Thread: Health Care Forever, and for Free

Health Care Forever, and for Free, at Scripps Chula Vista

Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:00 am | Updated: 10:55 am, Mon Jul 16, 2012.
by Scott Lewis

Every year I get the email. It's a notice of how much our employees' health care premiums are going to rise. This year, our chief financial officer came with a suggestion that we switch. Our health care costs were going up 15 percent if we didn't find another option.

We did. Thankfully.

Not long after the switch, I had lunch with Chris Van Gorder, the CEO of Scripps Health, which runs hospitals across the county.

He told me a story that blew my mind.

In 2006, a man walked into the emergency department at Scripps Mercy Hospital in Chula Vista.

He had gangrene. His blood sugar was out of control. He had diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. Previous doctors had already amputated a leg.

One more thing: He did not have insurance or any way to pay Scripps.

It's now 2012 and, $1.8 million later, Scripps is still taking care of him. They never could find a way to cut him loose to a safe environment.

We got his permission to talk about his case but with the stipulation that I not disclose his name.

That story troubled me. So I called the CEO of Sharp HealthCare, Mike Murphy, to see if he had anything similar.

He offered a different but stunning observation.

Murphy said that, last year, 4,745 people walked into emergency departments at Sharp HealthCare facilities in San Diego. They all had no way of paying. No insurance at all. No government support.

They all had one more thing in common: They had a medical issue that required Sharp to admit them for further treatment as inpatients. In other words, the emergency department wasn't enough.

And just like Scripps' notorious patient, Sharp could not release these people without taking care of them.

For those of you worried about the prospect of this country guaranteeing health care to everyone, and how much that would cost, I hate to break it to you, but we already do guarantee it.

It's called EMTALA, short for the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in 1986. It's regularly cited as one of the greatest unfunded mandates our government ever passed.

EMTALA mandates not only that hospitals take care of anyone who enters their emergency departments — anyone — but that they not discharge those patients unless they're safe and stable.

"It is the ultimate safety net," said Dr. Jim Dunford, who is the city of San Diego's medical director and a leader of UC San Diego's emergency medicine efforts.

It is a safety net, and it's an expensive one.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited it in the opinion that recently upheld crucial aspects of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature health care reform effort.

He noted that federal and state laws require hospitals to provide care to people without regard to their ability to pay. Hospitals, he wrote, end up only collecting money for a portion of the services they provide.

Yet they still provide those services.

"To recoup their losses," Roberts wrote, "hospitals pass on the cost to insurers through higher rates, and insurers in turn pass on the cost to policy holders in the form of higher premiums."

And hence to me, as I gulp at our employees' health care bill.

The numbers really are brutal. In 2011, Sharp Healthcare had to give $287 million in so-called "uncompensated care." For Scripps, the number was $268 million. For UCSD? $80 million.

Uncompensated care is a bit of a misnomer. The hospitals don't just absorb that loss and pout. Not all of it.

They have people to pay. Doctors aren't cheap and their supply is controlled.

No, they pass those costs onto people with insurance. It's an unfair burden for employers committed to providing health care to their employees. It certainly doesn't make it easier to hire people.

I know, the world of health care costs is complicated, and full of lunacy. Some people much more intelligent than I have explored it.

In fact, one of the best pieces of journalism I've ever read came from an exploration into this issue.

But let's be clear about something: The uninsured are getting health care. It's through emergency departments at local hospitals.

It's a terrible way to manage their care. It often catches problems too late, making the care more expensive. It is just not the way to keep people healthy.

"If we don't reform it and we continue to have the hospitals absorb this and have people come to the ER as their primary care place, we can't take care of them cost effectively, and it will eventually compromise hospitals' ability to maintain services for people who do pay," Murphy, from Scripps, told me.

The answer that Obama came to, and the one former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came to before him, was to require everyone to get health insurance.

Under Obama's reform, the federal government will stop paying hospitals as much as it does now for the Medicare and Medicaid patients hospitals treat. Hospitals are OK with that because they're banking on the fact that, if more people are insured, they'll make up the difference.

At the same time, as more individuals buy insurance outside of their employers, they'll be able to shop easier than even a small organization like mine can.

Perhaps this will put a downward pressure on prices.

That's the theory, anyway. I'll know, in coming years, when I receive those emails about our premium prices, whether it worked.

I'm Scott Lewis, the CEO of Voice of San Diego. Please contact me if you'd like at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0527

Health Care Forever, and for Free, at Scripps Chula Vista - Voice of San Diego: Economy

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

This is how illegal aliens get free medical care.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)^[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.^[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.^[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.^{[citation needed]} The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,^[3] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.^[4][5]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.^[6] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."^[7] Charity Care or care provided to the uninsured represent an industry average of 20% of total cost of care provided^{[citation needed]}. The uncompensated or non-reimbursed amounts are written off as bad debt thus becoming a tax write off and the unpaid bills are also sold to third party collection agencies for an average of 20 cents per dollar^{[citation needed]}. However, health insurance reimbursements for services provided have continually been reduced by the health insurance companies^{[citation needed]}. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for services have also been reduced^{[citation needed]}. However, EMTALA is independent of the payers, EMTALA is not similar to bad debt or charity care that MANY not-for-profit hospitals enjoy. However, the number of emergency room clinics, or emergency rooms not attached to a traditional hospital, have increased, as they are generally more efficient and cost less to operate than a traditional hospital-based emergency room^{[citation needed]}. There is debate^{[by whom?]} about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.

[edit] Mandated and non-mandated care

Congress passed EMTALA to combat the practice of "patient dumping," i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency "and a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition." ^[1]
The U.S. government defines an emergency department as "a specially equipped and staffed area of the hospital used a significant portion of the time for initial evaluation and treatment of outpatients for emergency medical conditions."^{[citation needed]} This means, for example, that outpatient clinics not equipped to handle medical emergencies are not obligated under EMTALA and can simply refer patients to a nearby emergency department for care.^[8]
An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.^[8]
Though patients treated under EMTALA may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs, they are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law.
[edit] Non-covered medical conditions

Not all medical problems are covered by EMTALA, meaning that a person cannot assume that if they are ill, they will be treated. Specifically, EMTALA does not cover non-emergency situations. The hospital is allowed to determine that there is no emergency, using their normal screening procedure, and then refuse EMTALA treatment[1].
[edit] Examples of conditions not considered emergencies by courts or hospitals

A significant portion of emergency room visits are considered not emergencies as defined by EMTALA, and are therefore not covered[2]. The medical profession refers to these cases as "non-emergent".

• A normal pregnancy delivery. In a case reviewed by courts, EMTALA did not cover the hospital stay[3].
• Opioid withdrawal [4]
• fever, elevated white blood cell count and a possible abscess [5]

If a patient is already in the hospital for another reason, and develops an emergency condition, EMTALA similarly does not apply[6].
[edit] Billing of EMTALA mandated treatment

EMTALA does not preclude the hospital from attempting to bill a patient for their care once the emergency care has been delivered[7]. In practice, hospitals may be unable to recover funds from indigent patients, who they are still required to treat. However for patients who can be identified and traced, billing is normal, contrary to common myth. Indeed, hospitals are mostly federally-funded and mostly not-for-profit, both of which stipulate the emphasis on making care accessible to all populations.
[edit] Hospital obligations

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once they have stabilized the patient to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

[edit] Amendments

Since its original passage, Congress has passed amendments to this act. Additionally, state and local laws in some places have imposed additional requirements on hospitals. These amendments include:

• A patient is defined as "stable," therefore ending a hospital's EMTALA obligations, if:
  
  • The patient is conscious, alert, and oriented.
  • The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient or representative, and all potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening symptoms discovered by hospital staff, has been ascertained to the best of the hospital's ability.
  • Any conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening have been treated to the best of the hospital's ability to ensure the patient does not need further inpatient care.
  • The patient is able to care for himself or herself, with or without special equipment, which if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
    
    • Breathing
    • Feeding
    • Mobility
    • Dressing
    • Personal hygiene
    • Toileting
    • Medicating
    • Communication
    
    
  • Another competent person is available and able to meet the patient's needs following discharge.
  
  
• All patients have EMTALA rights equally, regardless of age, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, residence, citizenship, or legal status. If patient's status is found to be illegal, hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to completion of care, though law enforcement and hospital security may take necessary action to prevent a patient from escaping or harming others. Treatment may only be delayed as needed to prevent patients from harming themselves or others.
• Overloaded hospitals may not discharge a patient unable to pay to make room for a patient who is able to pay or is otherwise viewed by society as a more valued citizen. If the emergency room is overloaded, patients must be treated in an order based on their determined medical needs, not their ability to pay.
• Hospitals may not deny or provide substandard services to a patient who already has outstanding debt to the hospital, and may not withhold the patient's belongings, records, or other required services until the patient pays.
• Hospitals and related services cannot receive a judgment against the patient in court filings made more than 36 months after the date the patient was discharged, or the last partial payment the patient made to the hospital, contractor, or agent. After that period, the patient may not be threatened with legal action if payment is not made, and may not be denied future outpatient services from the same company/agency that a patient is able to pay.
• If a patient has been awarded monetary damages against the hospital or any related or affiliated services by a court of law, or has settled out of court on damages, the hospital and related/affiliated services may not withhold monies due to lack of payment, or count the money toward the bill in lieu of making payment to the patient. Voluntary consent for such an arrangement is permitted only if initiated by the patient. Hospitals may not threaten or coerce a patient into such a settlement, or mislead the patient into believing such an arrangement is required or recommended.
• Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
• A hospital cannot delay treatment while determining whether someone can pay or is insured but that does not mean they are completely forbidden from asking or running a credit check. If the patient doesn't pay the bill, the hospital can sue the patient and the unsatisfied judgment will likely appear on the patient's credit report. A 3rd-party collector for a hospital bill would be covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
• Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
• Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
• Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
• Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.

[edit] EMTALA's effect

[edit] Improved health services for uninsured

The most significant effect is that, regardless of insurance status, participating hospitals cannot deny urgent medical assistance. Currently EMTALA only requires that hospitals stabilize the emergency. According to some analyses of the U.S. health care safety net, EMTALA is an incomplete and strained program.^[9][10]
[edit] Cost pressures on hospitals

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.^[11] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.^[12] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.^[12]
However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and end up writing off more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,^[11] but it is unclear what percentage of this was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.
Financial pressures on hospitals in the 20 years since EMTALA's passage have caused them to consolidate and close facilities, contributing to emergency room overcrowding. According to the Institute of Medicine, between 1993 and 2003, emergency room visits in the U.S. grew by 26 percent, while in the same period, the number of emergency departments declined by 425.^[13] Ambulances are frequently diverted from overcrowded emergency departments to other hospitals that may be farther away. In 2003, ambulances were diverted over a half a million times, not necessarily due to patients' inability to pay.<sup>[13]

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</sup>