Skip to comments.Washington To Limit Medicaid Emergency Room Visits
Posted on 10/02/2011 6:25:01 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state is preparing to limit Medicaid coverage of emergency room visits for non-emergency care.
State officials have notified clients that they will get coverage for only three of those visits each year starting Saturday. Additional visits will not be covered, and patients may be billed for that care.
(Excerpt) Read more at khq.com ...
And so it begins.
too many use the emergency room for the doctor’s office
Waste of money to pay postage to mail a bill. They aren’t going to pay anyway. This is just going to hasten the bankrupcy of more hospitals.
And why should ANY non-emergency visits be covered?
You are absolutely right about that! I have worked ER’s in several states, and in every one, we were bogged down with non-emergency patients who we had to see regardless..........Fear of litigation ran deep.
In many areas there is no none emergency medical care available on weekends and after 5 PM. If the government
wants to deal with something deal with this obvious flaw!
none = non
Bill all you want, they won’t pay it. If they are illegal, or on welfare, or unemployed, there’s not much that can be done.
To fix it, the hospitals need to set up triage nurses at the door. Do not let these people register or make it to the waiting room. If the problem is determined to be non-emergent, call their MD and make an appointment for them for when the MD can see them and send them on the way. Before they get in the hospital to even sit down.
Our hospital will receive 32 million dollars less this year due to Medicaid cuts. We will still have to provide the care, but we just won't get paid. These Medicaid/medicare cuts in no way stop these people from receiving care. It stops hospitals and doctors from getting paid for care they provide as stipulated by the law and medical ethics.
Isn’t it interesting that a northern, liberal, supposedly more “enlightened” state would attempt this!?
Why should taxpayers be on the hook for a ten year war? I hate paying for a losing battle. I much rather pay for someone’s health than a soldier’s death. I also don’t like paying for aid to Pakistan or the Palestinians. We don’t have much say in where our tax money goes.
That is why doctors are suing - they want to get paid.
Many Medicaid recipients use the ER for their family doctor because Medicaid pays for the ER but not office visits. Down in my part of Texas, one hospital put up a sign: “If your illness is not deemed an Emergency, you must pay a $50 charge before being seen by a physician.” That cleaned out the Emergency Room.
So what if they will be billed. They aren’t going to pay. They would as soon owe $600 for a emergency room visit as $100 for an office visit.
It’s not their money. What do they care?
A couple years ago there was a story around here about people that were on medicaid using the emergency room hundreds of times.
For stuff like a stubbed toe.
None of these people paid anything for their visit.
You know what? After seeing bills for $12 for a bandaid, boo hoo to the hospital
That’s the reasoning alright
Yep, that will do it. People always overuse what they don’t have to pay for.
I don’t object to this, this is medicaid. Some have no choice but there are plenty of others on medicaid that have gamed the system and shouldn’t be on it anyway.
Actually, turning them away is a Federal crime.
Lawsuits are a minor problem, compared to EMTALA.
Took my mother in law to a hospital emergency room in Allentown,Pa. last Feb. I sat there from 5:00 PM til midnight & saw a constant parade of whole families that did not speak english go in for treatment of colds.(alleged colds) You hear about this stuff but it is a shock when you see it. There were no questions asked they just let them in. We pay for this crap. It needs to be changed as we all know.
Pay for your generosity with your own money. Not mine :-)
What services and medical costs does Medicaid cover?
Medicaid will pay for the services listed below. Some people are required to pay copayments for starred(*) services.
ç Doctor visits/services *
ç Hospital services (Limits apply) *
ç Lab and X-ray
ç Dental care (Limits apply) *
ç Eye care (Limits apply) *
ç Prescribed Drugs
If more folks had skin in the game, they’d be far less likely to abuse the system. Our health insurance, for example, has a low three figure co-pay for ER visits. Even if we were inclined to abuse the ER, that co-pay would ensure that we don’t.
That’s my point. We don’t get to decide how our tax money is spent.
***Who determines what an emergency is?***
Since hospitals will lose money with this limitation - perhaps they will organize ‘out-patient’ clinics for minor complaints, rather than clog up the ER beds & facilities.
Liberals will shelve this by asserting discrimination against ILLEGALS.
What percentage of your county’s budget goes to meet its Medicaid obligation?
I get medical care at our local health department. Usually I am one of maybe three non-Spanish patients. Like being in a foreign country. Are they here legally? Who knows?
You obviously haven’t ridden in a cab lately!
“”State officials have notified clients that they will get coverage for only three of those visits each year starting Saturday. Additional visits will not be covered, and patients may be billed for that care.””
The only reasons I can imagine a person would need to visit the emergency room more than three times per year is:
1. Overdosing on illegal drugs.
2. Bullet or knife wounds from illegal actions.
It seems Washington needs to toss some Medicaid patients into the slammer.
My Father-in-Law is a Dentist in WA State. His fees and services are highly dictated by the State and Insurance companies and it's nearly driving him out of business. He has not been able to raise his fees enough to keep up with his cost of running his office. He has said that he always wanted to have his own business, but he feels like he is now an employee of the State.
That would be interesting. If you want ER care, you have to first pass a drug test. Would probably clear out the ER real quick.
***To fix it, the hospitals need to set up triage nurses at the door. Do not let these people register or make it to the waiting room. If the problem is determined to be non-emergent, call their MD and make an appointment for them for when the MD can see them and send them on the way. Before they get in the hospital to even sit down.***
I hope you have presented your brilliant idea to the Hospital trustees;) Common sense and practical. If the patients don’t already have an MD - the hospital should have an ‘outpatient’ area staffed with PAs and rotating GPs.
The upswing in “urgent care centers’ is clearly the best way to solve Emergency Room abuse.
I imagine it will get worse once Obamacare really kicks in.
IBD poll: 45% of doctors would consider quitting under Obamacare
Tell him to move to Texas.
For those who are on welfare, instead of billing, simply deduct the amount from their next month's welfare or food stamp allocation. But that would make to much sense and would be too effective, so the lawyers would bar that.
Bigger TV, nicer chairs, vending machines right down the hall, someone to pick up after the kids when they toss their trash on the floor. I recently saw a family of gypsys that had pretty much overtaken every waiting room on the entire floor. They were there for days while one of their elders was being treated.
They had a tableful of grocerybags, and a big crockpot set up in one of the waiting rooms. My family had to go to another floor of the hospital to find a quiet place to rest.
“Actually, turning them away is a Federal crime.”
“Lawsuits are a minor problem, compared to EMTALA.”
What follows is a serious proposition (not sarcasm or a joke):
Why not “subscription-only” hospitals WITHOUT “emergency rooms”?
That is, a hospital that is purpose-built to serve ONLY those who are pre-enrolled in medical plans, either through third-party insurers or perhaps through a “direct-paid” subscription from individuals/families (kind of like “concierge” doctors)?
Like the line from “Field of Dreams”:
“If you built it, they will come.”
Turn this around:
“If you DON’T build it, they WON’T come.”
That is to say, provide extensive medical services withOUT handling emergencies, and they will have no choice but to go somewhere else.
What does the law say about that?
A CEO at a New England hospital stated a number of years ago that “85% of the trips to the Emergency Room really weren’t emergencies.” I’m not sure whether he was talking about his specific hospital or some sort of regional average, though...
About two months ago on a Saturday morning my daughter and son in law were told by the pediatrician to bring my granddaughter to the ER. Unbeknownst to the doctor and my daughter the hours for the ER on Saturday and Sunday had been changed to noon to 5 only. No doctors or nurses available. All kinds of people there bleeding, moaning, one kid had blood dripping from his head. They were all told to either sit there til noon or come back at noon. None of them were seen or registered to be seen. Hospital security was there to make sure people didn't complain too loudly. My granddaughter ended up being taken to another ER on the other side of town. They were in and out in three hours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.