Big Beautiful Bill

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I sense a lot of anger in you Calvin,


I had AI drill down further into it:

    • About 13.9 million Medicaid recipients are able-bodied adults without dependents(often called ABAWDs).
    • Of those, 8.1 million (58%) worked at least 80 hours in a given month.
    • That leaves roughly 4 million ABAWDs who are persistently enrolled in Medicaid and work fewer than 80 hours per month—about 29% of ABAWDs, or 5% of all Medicaid recipients.
So 4 million. If I get time I'll research the number of "disabled" people under 50 who get medicaid.

Also the 1.9 million:
  • More than 1.9 million people are enrolled in state-funded coverage programs for immigrants in several states and the District of Columbia, based on partial enrollment data from 11 of 14 states and DC.
Not sure what Trump had to do with that number.

Yeah anger because you're dense bro and it's annoying when supposed doctors are this dense.

The first part is literally what I already posted. 29% is....1/3. So 2/3 are already working >80 hours a month. Like I already said.

Did you even read what you put there. Those state funded programs are not Medicaid. That was directly addressed IN THE LINK ABOVE. Maybe work on actually reading primary sources and not relying on chatGPT for information or maybe actually understanding what AI is spitting out to you. Do you also just yell "STEMI" every time the EKG auto-read spits that out?
 
Are you just having trouble understanding this bud? The majority of those able bodies adults ALREADY WORK. This isn't an argument about "number of able bodied adults on medicaid". It's a matter of what the work requirement hopes to accomplish, which is essentially just trying to kick people off with red tape. Never mind the fact that it's completely possible to have a full time job that doesn't offer health insurance.

Where'd you pull the 1.9 million number from your butt? Oh wait no it's Trump's butt.


You're talking to somebody who has bought the MAGA tropes on Medicaid, hook line and sinker.

You're not going to change their mind with facts and figures. I don't know why you even try, I know I've stopped talking about this stuff in my real life.

It has to affect them first. They have to feel the consequences to take the first step and wonder, "gee, this isn't what I voted for..."

It's only now that my previous partners (from the group I left) regret voting for the guy, as it's going to impact their profit margins. They're all remorseful, and no joke, some of the lifelong vote-R-no-matter-what types wish they had voted for Harris.

This is the reality even among educated professionals. We're all just animals at the end of the day.
 
Will be interesting to see how this ends up. I do think they missed some low hanging fruit. Elimination of PBMs, allowing medicare to broadly negotiate drug pricing, elimination of the midnight rule to admit to a nursing home etc. current situation is that we waste a ton of money. In addition, while I dont agree with this somehow legislating and thereby preventing Medicaid patients from going to the ED for dumb complaints. One way to do it is to have Medicaid not pay hospitals for minor complaints. If you show up with a sore throat you get a screening exam (say they pay $50) but if no emergency is found no further payment. This would push the hospitals to find ways to dispo these people elsewhere.

I know it goes against PLP and i dont know if i agree with the whole idea but it is an answer.
 
Agree with your first paragraph but I don’t see why these hospitals can’t take a haircut in admin instead of simply closing.

I’ll never forget where I trained we had two complete floors of the hospital that used to be patient rooms in the 1990s that had been converted into offices for various nurse administrators and other miscellaneous administrative positions.
Guys, if there were less administration nothing might change, or even worse, things might get better. Administration can't have that. People can't realize that the amount of benefit they provide is marginal at best and probably counteracted by the amount of harm they provide. Otherwise doctors are going to be back to dictating medicine again.

Won't anyone think about the door to balloon times on visually obvious cases of TIA?
 
Elimination of PBMs, allowing medicare to broadly negotiate drug pricing, elimination of the midnight rule to admit to a nursing home

In order:

PBMs are their own profit industry now and support congress. They were made to, yes , do something else but what they've become is something not intended


Medicare will never negotiate prices because pharmacy industry owns congress. Pharmacy industry bends congress over a couch on a whim whenever they please. Insurance hops on when pharmacy hops off.

3MN rule is in place to prevent dumping, which obviously isn’t effective but if NH/SNF is their final destination you're not really saving much there eliminating it save some bed space in hospital. Insurance also wants this because it forces hospitals to TRY to rehab patients with enough PT/OT to function first which is half the point.


All of this shows the value of lobbying congress. Insurance and to a lesser extent PBMs own congress.

Physicians are a dickless bunch without meaningful impact nationally so that's why we are taking this lying down. We, as opposed to insurance, do not own congress. Hell, even ACEP is on the payor side (I argue).
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to see how this ends up. I do think they missed some low hanging fruit. Elimination of PBMs, allowing medicare to broadly negotiate drug pricing, elimination of the midnight rule to admit to a nursing home etc. current situation is that we waste a ton of money. In addition, while I dont agree with this somehow legislating and thereby preventing Medicaid patients from going to the ED for dumb complaints. One way to do it is to have Medicaid not pay hospitals for minor complaints. If you show up with a sore throat you get a screening exam (say they pay $50) but if no emergency is found no further payment. This would push the hospitals to find ways to dispo these people elsewhere.

I know it goes against PLP and i dont know if i agree with the whole idea but it is an answer.

We can do this now. We can just say no to patients who show up (if they have no emergency). The PR hit will be monumental. Hospitals right now will never let us do that unless the entire reimbursement model changes, and even then it may not change behavior.

The third payor system is an utter failure. We need people to pay for health care with money they control. Let’s say govt sets aside $10,000/year per person now, I would rather have them set aside $2,000/person for dedicated true medical emegrncies (which should be funded by taxes) and and we give $8,000/year in a health care spending account that people use themselves for copays, medicines, surgeries, imaging, supplies, etc. if you end up needing more then you are means tested and only get reimbursement after you have spent your own considerable amount of money. I don’t think people should go broke paying for their chronic medical problems but they will incur some monetary losses for sure.

We can’t make someone else pay for everything in health care. The PERSON USING HEALTH CARE NEEDS TO PAY FOR IT.

Almost all problems will be solved. I’m not writing that this is an infallible system…there would be problems with it. But it would be better than what we have now.

There is truth above, even though it’s after 1 beer, 3 fingers of islay scotch, and having a belly full of smoked bacon wrapped pork loin cooked on my porch.
 
We can’t make someone else pay for everything in health care. The PERSON USING HEALTH CARE NEEDS TO PAY FOR IT.

Almost all problems will be solved. I’m not writing that this is an infallible system…there would be problems with it. But it would be better than what we have now.
Man, sounds so beguilingly simple, but it just doesn't work that way. Some chronic medical conditions are cripplingly expensive from Day 1. Every elderly person would be bankrupt. Etc.

This is how you end up with diabetics with no legs on permanent disability instead of as productive members of society – choosing between basics and their insulin etc.

No need to rehash this whole deal and the balance between imperfect solutions, but universal health care is the answer – but it would take a lot to turn the battleship around with all the current incentives and structures in U.S. health care.
 
We didnt go down 30% on the conversion factor and we did get minimal increases in the RVU payment. Was $36.08 now is 32.35.. we are down just under $4.. but we arent down 30%. nothing to brag about.. but not as horrific as you mentioned.

Most of the pain will be in the blue states aka htose who epxnaded medicaid.

As stated, 34% effective paycut, counting for our decreased wages + insane inflation.
 
In order:

PBMs are their own profit industry now and support congress. They were made to, yes , do something else but what they've become is something not intended


Medicare will never negotiate prices because pharmacy industry owns congress. Pharmacy industry bends congress over a couch on a whim whenever they please. Insurance hops on when pharmacy hops off.

3MN rule is in place to prevent dumping, which obviously isn’t effective but if NH/SNF is their final destination you're not really saving much there eliminating it save some bed space in hospital. Insurance also wants this because it forces hospitals to TRY to rehab patients with enough PT/OT to function first which is half the point.


All of this shows the value of lobbying congress. Insurance and to a lesser extent PBMs own congress.

Physicians are a dickless bunch without meaningful impact nationally so that's why we are taking this lying down. We, as opposed to insurance, do not own congress. Hell, even ACEP is on the payor side (I argue).
Agreed, everyone complains about the AMA or whatever professional group your field is represented by but then you ask them when the last time they threw in money to support the lobbying effort and it’s always “omg I would never!”
 
I am staying out of this political landmine as I know what it will turn into.

Bottom line is, the only thing you control is what is inside your 4 walls. Everything outside is essentially out of my control and I just need to make sure my 4 walls are strong where I can have a peaceful refuge.

Case in point. I vote no on ridiculous school bonds, but it always passes. Why do I need to pay more taxes to have new stadiums built? But it always passes because those voting for it do not own homes and think its free money. Then they wonder why their rent has gone up. So I have given up going to vote as it typically ends up 80% for. I just increase rent or make more money and not sweat paying more taxes.
 
In order:

PBMs are their own profit industry now and support congress. They were made to, yes , do something else but what they've become is something not intended


Medicare will never negotiate prices because pharmacy industry owns congress. Pharmacy industry bends congress over a couch on a whim whenever they please. Insurance hops on when pharmacy hops off.

3MN rule is in place to prevent dumping, which obviously isn’t effective but if NH/SNF is their final destination you're not really saving much there eliminating it save some bed space in hospital. Insurance also wants this because it forces hospitals to TRY to rehab patients with enough PT/OT to function first which is half the point.


All of this shows the value of lobbying congress. Insurance and to a lesser extent PBMs own congress.

Physicians are a dickless bunch without meaningful impact nationally so that's why we are taking this lying down. We, as opposed to insurance, do not own congress. Hell, even ACEP is on the payor side (I argue).
I agree as to why.. just pointing out there are common sense solutions. I am well aware that insurers own congress.

heck for those who dont know.. When "providers" got COVID money it all went through "optum bank". Every single federal penny. If that doesnt tell you all you need to know nothing will. Whether it was just the float on that money or actual money was paid to optum I have no idea but it says a ton about our system.

All your points are spot on. I dont know what side ACEP is on but I do know they are NOT on the side of EM docs.
 
We can do this now. We can just say no to patients who show up (if they have no emergency). The PR hit will be monumental. Hospitals right now will never let us do that unless the entire reimbursement model changes, and even then it may not change behavior.

The third payor system is an utter failure. We need people to pay for health care with money they control. Let’s say govt sets aside $10,000/year per person now, I would rather have them set aside $2,000/person for dedicated true medical emegrncies (which should be funded by taxes) and and we give $8,000/year in a health care spending account that people use themselves for copays, medicines, surgeries, imaging, supplies, etc. if you end up needing more then you are means tested and only get reimbursement after you have spent your own considerable amount of money. I don’t think people should go broke paying for their chronic medical problems but they will incur some monetary losses for sure.

We can’t make someone else pay for everything in health care. The PERSON USING HEALTH CARE NEEDS TO PAY FOR IT.

Almost all problems will be solved. I’m not writing that this is an infallible system…there would be problems with it. But it would be better than what we have now.

There is truth above, even though it’s after 1 beer, 3 fingers of islay scotch, and having a belly full of smoked bacon wrapped pork loin cooked on my porch.
"We" cant do this. The hospitals would have to sign off. The reality is the pain of doing this is much more than the status quo. Docs are a bunch of sissies as a whole even though when you see docs truly stand up they win. The trauma surgeons bailed on Nevada a few years back. The system caved and they got what they wanted. The unionization of residents and some attendings has made things better. Far too many EM docs have no stones and dare I say most of them are happy simple lemmings when it comes to the business side of EM.

All you say above is right.. that being said plenty of options. but no one willing to take a stand on it. I listened to Mel Herberts podcast with Gilliam Shmitz.. The disconnect from reality in that discussion was clear.
 
Man, sounds so beguilingly simple, but it just doesn't work that way. Some chronic medical conditions are cripplingly expensive from Day 1. Every elderly person would be bankrupt. Etc.

This is how you end up with diabetics with no legs on permanent disability instead of as productive members of society – choosing between basics and their insulin etc.

No need to rehash this whole deal and the balance between imperfect solutions, but universal health care is the answer – but it would take a lot to turn the battleship around with all the current incentives and structures in U.S. health care.
Nah man.. single payer/ universal healthcare is not the answer in this country.
 
As stated, 34% effective paycut, counting for our decreased wages + insane inflation.
Dont confuse our "wages" with federal reimbursement. My pay is up..

While far from perfect the wage is up.. here are a bunch of resources that show it. My personal income story is an anecdote.


The average salary for a full-time emergency medicine physician was $437,000
  • 2018-2019: $378,000
  • 2020-2021: $374,000 (1% decrease)
  • 2022-2023: $413,000 (10% increase)
  • 2024: $437,000 (6% increase)

Doximity.. Doximity 2024 Physician Compensation Report
2019 salary ~340k
2020 salary 355k
2024 Salary 399k..
This is a bump of 10%+ it doesnt make up for inflation but its not a 30% cut.

Since most people on here make money based on what the local hospital or CMG will pay docs are fairly insulated from these changes.
 
Agreed, everyone complains about the AMA or whatever professional group your field is represented by but then you ask them when the last time they threw in money to support the lobbying effort and it’s always “omg I would never!”
Why support a dysfunctional organization? IMO this is like telling docs.. The playing field sucks but you better play the game based on our rules. Sure you can keep feeding into a dysfunctional system. I think instead of giving money to ACEP give it to AAEM.
 
"Interesting" in what way?

It's been shown time and time again that there's no widespread problems with patients "scamming" the system. The largest perpetrators of government insurance fraud are....drumroll...."providers" of various stripes doing billing fraud.

Stop watching Faux news bud, there's no widespread issue with "illegal aliens scamming the system". They aren't eligible for medicaid in the first place.

More than 2/3 of Medicaid receipents ALREADY work:

What this does is just throw a bunch of administrative barriers up hoping people will miss deadlines to file their work hours or forget to re-verify their eligibility every 6 months or don't file for medicaid coverage within 30 days for retroactive payments to hospitals/ER/etc.
Following up on your point, there was a state (Arkansas I believe) who did put these work requirements into place and all that happened is (statistically) no one new got jobs because of this, but additional paperwork and/or very specific hoops lead to tons of people, almost all of them employed, losing coverage. Also Arkansas found out that it costs money to run a slightly more complex medicaid program that requires more people being hired and paid to confirm if other people have jumped through the more arduous hoops they set up.
 
"We" cant do this. The hospitals would have to sign off. The reality is the pain of doing this is much more than the status quo. Docs are a bunch of sissies as a whole even though when you see docs truly stand up they win. The trauma surgeons bailed on Nevada a few years back. The system caved and they got what they wanted. The unionization of residents and some attendings has made things better. Far too many EM docs have no stones and dare I say most of them are happy simple lemmings when it comes to the business side of EM.

All you say above is right.. that being said plenty of options. but no one willing to take a stand on it. I listened to Mel Herberts podcast with Gilliam Shmitz.. The disconnect from reality in that discussion was clear.

That's what I wrote. We don't need a law change we need hospitals to understand our plight
 
we need hospitals to understand our plight

So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble
 
Last edited:
What’s the plan on a personal level? I’m guessing this will make EM positions (and for other docs) in wealthy suburbs even more attractive than low-income rural and inner city Medicaid heavy areas
 
EM income is somewhat inelastic esp if you are with a CMG. Just because their income goes down, they don't cut doc pays without making everything worse. SDG is a different story BUT medicaid is like a drop in the bucket. When we were a SDG, the 40% commercial provided 80% of income. 30% medicare provided like 15%. 10% medcaid/uninsured provided like 5%.

So even if all the medicaid disappeared, it amounted to nothing. They were essentially charity.
 
Following up on your point, there was a state (Arkansas I believe) who did put these work requirements into place and all that happened is (statistically) no one new got jobs because of this, but additional paperwork and/or very specific hoops lead to tons of people, almost all of them employed, losing coverage. Also Arkansas found out that it costs money to run a slightly more complex medicaid program that requires more people being hired and paid to confirm if other people have jumped through the more arduous hoops they set up.
My wife used to work for her mother's antique store. Every month she'd have 20-30 people come in asking if they were hiring. When told that they weren't, these people would have her sign a form saying that they inquired about jobs. It was a Medicaid work requirement thing.

Very easy to get around.
 
So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble

I just want to say that I deeply appreciate when you put effort into posting stuff like this from the admin/non-EM-bedside perspective.

I spent a lot of time on the admin side as well, and it's painful trying to get extremely opinionated righteous clinicians to understand the nuances and difficulties. Less than 0.01% of the admin folk wake up every morning and go "Haha! I can't wait to screw those doctors even more today!"

Never feel bad about posting your "rambles" here! I feel that SDN is one of the few places where you can still find rational, long-form posting related to healthcare.
 
My wife used to work for her mother's antique store. Every month she'd have 20-30 people come in asking if they were hiring. When told that they weren't, these people would have her sign a form saying that they inquired about jobs. It was a Medicaid work requirement thing.

Very easy to get around.
That def ain't new. My Dad told me about in the late 70s, for unemployment, you would just call places and ask, you hiring? No, on the list. Yes, you hung up!
 
I just want to say that I deeply appreciate when you put effort into posting stuff like this from the admin/non-EM-bedside perspective.

I spent a lot of time on the admin side as well, and it's painful trying to get extremely opinionated righteous clinicians to understand the nuances and difficulties. Less than 0.01% of the admin folk wake up every morning and go "Haha! I can't wait to screw those doctors even more today!"

Never feel bad about posting your "rambles" here! I feel that SDN is one of the few places where you can still find rational, long-form posting related to healthcare.

Bolded for truth.
 
So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble
This needs to be pinned.
 
So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble
I hate the fact that I 100% agree with you.
 
So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble
I’m not for this bill but decrying “What will we ever do without the lucrative joint replacement surgeries” may not be the best angle to take here. Like I dunno man I feel like society might be better off if we cut back on those anyway?

Also, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that as someone who actually refers for liver transplant…. if you can navigate the Liver transplant process you can probably navigate whatever new Medicaid hoops there are too.
 
No matter who is in office, we get f'd.
  • 2020: -6% (emergency medicine, CMS Medicare Physician Fee Schedule)
  • 2021: -2% (emergency medicine, after Congressional mitigation from 6%)
  • 2022: -4.48% (Medicare conversion factor reduction)
  • 2023: -2% (Medicare physician payment reduction)
  • 2024: -1.25% (Medicare physician payment reduction)
  • 2025: -2.83% (Medicare physician payment reduction)
Cumulative effective pay cut counting for inflation (2020–2025): -34.23%

Maybe something new will help, who knows.
damn its even worse than I thought
 
I’m not for this bill but decrying “What will we ever do without the lucrative joint replacement surgeries” may not be the best angle to take here. Like I dunno man I feel like society might be better off if we cut back on those anyway?

Also, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that as someone who actually refers for liver transplant…. if you can navigate the Liver transplant process you can probably navigate whatever new Medicaid hoops there are too.
If COVID taught us anything, its that hospitals can't survive just on actually sick inpatients. Those lucrative joint replacement surgeries make up for losing money on actual sick people.
 
So speaking as someone that now works on the hospital money side, and I say this with respect, this view is somewhat myopic.

The overwhelming concern coming up at the system level for these cuts is on the inpatient side.

We're talking about people with medicaid having protracted sepsis stays, lucrative joint replacement surgeries, liver transplants, etc....some of these things even with medicaid will run bills nearly half a million dollars across the entire episode of care.

The absolute smallest potatoes to worry about is ED revenue for two reasons:

1) Most (not all!) ED's are contracted. Once you contract something out, outside of patient satisfaction/overt safety/throughput issues hospitals don't care what's going on in the ED. The RN's in the department are funded by the hospital not the EM group. The revenue for the docs is simply not their concern, and expecting it to be is like waiting for that ex you really want back to call you ASAP. She gone, she got other **** to worry about.

And I'm not saying I don't disagree. I fully agree with you. But it's definitely not the view I'm hearing. I haven't heard ED revenue come up even once in these discussions.

2) ED revenue is truly, truly small potatoes by comparison to inpatient revenue. Sure, you could do a procedure and bill 99291 and 99292 but if you're putting that much time into the patient, imagine the IP resources utilized over the next 5-6 days.

This wasn't popular in another topic I mentioned this (soapboxing again, apologies) but it's just a fact most critical care time billed in the ED probably is unwarranted. But it's such a small, small amount by comparison to the charges from the rest of the stay that insurance spends their time fighting LOC and DRG issues. Those administrative challenges to us cost them time and money, but if they win they can eek out 5-20k a pop, which is multiples of the ENTIRE ED BILL. So going after CC billing isn't even worth their administrative time, which is why no one from UHC, Humana, Centene, etc even LOOK at CC billing. The future and AI might get involved, but that's a separate discussion way down the road to auto-deny those.

That ramble ties into my main point, which is ED revenue is so small the "plight" of the ED docs isn't even being discussed at the executive level in our large system. Although that's not entirely heartless--what are we to do? We'll quite possibly lose so much money that subsidizing our ED just isn't a realistic choice.


Also ties into my final point, why I left EM. I grew increasingly concerned that the island of revenue is shrinking, and one of the first groups voted off of it is EM.

My best guess for the future when this passes:

Some smaller places close
larger places just take the hit. Everyone complains, nothing changes.
From an ED specific standpoint, revenue has been shrinking and this will just be another hit to revenue. "it's your problem." EM docs in general don't have much of an alternative, so if your pay goes down another 30-50k/year, what will you do? Everywhere you go, it'll be the same unless you move to a rich area with no medicaid patients.


FWIW, I find revenue work highly rewarding. My specific focus is actually FIGHTING medicaid payors. Our problem is they are ALREADY breaking the law and denying payments/downgrading DRG's for no goddam reason. So even though they currently HAVE the funding, they are STILL refusing to pay in many situations. This was already a five-alarm fire BEFORE this bill, which is almost certainly going to be used as an excuse to deny even more care to people who RETAIN medicaid. It's a goddam mess.

I'm trying to lay out facts as best I can from my situation and discussions with my own leadership. If it comes off as callous I apologize, but we've entered a strictly financial discussion and there just aren't a lot of warm feels in the financial aspect of medicine, just accounts.

TLDR: Healthcare is a burning house. Inpatient activity/finances are the children the parents (C-suite) are rushing in to save. EM is the furniture hoping the parents have time to come back in and get saved, but will probably burn with the house.

/ramble

Also on the money side and agree with this 100%. 1) i wonder how these dollar amount figures get paid sometimes. I see some number in epic that are like 2 orders of magnitude higher than the actual money exchanging hands. They aren’t on the charge master or contracts. Rev cycle gives me hand wavy answers
2) fighting Medicaid payors has become ridiculous. They fight tooth and nail for every hospital day. My only recourse is reporting them to themselves or to the bitch ass insurance commissioner in my state. Not even worth escalating
 
I’m not for this bill but decrying “What will we ever do without the lucrative joint replacement surgeries” may not be the best angle to take here. Like I dunno man I feel like society might be better off if we cut back on those anyway?

Also, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that as someone who actually refers for liver transplant…. if you can navigate the Liver transplant process you can probably navigate whatever new Medicaid hoops there are too.

Oh the hoops will always be the same. But if someone doesn't have any insurance, it's a free liver transplant. You can't do too many of those as a transplant center, y'know? Same with heart/lung. I know a lot of tricks to get payors to pay up, but when the patient is uninsured (which many of your transplant patients might be, given the percentage I see on medicaid) there isn't a "hoop." There's just no payment, minus whatever we hold the guy upside down and shake him out for.

And I just say joint as an example of elective procedure. Take your pick. Afib ablation? lap chole? All without payment. That's the assumption, anyway, until our legal team fully knows how to react to this bill to see what other options for payment may be.

I hate the fact that I 100% agree with you.

~I~ Don't want to agree with me, either.

I'm not in EM anymore, but I'm still mad at ACEP. I did (briefly) join, went to 4 conferences. Even then when I was a bit more naive I felt like it was more about partying and networking than really doing anything. And even then it weirded me out having TeamHealth and co. sponsor things.

This year was my first year joining ACPA (American College of Physician Advisors)'s conference, NPAC. I was actually taken aback at the stark contrast between the two.

Yeah they had their quirky parties but they had some serious **** on the agenda. Lots of great lectures about tricks to get medicaid to deal, new medicare advantage policies, peds utilization, a bunch of case studies where you learn by determining status or if/when to appeal, how to write appeal letters, what's changed about writing them....it was a remarkably serious conference. I found out it was started relatively recently by a bunch of advisors that were getting ****ing pissed about payors getting worse and worse, so they stated an organization where docs from different hospitals would share ideas on how to get things paid for.

Also, it would be weird if there were sponsors like UHC or Centene (IMO, like how ACEP has TeamHealth, political soapbox again...) but the sponsors were all like denial management vendors.

I bring all this up, because it's an organization that maybe isn't large enough to lobby, but it was also a deadly serious conference where issues are collectively addressed as a group to advance the whole field.

I guess my point is, I partly blame poor advocacy. ACEP is so many things and pulls in so many directions it doesn't feel like there is anyone actually PROTECTING EM.

EmergentMD said it's maybe a 5% hit to revenue in the ED as if that's okay, but look at the additive effects. NSA here, no medicaid there, etc....5% on 5% on 5%.....in 20 years, will docs be like, "well it's just another 2% off, but at least I'm still making $150/hr...."

Who will be there to stop the slide? That's where my pessimism lies in how this is received, both this and...well, the future hurdles.
 
This year was the first time I've seen him speak!

I felt like when I met Bruce Janiak when I saw him talk (first EM resident). Like him, guy is a pioneer in his field.

I'm still learning sooooo much. The lawyer that spoke there said ALL medicaid cases over 24 hrs meet IP if it meets CFR definition for medicaid.

No one in our group knew about this. Apparently all state 48 or 72 hr obs rules are bs. They're just making **** up and repeat it so much we believe it!
 
im only a few years into this gig but my colleague is an OG… i have learned so much from them. Digging into the CFR, state statutes, etc really clarifies how ridiculous our whole system is and that payors get away with anything.

I was so pissed last year with a sep-3 denial. I emailed dr. Jean louis vincent (essentially the inventor of the SOFA) score, who agreed with my take. I presented this info to a payor directly and then alj… still lost. They still use the Same rationale in their denials to this day…totally invalid. It’s obscene
 
Im pretty down on EM but so much of our experience is based on who we work for and our setup. Being in an SDG I like Medicaid. It’s all money. But meh.. I am not losing sleep over Medicaid. In my ideal world (see prior posts) I wont be sad if some rural hospitals close. I think it’s good for society. Not good for rural communities. I dont love much about the bill increasing our debt is bad. Not taxing Social security is good. I wish the whole thing came with a nice broad tax increase and balanced the budget and started to make a difference on our debt. But alas, politicians have no courage to do the real hard work. No one is willing to be the adult and point out the issue we have. Eventually austerity will be thrust upon us.
 
Hospitals would prefer to do no actual acute care.

New model is avoid having an ED. In some areas it's very common to see 'Urgent Care' staffed by BC EM docs w/ CT scanner, US, etc. They keep the paying patients with a selection of the 'good' acute problems (appendicitis, etc). EMTALA workaround.
 
Well, I quit my partner position in the last 2 months, just sold my house, and am now the new man at another group. All with the intention of eventually working less to make significantly more in a couple of years, but hoping that these cuts now take plenty of time to be implemented. I'm sweating a bit in my current position. Someone tell me it'll be alright 🤣
 
A lot of rural ems will close or not come to rural areas. You can’t have inpatient revenue if you don’t have an ED.

Also another thing about this bill is that it caps loans at 250k period for undergrad and graduate so it will affect a lot of pre health students
 
A lot of rural ems will close or not come to rural areas. You can’t have inpatient revenue if you don’t have an ED.

Also another thing about this bill is that it caps loans at 250k period for undergrad and graduate so it will affect a lot of pre health students
Yeah that's pretty huge

I took out 310k total for med school (since paid off!) If they capped it I would have had to drop out or be a male hooker for the rest
 
This thing about closing rural hospitals and turning then into UC isn't as easy as one might think, and is totally dependent on state laws. For example, in NY, article 30 of the Public Health Law covers EDs. If ambulances come there, you're a hospital. Ambulances cannot transport emergency calls to a UC.
 
100% this will put pressure on schools. They were previously given a blank check. Tuition has skyrocketed well above inflation. Why? Serious question why is med school so expensive? Why am i paying stupid money for tuition as a 4th year student. Explain to me whats happening there? Even the earlier years why is med school tuition 60k or whatever it is as a 1st year med student? Again just tuition. Room and board is pegged to real life and a free-ish market. Med school tuition really isnt because demand so far exceeds supply.
 
I’m not for this bill but decrying “What will we ever do without the lucrative joint replacement surgeries” may not be the best angle to take here. Like I dunno man I feel like society might be better off if we cut back on those anyway?

Also, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that as someone who actually refers for liver transplant…. if you can navigate the Liver transplant process you can probably navigate whatever new Medicaid hoops there are too.
People see liver transplant as a life and death matter. Unfortunately, our little animal brain does not see signing up for medicaid in the same light.
 
I'm not sure I have a problem with it. The government doesn't need to loan people $500k to become a dentist. Might be a pipe dream but it could exert some downward pressure on tuition.
Maybe that might force these professional schools to be 3-yr programs and to no longer require a bachelor degree as a defacto requirement to get in. It's actually one of the provisions of that law that I agree with.

I have been saying that since I finished med school. Medical school should be a 2-yr prerequisite and 3-yr med school.
 
Top