This summer, Phil Galewitz of Kaiser Health News wrote an intriguing piece published in The Washington Post about hospitals that market their emergency room services to potential customers. The story narrative seemed out-of-whack with the conventional wisdom about hospital ERs. How many times during the run-up to health reform and during the Great Debate itself did politicos and advocates tell us that reform was necessary to keep people out of the ER, where the cost of care is sky high? Reform, we were told, was going to channel people to cheaper places for medical services. It seemed so logical. Last year, though, there were signs that logic had not won. ER use had not declined in Massachusetts, on whose reform law federal efforts are modeled.
Galewitz’s story was so offbeat and yet so timely that it inspired us to create a new series, “CJR’s Assignment Desk,” where we will feature reporting that can be replicated across the country by local reporters who are trying to tackle health care—sometimes a daunting task in this era of limited journalistic resources. The emergency room disconnect seemed like an ideal candidate for our series debut. This story can be done by good, old-fashioned observation and connecting the dots with what you see. Observation is an important reporting tool that of late has taken a back seat to data mining as the reporter’s technique of choice. Almost every community has a hospital, and most hospitals have emergency rooms. What’s happening with them makes an interesting read, and highlights one reason why health care costs are so difficult, if not impossible, to control.
Galewitz reported that hospitals are using “aggressive marketing of ERs to increase admissions and profits.” What a surprise! That’s the name of the game in the new world of hospital conglomerates: reel in the patients wherever you can find them. Medicaid recipients have been a juicy target, although states have been trying to trim ER visits as a way to cut their Medicaid costs. Anthony Keck, South Carolina’s Medicaid director, told Galewitz: “Many hospitals are actively recruiting people to come to the ER for non-emergency reasons. When you are advertising on billboards that your ER wait time is three minutes, you are not advertising to stroke and heart attack victims.” Are hospitals trying to lure Medicaid patients and others to the ERs to treat them for minor illnesses?
It would seem so. HCA, the country’s largest for-profit hospital chain, launched a major ER marketing campaign in Virginia, Texas, Florida, and other states using billboards and smartphones to tell potential customers—or, rather, patients—the average ER waiting times. So if your child has an earache, you can pick which hospital will see the kid quickest rather than visiting the family doc in the morning. That’s tempting indeed, and while it might be the latest thing in consumer information, it might not be the best thing for the health system.
- 1
- 2
Trudy toes the commie line, as usual: "That’s the name of the game in the new world of hospital conglomerates: reel in [accommodate] the patients wherever you can find them. Medicaid recipients have been a juicy target [satisfied patients], although states have been trying to trim ER visits as a way to cut their Medicaid costs... ....Are hospitals trying to lure [attract] Medicaid patients and others to the ERs to treat them for minor illnesses?"
"Reel in" instead of "accommodate".
"A juicy target" instead of "satisfied patients".
"Lure" instead of "attract"
Ah, the power of loaded language.
Yeah.. The evil hospitals are trying to make evil profits. The HORROR!
Hospital ER's should sit idle until patients the commies deem worthy need services.
Idle ER's.... That's a great use of resources.
Trudy continues: "So if your child has an earache, you can pick which hospital will see the kid quickest rather than visiting the family doc in the morning. That’s tempting indeed, and while it might be the latest thing in consumer information, it might not be the best thing for the health system."
padikiller responds: So Trudy lectures that what's best for the patient isn't the best for the system. Put the interest of the system ahead of the interest of the patients. Make the kid suffer all night for the good of the "system".
This is commie health care in a nutshell.
Time to toll the Reality Bell: The problem isn't the hospitals. They're doing what they are supposed to do - namely treat as many patients as they can. The problem isn't the patients - they're doing right by themselves getting treatment quickly. The PROBLEM is the SYSTEM. The PROBLEM is MEDICAID. It pays for people to go to ER's with earaches. If you want to fix the "system" simply pass a law requiring ER's to turn away these people.
Notice the commies aren't clamoring for this simple fix. Just like they aren't clamoring to limit food stamp purchases to cheap, healthy foods.
Because, as Trudy admits, it isn't about what's best for patients... It's about what's best for the "system".
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 12 Oct 2011 at 12:37 PM
This is the worst possible outcome for healthcare. ER visits can be triple to four times the costs of a regular doctor visit (or even an urgent care). A visit that should cost maybe $120-$180 at an urgent care or less at a doctor's office will end up costing the system $600-$800 with an ER visit. Medicaid patients don't care because they don't bear any brunt of the costs (it's free to them) so they go to the ER for nonurgent symptoms. I work in healthcare. We also have a company called Community Health Systems that purposely increases their inpatient admissions rather than observe them from Medicare and Medicaid patients so that they can be paid more. They did a study where they had 60% more admissions then similar community base hospitals rather than just observe them (observe then release rather then just admit). They have this thing called a 'blue book' for their er doctors that is more lax in care all in the name of profit. They even paid their top officers 40 million dollars this year (up 22% from last year) according to Morningstar compensation even though their stock has tanked from 40 to 17. They are willing to game the system to the detriment of everyone. Similar to the Tenet healthcare fiasco a few years ago with unneccessary heart surgeries in order to improve the bottom line.
#2 Posted by Grace, CJR on Wed 12 Oct 2011 at 01:18 PM
Grace wrote: "Medicaid patients don't care because they don't bear any brunt of the costs (it's free to them) so they go to the ER for nonurgent symptoms"
padikiler responds: Exactly. Just stop paying ER's to treat nonemergency Medicaid patients.
Problem solved.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 12 Oct 2011 at 04:33 PM
I am the Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer of iTriage, the smartphone application mentioned in the article. We at iTriage understand that unnecessary ER visits drive up the cost of healthcare, and our application helps patients determine when it is appropriate to go to a lower cost urgent care or retail clinic. Additionally, through a partnership with the Department of Health and Human services we also help patients find over 7,000 Federally Qualified Health Clinics across the US. These clinics are the primary care and minor acute care safety net for many patients with little or no insurance. Our mission is to help all patients make better healthcare decisions and we have over 30,000 reviews encouraging us and thanking us for this service. iTriage is a free download in the iTunes or Android market and can be used at www.iTriageHealth.com. Take a look and let us know what you think.
#4 Posted by Wayne Guerra, CJR on Thu 13 Oct 2011 at 04:55 PM
Trudy,
I was wondering if they make any special efforts to market to heart patients since cardiac procedures are such a lucrative product line?
#5 Posted by Kat, CJR on Fri 14 Oct 2011 at 11:03 AM
Hospitals all over the country do indeed market their cardiac care for the reason you suggest. It is a lucrative service. A piece I did for CJR in 2007 called "The Epidemic" details how hospitals market lucrative services sometimes working with local TV stations.
#6 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Fri 14 Oct 2011 at 12:09 PM
To me, this sounds like the scam pharmecuticals use to direct customers to pricey drugs. "ask your doctor about Expensor." By employing marketing to drive customers to more expensive products which will not be more effective than inexpensive ones, the costs of the system escalate.
In this situation, it should be made clear to patients that insurance (private and public) will not cover visits that do not satisfy expectations of necessity (is it critical) and availability (are clinics open). This allows hospital ER's to present the options of clinic referral or a charge out of pocket.
Another way of bringing down ER medical costs was covered by Atul Gawande substuting monitored preventative care for frequent emergency room visits:
http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande
Cities focused on reducing ER costs should look into sponsoring that model, and perhaps sponsoring one visit every three to six months for general population Medicare patients. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure they say.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 14 Oct 2011 at 01:43 PM
Flying Pig Moment: "In this situation, it should be made clear to patients that insurance (private and public) will not cover visits that do not satisfy expectations of necessity (is it critical) and availability (are clinics open)."
padikiller responds: Aside from his standard commie insistence that private insurers should be compelled to do anything.... Thimbles is saying what I said about Medicaid...
Stop paying ER's to treat earaches. End of problem.
Mama Foodstamp will have to take her brood to cheaper places if she wants the gubmint to pay for her kids' non-emergency medical care.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 14 Oct 2011 at 02:39 PM
Thanks Trudy-- I actually was referring to making sure they funneled heart attack patients to their ER.
It just seems to me every time you turn around here one of our hospitals is opening up a new "state of the art" heart center so I was thinking these hospitals probably like to make sure they came through their ER.
Those press releases disguised as news stories on the local news are so infuriating. They're worse than a medication commercial because at the very least, those have to have disclaimers!
Thanks for bringing to light the ways that hospitals use aggressive marketing that can work against the public interest. It seems to me that when discussing drivers of health care costs, many leave out the hospital component.
#9 Posted by Kat, CJR on Fri 14 Oct 2011 at 03:38 PM
Kat:
Hospital care accounts for about one-third of the total health care expenditures. And yes, reporters who are beginning to cover hospitals as part of their regular beats need to talk more about their role in the country's health care costs.
#10 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Mon 17 Oct 2011 at 03:52 PM