Late night surcharge in MA EDs?

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

xaelia

neenlet
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
1,135
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
It makes complete sense. If nurses, doctors, and techs are going to get paid more money to encourage night shifts (come on, why else would you volunteer for that torture), the cost has to be absorbed somehow. This should be public knowledge to discourage those idiots who show up at 3 in the morning because their tooth hurts.
 
Oh? I had never heard of such a thing. That would be my limited exposure speaking, then.

This is part of why your attendings always want you to document the time you're seeing a patient.
 
New for me too. Although I work in a communist salaried system so it isn't surprising I didn't know.

Certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you want/need a 24 hour clinic, fine. That'll be an extra $30. May seem unreasonable if you just had a cold but then it really isn't the $30 that's unreasonable about that scenario, now is it?

Take care,
Jeff
 
Forget charging for parking, apparently - just charge 'em more to get in the door.

Just to be clear. They aren't being asked to pay the $30 at the door. That would be an EMTALA violation.
 
actually if anything people should be charged more for going during the day since that's when people's PMDs, pediatricians etc are open. (I understand about pay differential), but wonder if that would cut down on unneeded visits and could be used to pay the night people if people are still coming in during the day. Though I guess it might make people delay coming in for a better deal, hmmm. Why not just figure out how much you'd have to charge everyone to cover the night pay differential, and charge the day patients a little more than now and the night people a little less?
 
Actually it's not. If you offer them a medical screening exam and they are deemed stable, you can then ask for payment up front.

That's really a syntax issue. The EMTALA question depends on when the request for payment is made, not where. As long as the medical screening exam is done, you can ask for payment before proceeding (assuming no emergency medical condition exists) while the patient is still in the parking lot.

The key is that you can't require payment prior do determining if an emergency medical condition exists.

Take care,
Jeff
 
That's really a syntax issue. The EMTALA question depends on when the request for payment is made, not where. As long as the medical screening exam is done, you can ask for payment before proceeding (assuming no emergency medical condition exists) while the patient is still in the parking lot.

The key is that you can't require payment prior do determining if an emergency medical condition exists.

Take care,
Jeff

I'm a little bit unclear on what you're trying to say here. If the medical screening exam is done, you can ask for payment. The question of "where" raises the issue of "duty to act", in that someone who comes to the hospital because there's a Subway or Starbucks there, and is having abdominal pain, but doesn't request help, is not heading to the ED, and is not visibly in extremis, then EMTALA isn't an issue.

It's just a little confusing beyond the simple and straightforward "medical screening exam --> no emergent condition --> pay --> more care", in that the confines of the ED and an EM provider are plainly inferred in the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act" (emphasis added).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm a little bit unclear on what you're trying to say here. If the medical screening exam is done, you can ask for payment. The question of "where" raises the issue of "duty to act", in that someone who comes to the hospital because there's a Subway or Starbucks there, and is having abdominal pain, but doesn't request help, is not heading to the ED, and is not visibly in extremis, then EMTALA isn't an issue.

It's just a little confusing beyond the simple and straightforward "medical screening exam --> no emergent condition --> pay --> more care", in that the confines of the ED and an EM provider are plainly inferred in the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act" (emphasis added).

Yes, I agree. In hindsight, and in an attempt to make the point that the medical screening exam had to occur before demand for payment, I oversimplified.

Clearly the location matters. Not in regards to the MSE before payment aspect, which is what I was trying to emphasize, but in regards to when a patient is deemed to have "presented" to the ED. The statute (and, more importantly, it's interpretations) have defined when one presents to an ED. Additionally, they have defined other aspects of when the requirement becomes active.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Take care,
Jeff
 
So adding me to the list of people who have never heard of this surcharge, if it is that standard, why did that group suddenly remove that same surcharge after the media? I mean, if it is standard across the nation, why back down?
 
actually if anything people should be charged more for going during the day since that's when people's PMDs, pediatricians etc are open. (I understand about pay differential), but wonder if that would cut down on unneeded visits and could be used to pay the night people if people are still coming in during the day. Though I guess it might make people delay coming in for a better deal, hmmm. Why not just figure out how much you'd have to charge everyone to cover the night pay differential, and charge the day patients a little more than now and the night people a little less?
I see your point but in many systems the late night visit "costs" the hospital and doctors more. In my system we pay our night docs a shift differential to entice them to work nights. The night nurses also get a bit more. It's more expensive to get studies when you have to call in a rad tech or the cath team. In that light a night surcharge is not uncalled for.
 
Some of our nurses are contracted to work two shifts a week, but they only work 12-hour weekend overnight shifts. $43/hr for relatively freshly minted nurses. They gross more than residents while working only ~8 days a month.
 
So adding me to the list of people who have never heard of this surcharge, if it is that standard, why did that group suddenly remove that same surcharge after the media? I mean, if it is standard across the nation, why back down?

The reason this surcharge (used by roughly half the EDs) was challenged in the first place was because of a corporate campaign by a union (SEIU) against the hospital. Since they thought the emergency physicians were hospital employees, we were a target.

As this charge was rarely paid for by insurance companies and almost never passed on to the patients, it had little financial impact on patients and little benefit for the physicians. It was billed more out of the principle of supporting night differentials for EM physicians than trying to make money or raise the bar for night access.

Ironically this union that attacked us advocates for shift differentials for their members. However they lobbied aggressively against us and the hospitals we worked at saying this practice was a disgrace. Once this was picked up by the press, it generated a lot of anxiety in the administrative offices of our community hospitals and was being perceived by some of our patients as a reason to delay seeking emergency care at night. A number of the other EDs in town announced to the press (often incorrectly) that they did not use this charge making it appear that this charge was both highly unusual and a recent creation. Some of the public perceived this as greedy doctors trying to take more hard earned dollars from the poor and creating unfair barriers to the people

It was never meant to act as a way to punish patients for seeking care at night, simply a way to have the charges reflect the costs of providing care (night shift differentials make sense for the providers and if you don't bill for them this way, they just get buried in the overall ED charge ).
There is no question that a night shift differential is appropriate (not only are they bad for your health and your family but the number of patients and reimbursement for the same work is worse) and that the cost of doing this is provided in some way or form by the revenue. A lot of people responding to the press articles in posts said that doctors signed up for the life style so should take it without added support or that since there was a right to health care, doctors should just be happy to staff nights for the joy of helping people. I believe that you should be paid for the work you do and that we all need to support the guys who are willing to take the tougher less financially lucrative shifts.

In the end, because all the misinformation in the press, we saw that this charge was now being perceived as a barrier to night access by patients. Also our hospital partners were panicking. The reimbursement from this charge was negligeable and we already had real night differentials built in by taxing all of the clinical revenue. So we gave up and droppped the charge, leaving the real fight to our national organizations.

I do not believe in trying to prevent people with "non emergencies" from seeking care with financial penalties blocks real life threats. I think the recent rise in copay to as high as $200 is a scandal and I've already seen a number of delays in care in patients with life threats. Finally the rise in the ED workload and numbers is not due to non emergent care, it really is rising acuity from the aging of the population and the restricted inpatient access.

Remember that a sore throat is a non emergency until you discover it is epiglottitis and the patient has a respiratory arrest. A toothache is a non emergency until you assess it and find out it really was an epidural hematoma with referred pain or Ludwig's angina. I think we need to start believing that the definition of an emergency is simply someone who feels the need to seek emergency care. If we want to fix the health care costs, then lets look at how we process these lower acuity emergencies and find ways to do it more competitively than the PCPs. People will still see their PCP for BP controls, cholesterol checks, vaccinations, and the rest of the reasons that made me choose emergency medicine rather than general medicine. But a chief complaint is only a non emergency once you've assessed it. Our specialty thrives on the work aversion of other disciplines so let's not make it more difficult for our patients to get to us. In our group we will continue to support night differentials but will find better ways to raise the income to support it than this charge.
 
The reason this surcharge (used by roughly half the EDs) was challenged in the first place was because of a corporate campaign by a union (SEIU) against the hospital. Since they thought the emergency physicians were hospital employees, we were a target.
...

This is a great description of how things can go downhill once the press and the public get involved in some issue. Take this to heart. Anyone who has been involved with an event that got media coverage will tell you that the info that is put out is often highly inaccurate. If you add in additional parties with their own agendas such as labor unions, plaintiffs, competing hospitals, etc. that erroneous info can quickly become downright outlandish.
 
Based upon the thread, it looks as though we managed to find one of the physicians involved in the MA matter. And while it is easy to understand that the late night staff should be compensated for the witching hour, those increases in charges are already reflected in the additional cost for the treatments provided in the ED. The specialized service is compensated more and is thus billed under a separate code because of where it is provided, not based on the service.

I do not care if a physician group wants to charge an after hours code, but if they are going to do that, then they need to charge the regular billing code for the service being provided unless a physician can explain to me why they need to be compensated twice.
 
Based upon the thread, it looks as though we managed to find one of the physicians involved in the MA matter"

"We" surely did. Happy to stand up and acknowledge that my group was targeted for trying to support the night hours. But I am curious. Do you define "we" as one of the emergency physicians who have participated in this forum for years, or as one of the residents and medical students who come here to share advice? Or do you mean as one of the public at large on a witch hunt to prevent any further increase in egregious physician billing? Or simply one of the unknown visitors who decided this would be a good topic for a first post? Glad you were trying to find me. Hello!

The after hours charge is a valid CPT code, billed by half the emergency physicians in the country because the standard ED charges to not reflect the problem of night shifts. In many departments there are people who only work nights and are paid based on what they bill.

As posted earlier, my group pulled together and decided to tell our billing company to cancel the charge because we did not want anything to cause a patient to come when they needed help. It wasn't reimbursed by the payers anyway not because they are already paying for night coverage but because no one really cares how the night team is paid except the people doing it. In one sense you are right, the rest of the group was already chipping in to support the night hours. But if you assume physician costs are a key driver of health care costs you need to go back to the data. Compared to the standard of living, physician incomes have been dwindling steadily over the past 20 years. There is also a growing shortage. But somehow, based on your post, I doubt if you've ever touched a patient at all, and if so, not after 3PM.
 
I think the problem with your logic here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. You note that care in the ED is more expensive than similar, non-emergent care. That is true. Care at night costs more for the hospitals and physician groups to provide for the reasons already covered in this thread.

And while it is easy to understand that the late night staff should be compensated for the witching hour, those increases in charges are already reflected in the additional cost for the treatments provided in the ED. The specialized service is compensated more and is thus billed under a separate code because of where it is provided, not based on the service.

It is not true that ED care costs more because of where it is delivered. It costs more because the patient has access to all of the capabilities of the ED. The assumption is that the patient has a life threatening problem and tests and treatments are started. This is not the case with a primary care office visit. This is why the costs and the risk are higher in the ED. Placing a central line or intubating emergently are different than doing either of these procedures electively. When a patient comes to the ED for something minor and bemoans their bill they really should have chosen a more appropriate level of care. We are legally obliged to see them. We can't make their triage decisions for them.

I do not care if a physician group wants to charge an after hours code, but if they are going to do that, then they need to charge the regular billing code for the service being provided unless a physician can explain to me why they need to be compensated twice.

You are asserting that to use an after hours code the base billing should be rolled back to primary care levels. Comparing a primary care visit to an ED visit is the erroneous comparison. The patient has come to use the most expensive service at the most expensive time. Therefore a charge above the basic ED charge is reasonable and does not equate to being compensated twice.
 
I know I'm reviving an old thread. But for some reason remembered things being talked about a minimal parking fee and it decreasing visits. Was this just a proposal of what should happen or did this actually happen somewhere? Can't seem to find the thread I'm thinking of. Can anyone help or point me in the right direction?
 
my group doesn't do this but I would not be opposed if it could be applied at the discretion of the clinician seeing the pt.
if you almost cut your arm off with a chainsaw or are having an MI you don't have to pay the fee as you have(wait for it) an emergent condition.
if you have had back/dental pain since fdr was in office you pay the fee.
if you have any common primary care issue that could wait 72 hrs you pay the fee.
 
Top