Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because I'd say that study is more than a little biased.
The lead author of the study, Steffie Woolhandler, MD is a co-founder of Physician's for a National Health Program - an organization who supports a single payer national health system. Physicians for a National Health Program
That's one hell of an ulterior motive for skewed results dontcha think?
No the law does not say that. it says Potentially life or limb threatening. There are numerous things that are not themselves life or limb threatening that could be if left untreated and must be ascertained to the best of the hospitals ability and if found to be life threating must be treated. Again if a person doesn't think their problem could become serious without medical attention why go to an emergency room. In other words, if you think you may have a life threating condition you can go to the ER where you will be told what you have an how to treat it, or if it is life threating you will be treated de-facto free of cost unless you are somehow not judgment proof.
You are reading way too much into that. The definition is: An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."
You obviously have very little experience with ERs. It is true that people use them for things that would better be taken care of in an office or an urgent care center.
You are reading way too much into that. The definition is: An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."
You obviously have very little experience with ERs. It is true that people use them for things that would better be taken care of in an office or an urgent care center.
Again why would you go to an ER if you didn't think you had a something sufficiently sever to merit immediate medical attention? I probably don't have as much experience as you, but this seems like common sense.
Again why would you go to an ER if you didn't think you had a something sufficiently sever to merit immediate medical attention? I probably don't have as much experience as you, but this seems like common sense.
Ask the people in there, not me. Seriously, some of them go b/c it's after hours and they think their dr's office isn't "open" (though all are required to have 24 hr call service). Some don't want to "bother" their doctor. Some don't have a personal physician. Some are just plain stupid.
Typically a hospital will charge a self-pay customer the same amount they get from Medicaid. The $30,000 figure is the so-called 'street price'. Insurance companies negotiate pre-determined pricing and it's always a good deal lower. Rather than suffer acute appendicitis and possible peritonitis, what was it worth to you for them to save your life?
Medicaid, at least in california pay a per diem rate. Medicare pays a rate based on the diagnosis and procedure. Private insurances in most cases are negotiated with the hospital . In these cases, the reimbursement is much less than what's billed. Self pays (non-insured) usually pay pennies on the dollar or written off as bad debt.
They pay it out of their bank account/personal expenses or get reinbursed from government? Because if they get reinbursed from government seems to me this the scenerio.
Hospital~ ok we'll tell government the bill is $10,000 when actually it is $5,000. The government will agree to $7000, lol we just made a extra $2000 , but hey its government, they (you and I from taxes) can pay it.
So maybe it isn't just lazy people bleeding government? Maybe business does also sometimes? Of course if hospitals are paying themselves for non payers I'll concede. So what is the real deal?
Medicare and medicaid rates are set by the Government and the hospital ha no control over the reimbursement. If you are admitted with pneumonia and stay four days and have medicare, the hospital reimburses you a set rate based the diagnosis. The total charges billed will have no bearing on the reimbursement the hospital receives.
Again why would you go to an ER if you didn't think you had a something sufficiently sever to merit immediate medical attention? I probably don't have as much experience as you, but this seems like common sense.
If you don't have to pay for it - why not? There are many reasons people do this, sometimes a sore throat didn't feel all that bad all day but now it's 11pm and it's starting to bother them, or a baby with a mild fever won't go to sleep and so it's condition seems worse.
Or they aren't accustomed to going to doctors, they don't bother to keep any cash around to pay a doctor.
It's so bad now that many ER's have decided to just accept it and have two areas of the ER, one for "clinic" patients, the other for true emergencies. Patients must be triaged upon arrival - those who appear to be fine become clinic patients and will be seen in the order they arrived, the true emergencies can then be handled accordingly.
My links were intended to show that lots of insured people use the ER.
The law says the ER only has to treat people with lifethreatening conditions if they can't afford to pay.
The point is, ERs may be full of people with sore throats, and other conditions that a doctor could see, but the law says the only people that have to be treated without regard to payment source are those with life threatening conditions, which it defines.
Capiche?
Yes but we all know that opens up the hospital to lawsuits if they don't see the patient and send them on their way and it turns out to actually be an emergency.
The ER cannot tell a patient's real condition until they see them and check them out. A patient can report he's in terrible pain because he's a drug addict and doesn't have his usual drugs and wants pain killers. Or he can be in real pain and in a medical emergency. So the only way is to have the ER check everything out, lab tests, X-rays included.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
