Emergency Room Visits

[packinpatland]

Why does an average ER visit cost $1000?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_re_us/frequent_er_patients

AUSTIN, Texas – Just nine people accounted for nearly 2,700 of the emergency room visits in the Austin area during the past six years at a cost of $3 million to taxpayers and others, according to a report. The patients went to hospital emergency rooms 2,678 times from 2003 through 2008, said the report from the nonprofit Integrated Care Collaboration, a group of health care providers who care for low-income and uninsured patients.

"What we're really trying to do is find out who's using our emergency rooms ... and find solutions," said Ann Kitchen, executive director of the group, which presented the report last week to the Travis County Healthcare District board.

The average emergency room visit costs $1,000. Hospitals and taxpayers paid the bill through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Kitchen said.

Eight of the nine patients have drug abuse problems, seven were diagnosed with mental health issues and three were homeless. Five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50, the report said, the Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday.

"It's a pretty significant issue," said Dr. Christopher Ziebell, chief of the emergency department at University Medical Center at Brackenridge, which has the busiest ERs in the area.

Solutions include referring some frequent users to mental health programs or primary care doctors for future care, Ziebell said.

"They have a variety of complaints," he said. With mental illness, "a lot of anxiety manifests as chest pain."

[Freak Out]

700,000 people in the US filed for personnel bankruptcy last year because of medical bills. The head lobbyist for the medical insurance industry admitted that she would be unable to get any coverage by her groups standard if she had to find coverage as an individual.

We could go on all day about the need for some kind of coverage reform but the ghost of Ayn Rand would rise up and scold us and it's an un-American activity to begin with. Drop it.

[swede]

The ER staff gets paid whether someone gets medical attention or not.

The hourly cost of two docs and eight nurses easily approaches $1,000 an hour, and somebody somehow has to foot that bill.

The problem in the health care system is obvious: every instance of medical attention received by a person becomes an opportunity for a clinic or a hospital (and the corporations which own them), receptionists, medical secretaries, nurses, physicians, in-clinic insurance secretaries, an army of insurance clerks outside the clinic, and a huge insurance company to swoop down and grab money.

The governments' answer to the health care question is: Why the heck aren't WE in on this deal?

The real solution has receded far beyond the horizon, and it would be a long journey back. All medical care should be privately purchased from public or private hospitals. It is only this way which reduces the number of open hands that get stuck out when Joe needs to see his proctologist.

[hoosier]

The ER staff gets paid whether someone gets medical attention or not.

The hourly cost of two docs and eight nurses easily approaches $1,000 an hour, and somebody somehow has to foot that bill.

The problem in the health care system is obvious: every instance of medical attention received by a person becomes an opportunity for a clinic or a hospital (and the corporations which own them), receptionists, medical secretaries, nurses, physicians, in-clinic insurance secretaries, an army of insurance clerks outside the clinic, and a huge insurance company to swoop down and grab money.

The governments' answer to the health care question is: Why the heck aren't WE in on this deal?

The real solution has receded far beyond the horizon, and it would be a long journey back. All medical care should be privately purchased from public or private hospitals. It is only this way which reduces the number of open hands that get stuck out when Joe needs to see his proctologist.

Three questions:
The one big innovation in your solution seems to be cutting out insurance companies. Who's going to be in charge of telling the insurance companies to pack their bags?

The unspoken assumption of your real solution is that it addresses those who can afford to purchase medicare care. What do you propose to do about those who cannot?

Eliminating insurance would certainly have some effect on the cost of health care, as some percentage (not sure exactly how much) of current health care costs go to pay the actuarial, risk-benefit calculations that all insurance companies do. But is this the best solution for addressing rising health care expenses? Are you sure that the elimination of insurance companies (as if there were an easy way to do that) wouldn't usher in a bunch of other problems that insurance companies currently help to keep under control, such as medical practices having built in incentives to order high-cost procedures (whether necessary or not) using their own labs and scanners?

[swede]

The ER staff gets paid whether someone gets medical attention or not.

The hourly cost of two docs and eight nurses easily approaches $1,000 an hour, and somebody somehow has to foot that bill.

The problem in the health care system is obvious: every instance of medical attention received by a person becomes an opportunity for a clinic or a hospital (and the corporations which own them), receptionists, medical secretaries, nurses, physicians, in-clinic insurance secretaries, an army of insurance clerks outside the clinic, and a huge insurance company to swoop down and grab money.

The governments' answer to the health care question is: Why the heck aren't WE in on this deal?

The real solution has receded far beyond the horizon, and it would be a long journey back. All medical care should be privately purchased from public or private hospitals. It is only this way which reduces the number of open hands that get stuck out when Joe needs to see his proctologist.

Three questions:
The one big innovation in your solution seems to be cutting out insurance companies. Who's going to be in charge of telling the insurance companies to pack their bags?

The unspoken assumption of your real solution is that it addresses those who can afford to purchase medicare care. What do you propose to do about those who cannot?

Eliminating insurance would certainly have some effect on the cost of health care, as some percentage (not sure exactly how much) of current health care costs go to pay the actuarial, risk-benefit calculations that all insurance companies do. But is this the best solution for addressing rising health care expenses? Are you sure that the elimination of insurance companies (as if there were an easy way to do that) wouldn't usher in a bunch of other problems that insurance companies currently help to keep under control, such as medical practices having built in incentives to order high-cost procedures (whether necessary or not) using their own labs and scanners?

What I propose to do is to watch to see how the Obama administration proposes to fix the problems caused by a subcutaneous layer of insurance blubber sucking up money from the honest delivery of health care. They are the miracle workers...aren't they? And they did campaign on a platform of summoning government to get involved in health care by creating more regulation, more coercion, and hellacious new taxes. Or was it hope and change?

Like any addicted society...we won't recover from our big government addiction until we reach rock bottom.

On the bright side, Obama is delivering rock bottom more quickly than I expected.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The ER staff gets paid whether someone gets medical attention or not.

The hourly cost of two docs and eight nurses easily approaches $1,000 an hour, and somebody somehow has to foot that bill.

The problem in the health care system is obvious: every instance of medical attention received by a person becomes an opportunity for a clinic or a hospital (and the corporations which own them), receptionists, medical secretaries, nurses, physicians, in-clinic insurance secretaries, an army of insurance clerks outside the clinic, and a huge insurance company to swoop down and grab money.

The governments' answer to the health care question is: Why the heck aren't WE in on this deal?

The real solution has receded far beyond the horizon, and it would be a long journey back. All medical care should be privately purchased from public or private hospitals. It is only this way which reduces the number of open hands that get stuck out when Joe needs to see his proctologist.

While the ER docs get paid..those who are on call and brought in aren't.

Pay for service? You are absolutely insane.

While you are at it...why don't cancel all your insurance policies...after all, you should just privately pay for repairs to your house, yes?

Lead us into the future Swede. It will be a glorious dystopia!!!

[hoosier]

The ER staff gets paid whether someone gets medical attention or not.

The hourly cost of two docs and eight nurses easily approaches $1,000 an hour, and somebody somehow has to foot that bill.

The problem in the health care system is obvious: every instance of medical attention received by a person becomes an opportunity for a clinic or a hospital (and the corporations which own them), receptionists, medical secretaries, nurses, physicians, in-clinic insurance secretaries, an army of insurance clerks outside the clinic, and a huge insurance company to swoop down and grab money.

The governments' answer to the health care question is: Why the heck aren't WE in on this deal?

The real solution has receded far beyond the horizon, and it would be a long journey back. All medical care should be privately purchased from public or private hospitals. It is only this way which reduces the number of open hands that get stuck out when Joe needs to see his proctologist.

Three questions:
The one big innovation in your solution seems to be cutting out insurance companies. Who's going to be in charge of telling the insurance companies to pack their bags?

The unspoken assumption of your real solution is that it addresses those who can afford to purchase medicare care. What do you propose to do about those who cannot?

Eliminating insurance would certainly have some effect on the cost of health care, as some percentage (not sure exactly how much) of current health care costs go to pay the actuarial, risk-benefit calculations that all insurance companies do. But is this the best solution for addressing rising health care expenses? Are you sure that the elimination of insurance companies (as if there were an easy way to do that) wouldn't usher in a bunch of other problems that insurance companies currently help to keep under control, such as medical practices having built in incentives to order high-cost procedures (whether necessary or not) using their own labs and scanners?

What I propose to do is to watch to see how the Obama administration proposes to fix the problems caused by a subcutaneous layer of insurance blubber sucking up money from the honest delivery of health care. They are the miracle workers...aren't they? And they did campaign on a platform of summoning government to get involved in health care by creating more regulation, more coercion, and hellacious new taxes. Or was it hope and change?

Like any addicted society...we won't recover from our big government addiction until we reach rock bottom.

On the bright side, Obama is delivering rock bottom more quickly than I expected.

That's more like it: the minority always does better--or almost always--when it sticks to its critical role of responding to the majority's proposals and pointing out their weaknesses. For a moment, though, it sounded like you were about to jump right in with the Republicans' "alternative budget" and start making proposals yourself. I'm sure you would have done better than they did. :lol: