The subject of ER abuse is a frequent subject around here. As I said in another thread, I believe the term is misguided. It focuses on the beneficiaries of the system, rather than the system itself.
When Cash for Clunkers cam out, I didn't look at whether the program was a good ides, based on financially sound principles. I looked at how it affected me personally. I was eligible, it worked well for me, and I took advantage of it.
Using the ER for minor complaints and primary care is a huge waste of money, and harms those that need it most. Blaming the people who use it, rather than the structure, is pointless.
Yesterday at work, I had two cases of what I consider true ER abuse.
1- 80 y/o female from a nursing home finishing a3 day course of Bactrim for a known UTI with continued UTI symptoms.
Three choices for the NH:
Change ABX, or continue the current course. What the hell else do you think might be causing this right flank pain?
Actually dip the urine. This will cost about thirty five cents.
Put patient in an ambulance and send her to the ER.
Guess what they chose.
2- A 60 year old woman scheduled to start dialysis. The nephrologist had not seen her for a while, and wanted her medically cleared for dialysis. That's right, her doctor wanted her seen by a doctor. Nephrology office told her to be seen by her PCP, who was unavailable, so she made an appointment with a mid-level in her PCP office. She was told by her nephrology office that this would be unacceptable, and that she should go to the ER to be seen by a doctor.
ER abuse is common. Doctors frequently dump their patients on the ER for reasons of finance and convenience.
Another point:
People frequently associate inappropriate use of the ER with insurance status: I believe this is wrong, and distracting.
When it comes to minor and chronic complaints, the choice of using the ER is based on the actual cost to the user.
People who tend to use the ER for minor and chronic complaints:
Uninsured who won't, or can't, pay their bill.
Insured who have no co-pay. These tend to be government sponsored insurance plans.
Since their options are identical in price, they will take the most convenient choice.
People who don't use the ER for minor and chronic complaints:
Uninsured who will actually be paying their bill.
Insured who have a significant co-pay.
Since there are financial ramifications to the decision, these people carefully weight the cost/benefit ratio of going to the ER.
These choices are made based on simple economics, not loftier questions of right and wrong. The only way to change the behavior is to change the economics.
The subject of ER abuse is a frequent subject around here. As I said in another thread, I believe the term is misguided. It focuses on the beneficiaries of the system, rather than the system itself.
When Cash for Clunkers cam out, I didn't look at whether the program was a good ides, based on financially sound principles. I looked at how it affected me personally. I was eligible, it worked well for me, and I took advantage of it.
Using the ER for minor complaints and primary care is a huge waste of money, and harms those that need it most. Blaming the people who use it, rather than the structure, is pointless.
Yesterday at work, I had two cases of what I consider true ER abuse.
1- 80 y/o female from a nursing home finishing a3 day course of Bactrim for a known UTI with continued UTI symptoms.
Three choices for the NH:
Guess what they chose.
2- A 60 year old woman scheduled to start dialysis. The nephrologist had not seen her for a while, and wanted her medically cleared for dialysis. That's right, her doctor wanted her seen by a doctor. Nephrology office told her to be seen by her PCP, who was unavailable, so she made an appointment with a mid-level in her PCP office. She was told by her nephrology office that this would be unacceptable, and that she should go to the ER to be seen by a doctor.
ER abuse is common. Doctors frequently dump their patients on the ER for reasons of finance and convenience.
Another point:
People frequently associate inappropriate use of the ER with insurance status: I believe this is wrong, and distracting.
When it comes to minor and chronic complaints, the choice of using the ER is based on the actual cost to the user.
People who tend to use the ER for minor and chronic complaints:
Since their options are identical in price, they will take the most convenient choice.
People who don't use the ER for minor and chronic complaints:
Since there are financial ramifications to the decision, these people carefully weight the cost/benefit ratio of going to the ER.
These choices are made based on simple economics, not loftier questions of right and wrong. The only way to change the behavior is to change the economics.