for a co-pay at their regular doctor, something that many physicians are charging up front.

I'm getting tired of saying this. Nobody who spends even a small sum like twenty dollars a day on "irregular pleasures" like beer and cigarettes or, even worse, crack or weed, should ever, ever get free routine health care. Ever. Never. Sure, if they come in for a heart attack or a gunshot wound we need to take care of them but seeing that a doctor's visit only costs 150 bucks or so and many entirely useful but non-sexy medcations for chronic problems are ridiculoulsy cheap why should we support somebody's lack or priorities?

I had a Asthma patient last week (and COPD) who comes in every few months for either an asthma or a COPD or both exacerbation. He's always out of his Albuterol MDI and always asks for one for free on discharge. An MDI costs about 12 bucks. The guy smokes two packs a day and drinks a few beers. I bet he can always find money for those things.

I know. I know. It's probably cheaper to give him his meds and hope to keep him out of the ICU but it should be a matter of principle that we discourage free-loaders, something that we do not do.

By the way, EMTALA mandates a screening exam and transfer to an appropriate facility. We actually do a lot more because in practice the screening exam is usually the "full monty" workup which often ends in a "soft admission." No one is ever not admitted because they can't pay. Ever. Just doesn't happen.
 
Hah, ha.



i think it's pretty clear from SDN that doctors are not always altruistic.

When you say things about "flushing ones life and financial stability down the toilet," it begins to get a little ridiculous. Medicine is possibly the most financially stable profession in existence, yet on SDN this gets twisted into medicine being a vow of poverty.

I have a lot more time in med school than I did when I worked. Again, same thing to financial stability. Of course doctors work very hard (like other professionals), but after residency, doctors have more flexibility than most other professions. In most specialties you can choose to work part-time if you're willing to give up money. Not too many people in law or business can do that. Yet again on SDN all lifestyle positives are ignored and there's endless whining about how medicine is a lifestyle sacrifice that no one outside medicine could possibly understand.



Not sure what you're talking about here.

I agree with the fact that I also have more time in medical school than I did while I was working, but that is really not the point. I was also paid when I was working. Medical school IS a personal and financial sacrifice. My finances are a freaking disaster (as is the case with anyone who isn't fully funded). It is true that some people overplay some of the financial hardships that people in medicine face, but you are most assuredly doing the opposite.

Most people on SDN are not receiving large salaries. Most of us are in the MINIMUM 7-11 years of no to low pay training that is MANDATORY to practice medicine in different medical specialities. We are not all highly altruistic, as you have pointed out. I was pointing out that you seemed to think that we all should be.

In this era of declining reimburesemts and PROGRESSIVE government intrustion, it is not unreasonable to worry that the previous lifestyle and stability of the medical profession is no indicator of future results. When I graduate, I will be paying $2,000/month for 15 years to break even on my debts. I will also be paying taxes on that money, meaning that I will have to earn an extra $30,000-$35,000/year before I can even begin to pay my own expenses. So yes, I think that not worrying about finance at this point, along with not worrying about the impact of EMTALA, would be flushing my financial stability down the toilet. I do not want a handout or sympathy. What I want is to know that I will actually be paid a market wage for the highly skilled services that I will be providing, without government interference through the legislature and the legal system running me into the ground.

Your other quote about lifestyle of other professionals is also false. I know many people in business and law that set their schedules however they want. I have an uncle who did quite well working out of his car at his leisure. Some have it easier, and some have it harder. This is NO different than medicine.
 
I agree with the fact that I also have more time in medical school than I did while I was working, but that is really not the point. I was also paid when I was working. Medical school IS a personal and financial sacrifice. My finances are a freaking disaster (as is the case with anyone who isn't fully funded). It is true that some people overplay some of the financial hardships that people in medicine face, but you are most assuredly doing the opposite.

We'll just have to disagree. I also worked before med school and I sacrified a lot financially to do it. I don't consider it a personal sacrifice. I enjoy it. I have more flexibility. I spend a lot of time learning. Seems better than most people's jobs. The first two years you can sleep late most days, for pete's sake.

I agree that people in primary care and low paying specialties can claim a financial sacrifice, but (and I know you're big on choice), they either choose primary care or were forced into it because their records weren't good enough for something else. People in most specialties can make very good incomes and most, even if they worked beforehand, are not making a financial sacrifice. They're earning more than they would in anything else.

Most people on SDN are not receiving large salaries. Most of us are in the MINIMUM 7-11 years of no to low pay training that is MANDATORY to practice medicine in different medical specialities.

Well, I know, but they will make good salaries. Obviously if the career was residency, there would be reasons to complain to no end.

And I wish people would stop treating residency training as though it was still school. Residents practice medicine. They are still training, true, but just in the way that a young lawyer at a big firm is still in trainin. Actually residents get responsibility faster than many lawyers at large firms. So it's only different in being a bit more formalized system and of course lawyers get paid much better during training. Residents should get paid more.

We are not all highly altruistic, as you have pointed out. I was pointing out that you seemed to think that we all should be.

I don't think they should be altruistic.

In this era of declining reimburesemts and PROGRESSIVE government intrustion, it is not unreasonable to worry that the previous lifestyle and stability of the medical profession is no indicator of future results. When I graduate, I will be paying $2,000/month for 15 years to break even on my debts. I will also be paying taxes on that money, meaning that I will have to earn an extra $30,000-$35,000/year before I can even begin to pay my own expenses. So yes, I think that not worrying about finance at this point, along with not worrying about the impact of EMTALA, would be flushing my financial stability down the toilet. I do not want a handout or sympathy. What I want is to know that I will actually be paid a market wage for the highly skilled services that I will be providing, without government interference through the legislature and the legal system running me into the ground.

Understandable that you would worry about this, but it's pretty unlikely you won't earn a good wage. Specialty salaries have barely changed in the last 15-20 years, and if anything, there's a projected shortage of doctors.

Your other quote about lifestyle of other professionals is also false. I know many people in business and law that set their schedules however they want. I have an uncle who did quite well working out of his car at his leisure. Some have it easier, and some have it harder. This is NO different than medicine.

Well, we'll have to disagree. Medicine is most assuredly not like business and law in this regard. How can a typical business person work part-time? Only self-employed businessmen with a client-service model (e.g. consultants) easily can do this. An associate VP of company X can't say to his superiors "you know, I'd like to be part-time." It just won't be possible. Personally, I've known a lot more doctors to work part-time--and certainly work part-time and still earn a good living.

This is the difference. Most doctors can set up a schedule to work part-time if they plan in advance, because a huge number have the client (patient) service model. And that is definitely true if they choose a specialty accordingly. Only a small subset of businesspeople and lawyers use a model that makes this possible.

I don't think that doctors have an easy time. Clearly not. I am merely trying to counter the culture among young doctors, exemplified by SDN, of victimization and persecution. You obviously know a lot more about business than the average med student. But the typical cultural mindset is to feel that going into medicine was akin to becoming a monk, and feel, without knowing much about other fields, that oh it's so easy in other fields. There's no stress or hard work. Everyone just works 35 hrs a week and collects their 200k paycheck.

There was one-time someone said that any MD/PhD student could become a Fortune 500 CEO if they had gone into business. I mean people just don't have a clue. They amplify all the difficulties in medicine and dismiss all the stress and challenges in other fields.
 
I don't think that doctors have an easy time. Clearly not. I am merely trying to counter the culture among young doctors, exemplified by SDN, of victimization and persecution. You obviously know a lot more about business than the average med student. But the typical cultural mindset is to feel that going into medicine was akin to becoming a monk, and feel, without knowing much about other fields, that oh it's so easy in other fields. There's no stress or hard work. Everyone just works 35 hrs a week and collects their 200k paycheck.

There was one-time someone said that any MD/PhD student could become a Fortune 500 CEO if they had gone into business. I mean people just don't have a clue. They amplify all the difficulties in medicine and dismiss all the stress and challenges in other fields.

You are correct that we will have to agree to disagree on most of this. There is really no reason to start a big fight. I will say this however; the part of your statement that I have quoted above is absolutely true. It bothers me as well.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but could you expound upon why EMTALA should be repealed? I do not have any personal experience, and on the surface of my internet research, I do not understand why it is a costly burden to the medical profession. Aren't hospitals obligated to accept emergencies? Does the problem arise from the fact that "unstable" patients are taking up hospital space and the hospitals are stuck with the bill ergo the physicians do not get paid for the patient?

I do understand HIPPA I think, but I don't understand why its such a burden. I know that the paper trail and additional bureaucracy is probably cumbersome, but is there some deeper problem that it has caused?

I'm not doubting the points made, but I am certainly looking for clarification.

EMTALA is an unfunded federal mandate that anyone who makes it through the ED door get screened, and if necessary, stabilized - without regards to their ability to pay.

Sounds reasonable to some. The reality is that more than 1/3 of the people who present to most urban ED's don't pay, and that means that others have to pick up the tab.

If the Feds want to fund emergency health care, then do it, directly.

HIPPA is a pain in the ass, and hasn't done anything that wasn't done before - except genertate gluteal pain for everyone involved. How many HIPPA charges have been filed? (Zero). How many millions of dollars have been spent on 'HIPPA compliance" that hasn't accomplished anything real?
 
These changes seem more like the "top 3 ways to make things easier for physicians" list.

By the way, does anyone see the irony in proposing some changes to make it harder for people to get healthcare and then simultaneously saying we need to stop people from coming to the ED. If they had healthcare, they wouldn't need to go to the ED!

And saying that one of the top three problems with the U.S. healthcare system is that anyone can go to an emergency room is, uh, well, I can't think of a nice word.

Go to medical school, amass a couple hundred thousand dollars of debt, and then go to work helping people who don't want to help themselves, who won't pay you (anything) for your services, and then sue you the first time some a-hole lawyer convinces them to make their mark on a complaint, if you want.

The rest of us would like a more level playing field, where we are recompensed for our effort and skill, and not being forced to help others even when we know they will be robbing us.
 
I agree that people in primary care and low paying specialties can claim a financial sacrifice, but (and I know you're big on choice), they either choose primary care or were forced into it because their records weren't good enough for something else. People in most specialties can make very good incomes and most, even if they worked beforehand, are not making a financial sacrifice. They're earning more than they would in anything else.

WTF, are you saying primary care doctors don't have 200k loans and don't work hard? Did you think the majority of doctors in the US are not primary care without 200k loans? Why the F**k do you think the majority of people don't want to go primary care? Cause primary care doesn't pay enough for the work you put in it. I'd like to see a law firm get paid as much as primary care for any of their clients. $30 for a half hour on a medicare/medicaid patient is sickening. You'd pay more a frigging meal in Red Lobster.

Understandable that you would worry about this, but it's pretty unlikely you won't earn a good wage. Specialty salaries have barely changed in the last 15-20 years, and if anything, there's a projected shortage of doctors.

I AM SOOOO SICK of hearing people say there is a shortage of doctors... THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS... There is a shortage of doctors who will do the job for LESS THAN AVERAGE PAY. If the average pay was 160k a year and you offer an FM/Pediatrician a 120k a year and most people decline... you will start claiming a "shortage of doctors". It's disgusting that you would want to pay someone with more years training than a PhD of XXXX and more liability than any professor of XXXX what a phd of accounting or pharmacy would recieve.

Get real.

EMTLA IS FREELOADING for many patients now. So many come to the ER because of missing prescription, seeking drugs, their blood pressure got too high and they have a headache, they have had a cough/fever for several days, they have had diarrhea for a couple of days, twisted ankle...etc. ER triage is full of mini light cases that never go to a primary care doc cause in the ER... they dont pay. You can even blame EMTLA for the destruction of primary care.... why pay for a primary care doc when you can go to the ER and get everything done free! It takes a couple of hours more but hey.. better than paying a 150 dollars a month premium and a copay to the primary care doc.... You even get a meal in the ER..
 
I agree that people in primary care and low paying specialties can claim a financial sacrifice, but (and I know you're big on choice),

So we should do away with primary care docs? If they're not worth paying decent wages, then there really isn't a need for them, now is there? Specialty based medicine could not function without a primary care base and it's *****ic to think that it could or that specialists are as a whole smarter or more capable than primary care docs. So if docs make such great wages, why is the national average for phsycian wages 140K? Are there that many idiots in primary care because they couldn't hack it in a speecialty? I'm sorry, but 140K is not enough to justify 8 years of school and 3 years of residency, it makes no financial sense.

Understandable that you would worry about this, but it's pretty unlikely you won't earn a good wage. Specialty salaries have barely changed in the last 15-20 years, and if anything, there's a projected shortage of doctors.

but here's the rub. Inflation has increased. Physician wages have not kept up with inflation and is one of the only professions (other than minimal wage jobs) that has not increased along with inflation.
 
but here's the rub. Infatuation has increased. Physician wages have not kept up with inflation and is one of the only professions (other than minimal wage jobs) that have increase along with inflation.
[/QUOTE]

Factoring inflation, I believe they've seen a 4% decrease.
 
WTF, are you saying primary care doctors don't have 200k loans and don't work hard? Did you think the majority of doctors in the US are not primary care without 200k loans?

For the record, I was most definitely not saying that primary care docs don't work hard. Or have high loans.
 
So we should do away with primary care docs? If they're not worth paying decent wages, then there really isn't a need for them, now is there? Specialty based medicine could not function without a primary care base and it's *****ic to think that it could or that specialists are as a whole smarter or more capable than primary care docs. So if docs make such great wages, why is the national average for phsycian wages 140K? Are there that many idiots in primary care because they couldn't hack it in a speecialty? I'm sorry, but 140K is not enough to justify 8 years of school and 3 years of residency, it makes no financial sense.



but here's the rub. Inflation has increased. Physician wages have not kept up with inflation and is one of the only professions (other than minimal wage jobs) that has not increased along with inflation.

I don't think the local dermatologist, opthomologist, PM&R, GI, etc.are smarter than the primary care docs. They make a more but smarter, I don't think so. In fact I know they are not. Don't get me wrong I don't think they are stupid and this is not to put them down, I just don't think they are smarter in general.

So why are they getting payed more? They have done about the same number of years in residency.
 
I don't think the local dermatologist, opthomologist, PM&R, GI, etc.are smarter than the primary care docs. They make a more but smarter, I don't think so. In fact I know they are not. Don't get me wrong I don't think they are stupid and this is not to put them down, I just don't think they are smarter in general.

So why are they getting payed more? They have done about the same number of years in residency.

This is off topic but is actually very simple....

Supply and Demand...

Supply: Primary care residencies are way more numerous than specialty care. IM + FM + Ped, the basic three primary cares have many many more docs than all the other specialties put together. With more supply... competition takes the prices down. As you well know, there is also mid levels now that compete with primary care providers and some states let them act independent.

Demand: EMTALA is to blame for the demand F-up. Yes you heard me. Just walk over to a pediatric ER and see how many garbage cases come to the ER. 3 years old with 101 temperature should not be coming to the ER. But they know medicaid will pay for it and boy do they get mad when they are made to wait for 3 hours to be seen while the ER handles some real cases. Likewise with adults.. Chronic cough you had for 3 months you say? Oh ya please don't wait another 8 hours to go see the clinic in the morning...come to the ER now. (Demand is not as much a reason as supply is).

Fact is, go look at derm/neurosurg/plastic surg/ophthos/orthos.... they just do a better job at controlling their numbers.

So what do you get out of all of this..... the US wants doctors to be more available but refuse to pay for it. Just like I'd like to own a Ferrari but I refuse to pay for it. (oh oh... I hear the socialized medicine people coming in. Take out your guns... better hope they care about your loans.)
 
This is off topic but is actually very simple....

Supply and Demand...

Supply: Primary care residencies are way more numerous than specialty care. IM + FM + Ped, the basic three primary cares have many many more docs than all the other specialties put together. With more supply... competition takes the prices down. As you well know, there is also mid levels now that compete with primary care providers and some states let them act independent.

Demand: EMTALA is to blame for the demand F-up. Yes you heard me. Just walk over to a pediatric ER and see how many garbage cases come to the ER. 3 years old with 101 temperature should not be coming to the ER. But they know medicaid will pay for it and boy do they get mad when they are made to wait for 3 hours to be seen while the ER handles some real cases. Likewise with adults.. Chronic cough you had for 3 months you say? Oh ya please don't wait another 8 hours to go see the clinic in the morning...come to the ER now. (Demand is not as much a reason as supply is).

Fact is, go look at derm/neurosurg/plastic surg/ophthos/orthos.... they just do a better job at controlling their numbers.

So what do you get out of all of this..... the US wants doctors to be more available but refuse to pay for it. Just like I'd like to own a Ferrari but I refuse to pay for it. (oh oh... I hear the socialized medicine people coming in. Take out your guns... better hope they care about your loans.)

I kinda already had the answer to that question. BUT, I like the humor at the end of your post. You are correct, off course.

I think part of the reason there are less specialist is because there is less of an overall need for them. But now there is going to be less primary care docs because over time less will go into Primary care.

I know people think that the midlevels will take their place but this did not happen in anesthesiology and I don't think it will happen in primary care. I've always been the first one to say that midlevels should really be limited in their practice. (It is time for our famous PA in here to cut in and tell us all how he save so many lives in the ER fastrack :laugh: 😉 🙄 ).

But really Primary care is going through some major changes. The biggest enemy to primary care doctors is primary care doctors. OR at least the ones who have the false sense of security of comfort. I feel like they are all on an overdose of prozac. Everything is happy. NOT.
 
Demand: EMTALA is to blame for the demand F-up. Yes you heard me. Just walk over to a pediatric ER and see how many garbage cases come to the ER. 3 years old with 101 temperature should not be coming to the ER. But they know medicaid will pay for it and boy do they get mad when they are made to wait for 3 hours to be seen while the ER handles some real cases.

And just to reiterate this F-ed up point, I did my ped ER rotation in a busy level 1 trauma center. You'd think emergencies are uncontrollable and happen equally at all times... The peek busy hours were from 4-7 pm..... that's when people get off work to come to the ER. 🙄 and the worse part is that the pediatric clinic in the hospital was open till 7 pm and they do take walk ins.
 
Demand: EMTALA is to blame for the demand F-up. Yes you heard me. Just walk over to a pediatric ER and see how many garbage cases come to the ER. 3 years old with 101 temperature should not be coming to the ER. But they know medicaid will pay for it and boy do they get mad when they are made to wait for 3 hours to be seen while the ER handles some real cases. Likewise with adults.. Chronic cough you had for 3 months you say? Oh ya please don't wait another 8 hours to go see the clinic in the morning...come to the ER now. (Demand is not as much a reason as supply is).

I wasn't going to get involved in this debate anymore, but I'm curious, what exactly is it you think will happen if EMTALA is repealed? EMTALA basically says that if someone comes into the ED, you have to check if they're having an emergency, and if they are, you have to stabilize them. (Reflecting a seemingly reasonable public policy in favor of everyone getting treatment for medical emergencies.) It doesn't say you have to provide comprehensive medical care because someone walks in the emergency room rather than the front door of the hospital.

So let's say EMTALA is repealed. What should EDs do differently? Should they just automatically reject anyone at the door who can't present an insurance card or a certain amount of cash?
 
I wasn't going to get involved in this debate anymore, but I'm curious, what exactly is it you think will happen if EMTALA is repealed? EMTALA basically says that if someone comes into the ED, you have to check if they're having an emergency, and if they are, you have to stabilize them. (Reflecting a seemingly reasonable public policy in favor of everyone getting treatment for medical emergencies.) It doesn't say you have to provide comprehensive medical care because someone walks in the emergency room rather than the front door of the hospital.

So let's say EMTALA is repealed. What should EDs do differently? Should they just automatically reject anyone at the door who can't present an insurance card or a certain amount of cash?

I don't know what's the solution for repealing EMTALA.

We are currently at one extreme and people are refusing to move to the middle... What are the two extremes?

Extreme 1: Take every single person who can't/claim-they cant pay.

Extreme 2: Take no one who can't pay.

We are now in extreme 1. Can we please move to the middle? Can we centralize the ER data so we can tell who is a drug seeker/addict and who confabulates and who is hypochondriac and so we don't need to run a billion tests that were already run. Patient X got his MRI in hospital A and now is here cause he hated hospital A and claims he has no idea if he got an MRI. This is you... the tax payer.. paying for that MRI twice. There needs to be say for docs .... SOME say (not total) in who is a true emergency and who is not... Extreme 1 is not working out.
 
I'm getting tired of saying this. Nobody who spends even a small sum like twenty dollars a day on "irregular pleasures" like beer and cigarettes or, even worse, crack or weed, should ever, ever get free routine health care. Ever. Never. Sure, if they come in for a heart attack or a gunshot wound we need to take care of them but seeing that a doctor's visit only costs 150 bucks or so and many entirely useful but non-sexy medcations for chronic problems are ridiculoulsy cheap why should we support somebody's lack or priorities?

I had a Asthma patient last week (and COPD) who comes in every few months for either an asthma or a COPD or both exacerbation. He's always out of his Albuterol MDI and always asks for one for free on discharge. An MDI costs about 12 bucks. The guy smokes two packs a day and drinks a few beers. I bet he can always find money for those things.


COMPLETELY AGREE
 
If a politician ever comes out to say that EMTALA should not provide the BEST healthcare that money can buy, he/she will be committing political suicide and asking for his opponents to crush him.

The system will continue the way it is now... until hospitals come together and start moaning about loss of income... who knows when will that happen... or of course the tax payers complain that the ER has a 2 days wait time to see a doc... vicious situation.
 
I don't know what's the solution for repealing EMTALA.

We are currently at one extreme and people are refusing to move to the middle... What are the two extremes?

Extreme 1: Take every single person who can't/claim-they cant pay.

Extreme 2: Take no one who can't pay.

We are now in extreme 1. Can we please move to the middle? Can we centralize the ER data so we can tell who is a drug seeker/addict and who confabulates and who is hypochondriac and so we don't need to run a billion tests that were already run. Patient X got his MRI in hospital A and now is here cause he hated hospital A and claims he has no idea if he got an MRI. This is you... the tax payer.. paying for that MRI twice. There needs to be say for docs .... SOME say (not total) in who is a true emergency and who is not... Extreme 1 is not working out.

But keep in mind that we are only by law at extreme 1 for emergencies. So unless you are saying that we shouldn't take some people (a sizable number) in true emergencies (i.e. the gunshot victim), I don't see how repealing EMTALA would help. I'm not saying I have the answer, but EMTALA doesn't seem to be the problem.

Let me push this further too. Assume we are not willing to deny people care in true emergencies. Then if we deny nonpayers other care, they'll just end up being in poorer health and having more emergencies. So we'll end up paying for it anyway.
 
But keep in mind that we are only by law at extreme 1 for emergencies. So unless you are saying that we shouldn't take some people (a sizable number) in true emergencies (i.e. the gunshot victim), I don't see how repealing EMTALA would help. I'm not saying I have the answer, but EMTALA doesn't seem to be the problem.

Let me push this further too. Assume we are not willing to deny people care in true emergencies. Then if we deny nonpayers other care, they'll just end up being in poorer health and having more emergencies. So we'll end up paying for it anyway.

What is your goal? Fixing the balance between the poor and the rich? Facts of life.... you will NEVER EVER be able to fix poverty.... Poverty was there before the concept of doctors/hospitals was ever there.... Now that we agreed on that... Do you agree that poor people will have worse healthcare than rich people? Do we agree on that fact? Cause if we don't, then we are trying to fix poverty.... Healthcare is not just medications... it's nutrition, therapy, compliance, life style... all these things are out of the doctor's hands.. unless you plan to admit people to hospitals to put them on all high fiber low carb/fat diets and feed them daily pills.

Please understand you can't fix poverty....

Now... that we agreed on this... We need to agree that medicare/medicaid is a charity given to the poor... and thus should recieve what the charity will buy....and let me tell you something.... in this day and age, $30 does not buy a full set of labs in the ER. Of course I am not saying be ungrateful and I am not saying that it's a shame charity will only give them $30 to buy practically nothing in the ER... but that's a fact. You are taking $30.00 and using it to pay for a $2000 work up.

The first step towards fixing this problem is fixing the way lawsuits are done. If you are paying $30.00 for a $2000 service you should not be able to sue the ER. ESPECIALLY since that $30.00 is coming from the government, because the ER is now acting like a government employee. After you fix that, the ERs will start managing people on medicaid differently than people on regular insurance and you will see a difference in the level of healthcare between the poor and the middle class and the rich... something unavoidable unless you want to become a social country.
 
What is your goal? Fixing the balance between the poor and the rich? Facts of life.... you will NEVER EVER be able to fix poverty.... Poverty was there before the concept of doctors/hospitals was ever there.... Now that we agreed on that... Do you agree that poor people will have worse healthcare than rich people? Do we agree on that fact? Cause if we don't, then we are trying to fix poverty.... Healthcare is not just medications... it's nutrition, therapy, compliance, life style... all these things are out of the doctor's hands.. unless you plan to admit people to hospitals to put them on all high fiber low carb/fat diets and feed them daily pills.

Please understand you can't fix poverty....

Now... that we agreed on this... We need to agree that medicare/medicaid is a charity given to the poor... and thus should recieve what the charity will buy....and let me tell you something.... in this day and age, $30 does not buy a full set of labs in the ER. Of course I am not saying be ungrateful and I am not saying that it's a shame charity will only give them $30 to buy practically nothing in the ER... but that's a fact. You are taking $30.00 and using it to pay for a $2000 work up.

The first step towards fixing this problem is fixing the way lawsuits are done. If you are paying $30.00 for a $2000 service you should not be able to sue the ER. ESPECIALLY since that $30.00 is coming from the government, because the ER is now acting like a government employee. After you fix that, the ERs will start managing people on medicaid differently than people on regular insurance and you will see a difference in the level of healthcare between the poor and the middle class and the rich... something unavoidable unless you want to become a social country.


How does this post address my comments? Points stand.
1. EMTALA is not the problem because it mandates only emergency care for all. Therefore, unless you are willing to say that gunshot victims should be turned away at the door, removing it fixes nothing.
2. We end up paying for the bad health of the poor anyway unless we do decide to turn away people at the door who can't pay because they would have more emergencies since they weren't getting basic care.
And a new point
3. Even if we did decide to take the (grossly immoral) step of turning away the poor gunshot victim at the door, we will still pay. Poor health has significant negative externalities. People are less productive, they are less likely to take care of their kids, they can spread things to others, they do more poorly in school, etc.

Your idea of limiting malpractice for people on public insurance programs like Medicaid would barely scratch the surface as far as covering the costs. It would be a drop in the bucket. In addition, we would likely still bear these costs in a different form, because when poor people suffer major health problems they get even poorer, less likely to work, unable to care for their children, evicted from their homes, etc. I'll hold back from commenting on the morality of this idea.
 
How does this post address my comments? Points stand.
1. EMTALA is not the problem because it mandates only emergency care for all. Therefore, unless you are willing to say that gunshot victims should be turned away at the door, removing it fixes nothing.

And not surprisingly since the passage of EMTALA there has been a substantial increase in the number of visits to the ED. Hmm, I wonder if there is a correlation between free care at the ED and EMTALA.

2. We end up paying for the bad health of the poor anyway unless we do decide to turn away people at the door who can't pay because they would have more emergencies since they weren't getting basic care.
And a new point

Are you going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that the ED is equipped for long term care and preventative medicine and that by allowing unfettered access to the ED that this will prevent any long term medical problems?

3. Even if we did decide to take the (grossly immoral) step of turning away the poor gunshot victim at the door, we will still pay. Poor health has significant negative externalities. People are less productive, they are less likely to take care of their kids, they can spread things to others, they do more poorly in school, etc.

Can you spell strawman. Quit taking the points and then arguing the extreme. No one is saying that uninsured people with true emergencies should be turned away. But why should we give free care to those with the sniffles and absolutely no intention of paying for the care?

Your idea of limiting malpractice for people on public insurance programs like Medicaid would barely scratch the surface as far as covering the costs. It would be a drop in the bucket. In addition, we would likely still bear these costs in a different form, because when poor people suffer major health problems they get even poorer, less likely to work, unable to care for their children, evicted from their homes, etc. I'll hold back from commenting on the morality of this idea.

:laugh: But if you don't make any changes you'll hurt the children cause you will run off all docs from the medicine since they won't be able to afford the malpractice insurance. There, how's that for the converse of an extreme argument?
 
And not surprisingly since the passage of EMTALA there has been a substantial increase in the number of visits to the ED. Hmm, I wonder if there is a correlation between free care at the ED and EMTALA.



Are you going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that the ED is equipped for long term care and preventative medicine and that by allowing unfettered access to the ED that this will prevent any long term medical problems?



Can you spell strawman. Quit taking the points and then arguing the extreme. No one is saying that uninsured people with true emergencies should be turned away. But why should we give free care to those with the sniffles and absolutely no intention of paying for the care?



:laugh: But if you don't make any changes you'll hurt the children cause you will run off all docs from the medicine since they won't be able to afford the malpractice insurance. There, how's that for the converse of an extreme argument?

You seem not to be getting it. EMTALA mandates only emergency care. So repealing EMTALA will not solve the problem of EDs providing non emergency care.

And ironically, you agree with EMTALA. You said uninsured with true emergencies should not be turned away. That's what EMTALA says!!!

You also aren't getting my point that it is not so simple to avoid bearing the cost of people not being able to apy for health care. If we turn them away from nonemergency care, we will pay for the care in other ways.
1. (If we pay for emergencies): Emergency care because the poor will be in worse health and have more emergencies.
2. (Whether we pay for emergencies or not): Negative externalities of poor health.
 
I think Hernandez pretty much said it all.

Uncontrolled EMTALA = FREE RIDE + MORE ED VISITS = MORE HEALTHCARE COSTS.

MALPRACTICE when you are NOT paying for the health care services = DEFENSIVE MEDICINE. (This is true for all specialties and especially true for the ER). If you are paying with medicaid then you certainly dont want the system to sue the doc for medicaid cases because guess what the reaction of the doc will be? "I wont take medicaid cause the pay for risk is not worth it." That's extra costs from TWO angles. (Doc wants more pay for risk and doc wants more tests to cover his ass).
 
You seem not to be getting it. EMTALA mandates only emergency care. So repealing EMTALA will not solve the problem of EDs providing non emergency care.

And ironically, you agree with EMTALA. You said uninsured with true emergencies should not be turned away. That's what EMTALA says!!!

You also aren't getting my point that it is not so simple to avoid bearing the cost of people not being able to apy for health care. If we turn them away from nonemergency care, we will pay for the care in other ways.
1. (If we pay for emergencies): Emergency care because the poor will be in worse health and have more emergencies.
2. (Whether we pay for emergencies or not): Negative externalities of poor health.

EMTALA does not say that the ED only has to see emergency patients.
What is says is that every patient that walks in has to be evaluated and a proper discharge plan made. This may be telling them to go home or finding proper placement for them.

We know that at least 50% of cases in the ED are not true emergencies and many people use the ED as a primary care office. However, EMTALA forces every case to be seen.

Doctors are not going to turn away real emergencies in the Emergency Department. They are not these evil people who just want to see those non-paying patients get punished.

But if half you cases are not emergencies and you are forced to take care of someones chronic back pain that has been there for the past 10 months or someone who waited till 2 in the morning to take care of his viral URI, then that takes up time and money from being able to take care of and give charity care to those REAL EMERGENCIES.

I would never turn down an MI, but man I would like to tell all those coughs and colds to go see thier primary care doctors in the morning or go to the urgent care.

What they don't take medicaid? well maybe the government shoud start paying more for medicaid patients so that they could get care.

The funny thing is that when a person comes in for a cold and has to wait 5 hours to be seen, they get angry at the doctors and nurses. They don't understand that the ER has to take care of real emergencies.

EMTALA is the govt. FORCING doctors to see patients for free.

When medicare payments go lower and doctors stop taking medicare, the govt. will start FORCING doctors to take medicare if they want to practice medicine.

So what will happen is that doctors will hire mid-levels and have all the medicare seen by mid levels and patients will get sub-standard care.

Thats why I feel that EMTALA is unconstitutional and must be reversed or revised. If the govt. says I have to see the patients then they shoud pay a fair market value for that visit.

Hell, they pay thousands for toaster ovens but won't pay for healthcare. whats wrong with this picture?
 
You seem not to be getting it. EMTALA mandates only emergency care. So repealing EMTALA will not solve the problem of EDs providing non emergency care.

And ironically, you agree with EMTALA. You said uninsured with true emergencies should not be turned away. That's what EMTALA says!!!

Obviously you're the one not getting it. EMTALA guarantees a medical screen for anyone who walks through the ED doors. This ties the ED's hands on turning away the chronic hypochondriacs and other non-medical emergencies who need to have a primary care doc take care of their issues.

You also aren't getting my point that it is not so simple to avoid bearing the cost of people not being able to apy for health care. If we turn them away from nonemergency care, we will pay for the care in other ways.
1. (If we pay for emergencies): Emergency care because the poor will be in worse health and have more emergencies.
2. (Whether we pay for emergencies or not): Negative externalities of poor health.


I hear your point and disagree with it completely, well not completely, but I disagree with how you would impliment it. The ED is not the venue to provide preventive care for anyone including the poor. They're not set up or adequately trained in the long term maintenance of chronic health issues and they should not be anyone primary care docs. now I have little problem investing money in true preventive care paid for by medicaid/care to the primary care docs and not to the ED.

If you could come up with some data which shows that promotes the use of the ED as a primary care/preventive medicine clinic, then by all means post it. But you'll be looking for a while.
 
Obviously you're the one not getting it. EMTALA guarantees a medical screen for anyone who walks through the ED doors. This ties the ED's hands on turning away the chronic hypochondriacs and other non-medical emergencies who need to have a primary care doc take care of their issues.

No, you guys are the ones not getting it. EMTALA says that each patient must get a screen to see if they are having an emergency. If they have one, the emergency must be stabilized. If you believe that the ED should address emergencies, even for the uninsured, you are left right where EMTALA puts you. The problem comes from the desire to treat all emergencies. The purpose of this law is to insure that anyone can get treatment for an emergency, not to allow patients to get nonemergency treatment through the ED.

I suppose you could believe that everyone gets treatment only for emergencies apparent without a screen, but then I would argue you dont really believe that everyone should get care for emergencies. In practice, you are left with the current problem. There is definitely a problem of people wasting the ED's time for nonemergencies, but that is a health systems problem.

I hear your point and disagree with it completely, well not completely, but I disagree with how you would impliment it.

I never said the ED was the place to do this primary care. I favor better primary care for low-income people. But my point was that it is not as simple as others are making out, where if you stop treating the non emergency problems for the uninsured in the ED, you will "save" that money. You will save money, and you will also incur other costs. Also, there was a second line of argument that it's unfair for hospitals shouldn't give care to people who have no intention of paying. I was saying further that it is not as easy to avoid the costs of this free care as others think because of emergency treatment and negative externalities.
 
My favorite ER story.. happened about several years ago.

A homeless patient comes to the psych ER... claims he will kill himself... The patient is well known for coming over all the time for a weekend... stay in the Psych ER.. get some food... protection from the cold, and leaves in a couple of days (doesn't even go to the floor anymore stays down in the ER, he is that well known)..

One day, he comes in claiming he wants to kill himself but the ER happened to be FULL and overlimit. A doc told the patient to forget it.. the ER is full and they cant take him and stop faking trying to suicide. The patient insists he will kill himself if he doesn't get admitted. The doc insists no, there is not enough space for this guy who has been in and out of this hospital many times in the past and everyone knows he is a faker.

What does the guy do? He walks outside... grabs a knife and stabs himself gets admitted and actually dies.

The patient's family filed a lawsuit vs the doc and the hospital... and ever since then the policy of the hospital... admit all suicide attempts.. fake or real. You wanna get admitted for free food and some shelter for a couple of days? Fake suicide at the hospital. Where will you draw the line for free medical care?
 
My favorite ER story.. happened about several years ago.

A homeless patient comes to the psych ER... claims he will kill himself... The patient is well known for coming over all the time for a weekend... stay in the Psych ER.. get some food... protection from the cold, and leaves in a couple of days (doesn't even go to the floor anymore stays down in the ER, he is that well known)..

One day, he comes in claiming he wants to kill himself but the ER happened to be FULL and overlimit. A doc told the patient to forget it.. the ER is full and they cant take him and stop faking trying to suicide. The patient insists he will kill himself if he doesn't get admitted. The doc insists no, there is not enough space for this guy who has been in and out of this hospital many times in the past and everyone knows he is a faker.

What does the guy do? He walks outside... grabs a knife and stabs himself gets admitted and actually dies.

The patient's family filed a lawsuit vs the doc and the hospital... and ever since then the policy of the hospital... admit all suicide attempts.. fake or real. You wanna get admitted for free food and some shelter for a couple of days? Fake suicide at the hospital. Where will you draw the line for free medical care?


And incredibly, some people think that there is nothing wrong with this and the Emergency Department should be a homeless shelter. It's just part of the entitlement mentality. They come to the ED because it's open and at 2AM is the only representative of the omniscient and omnipotent "man."

You know. "The Man." The organization that will give you disability for the rest of your life if you only come up with a good story.
 
No, you guys are the ones not getting it. EMTALA says that each patient must get a screen to see if they are having an emergency. If they have one, the emergency must be stabilized. If you believe that the ED should address emergencies, even for the uninsured, you are left right where EMTALA puts you. The problem comes from the desire to treat all emergencies. The purpose of this law is to insure that anyone can get treatment for an emergency, not to allow patients to get nonemergency treatment through the ED.

I suppose you could believe that everyone gets treatment only for emergencies apparent without a screen, but then I would argue you dont really believe that everyone should get care for emergencies. In practice, you are left with the current problem. There is definitely a problem of people wasting the ED's time for nonemergencies, but that is a health systems problem.



I never said the ED was the place to do this primary care. I favor better primary care for low-income people. But my point was that it is not as simple as others are making out, where if you stop treating the non emergency problems for the uninsured in the ED, you will "save" that money. You will save money, and you will also incur other costs. Also, there was a second line of argument that it's unfair for hospitals shouldn't give care to people who have no intention of paying. I was saying further that it is not as easy to avoid the costs of this free care as others think because of emergency treatment and negative externalities.


Are you an ER physician? Have you ever worked in the ER?

Everything I said in my post is fact. NO, it is living fact. ER docs at this very moment have to deal with it. And NO they can't just screen someone.

The way you talk comes from inexperience. You have not lived it. You just talk the talk, come back when you walk the walk.
 
Top