I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
From the economics literature, one would probably expect such an outcome. To put it in very simple terms, there is a desire for instant self-gratification. Hence, if that principle applies, the desire of people to receive instant care (even as in reality there is a wait, sometimes several hours in the ER) rather than seeking to schedule an appointment with their physician may be driving the phenomenon. It would be interesting to conduct exit surveys to find out why people who could readily have seen their physician (among the true non-emergency cases based on treatments that were administered in the ER) chose the emergency room.
Perhaps a significant copayment for non-emergency cases (based again on the medical codes utilized in the ER concerning treatments) might be needed to deter those with non-emergency conditions from going to the ER? Under such a framework, those meeting the definition of needing emergency care would be treated as usual. Those who who did not meet the criteria and who likely had no reason to believe that they were suffering from one of the conditions that would qualify would be assessed a surcharge by their insurer.
Yikes! I don't think that's a good idea at all. Too many people wouldn't heed the warning signs that often appear before a heart attack, stroke, etc.
I think the hospitals have found a better answer for now and that is as I said in my first post.
If people think they're emergent, it's better to come to the ED and be assessed by medical personnel. If it turns out it's not emergent, move them over to the "other" ED. The urgent care. People are still cared for and the ED functions as it should.
I would chat with her when I'm feeling particularly snarky, but I wouldn't ever call her on the phone.
I could have told you that. The vast majority of them are Medicaid/Medicare recipients.
However, given my years of experience transporting people to the ER via ambulance, about 90% of the people we picked up to take to the ER were NON-emergencies. And 100% of the non-emergencies that called the ****ing ambulance to take them to the ER were on Medicaid/Medicare.
I really wish we'd been allowed to triage.
1. this post is very important as it exposes as half baked the president's fundamental premise for paying for his empty headed plan
2. that is, savings he seeks in reduced ER traffic in reality rise
3. romney care provides the empirics
4. in a nutshell, massachusetts massively expanded the rolls of those insured but the number of doctors remains constant or actually shrinks (see: the hill)
5. people go to ER because they can't get a doctor to make an appt, all resources being overwhelmed
Advocates of an individual mandate say that a requirement to buy insurance is essential because everyone is currently paying a "hidden tax" when people show up in the emergency room without insurance. (Under existing law, emergency rooms are required to treat urgent care matters without regard to ability to pay. If the patient cannot afford the bill, those costs are then passed to the government or people who have insurance in the form of higher prices).A chief aim of the new healthcare law was to take the pressure off emergency rooms by mandating that people have insurance coverage. The idea was that if people have insurance, they will go to a doctor rather than putting off care until they faced an emergency.Massachusetts in 2006 created near-universal coverage for residents, which was supposed to ease the traffic in hospital emergency rooms.
But a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that nearly two-thirds of the state’s residents say emergency department wait times have either increased or remained the same.
A February 2010 report by The Council of State Governments found that wait times had not abated since the law took effect.More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data.Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note"Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you," said Dr. Sandra Schneider, vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which, like other national groups, is closely watching the Massachusetts experiment. "I am not surprised at all that visits went up."
Health reform threatens to cram already overwhelmed emergency rooms - TheHill.com
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
Emergency room wait times getting longer - White Coat Notes - Boston.com
Last edited by The Prof; 05-21-10 at 09:06 AM.
The United Kingdom has the same problem with packed ERs as we do. People with good insurance feel very free to use ERs frivolously. So do dirt poor people with nothing to lose.
It's the folks with a high ER co-pay, or no insurance and something to lose that hesitate to use ERs.