VENT: Shock at ER visit cost

[sandyfeet]

Today there was an article in the LA Times about the different prices hospitals charge Medicare in Southern California. To open the article, a mom shared a story of taking her child to the ER for a dog bite to the finger. The article states the kid's injury "wasn't too serious" but "the pediatrician's office had just closed, and the local urgent care hadn't yet opened". So she took him to the ER, and was shocked at how expensive x-rays, bandages, etc were.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but....ugh! Seriously?!? You thought emergency care would be a cost-effective means of treating an injury you considered non-serious and thus NOT an emergency? You think the hospital that was prepared to treat traumas/MI's/strokes over-charged you for taking staff away from real emergencies to treat your son because you couldn't wait for the urgent care to open? I feel like the article totally missed the boat by making this look like a normal ER visit, and using it to support the idea that hospitals charge whatever they want.

The article in question:

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/5/article/p2p-75848120/

[psu_213, BSN, RN]

To the author of this article: then we will close ERs that you think charge too much. When you or a love one need ER care (and by need, I mean STEMI, respiratory failure, arrest...not a cut on the finger) hope there is one still open near you.

The subject article should be "why do so may people go the ER for unnecessary reasons and then expect the care to be free?" (I could write a lot longer on the subject, but it just adds to that inevitable cynicism.)

Inexplicable prices? What about he cost of a airplane ticket? Quality (not luxurious) healthful food? Motel room for 2 nights? Car insurance? (etc, etc) Certainly not a big deal if the professionals in the ER cannot afford that. Where is the "journalist" (as always, I use the term loosely) to write an article on my behalf?

[Altra, BSN, RN]

Then the LA Times apparently missed the whole point of the release of Medicare data which was national news -- the variation in charges for the same/comparable services among different hospitals, even within a single market/geographic region.

*That* was the news last week ... not the shocking discovery that it is expensive to seek care for a boo boo in an ER which is designed to be ready to crack open your chest at a moment's notice and save your life, if needed.

[Guest219794]

As I write, I am waiting for orders on my healthy 17 year old who banged his butt 2 weeks ago, and it still hurts.

We will probably X-ray it. There is a higher chance that a ceiling tile falls down and injures this kid on the way to xray than us finding something that need an intervention.

At least an hour old dog bite might need something.

OTOH- "She also wonders how the bill could have soared so high for treatment that, except for the X-ray, she basically could have done herself at home" Well, maybe she should have.

Expecting a tylenol to cost the same at the hospital as it does at Walmart is ridiculous. The ER is probably the single most expensive way a person can get a Tylenol. Buying a decent lobster of the boat costs about 5 dollars. I am sure you could pay $100 for that same lobster in an expensive restaurant.

[NurseOnAMotorcycle, ASN, RN]

...OTOH- "She also wonders how the bill could have soared so high for treatment that, except for the X-ray, she basically could have done herself at home" Well, maybe she should have.....

You beat me to it! I went looking for a comment section on the article to say exactly this.

Also, article said this on the side panel:

"Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles charges Medicare an average of $110,123 for a relatively common artificial joint replacement, according to federal data. Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood charges twice that amount. On the other hand, Kaiser's Los Angeles Medical Center charges only $35,524."