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.”
HA! Try THAT with socialized health care!
#95 – pedro,
#94 I think
Really? I haven’t seen much evidence of it.
#97 – MikeN,
Scott, it is basic math. If the population is aging, and this is the part that uses more health care, then you can expect higher costs.
Giving up on your 10-12 million claim?
As for your basic math, yes. It will increase costs, all else being equal. However, by taking the entire rest of the population and reducing costs, I don’t see how all else is equal. You are still only talking about one segment of the population. I’m not even sure it’s the biggest in terms of cost. Possibly. But, what about prenatal, OB/GYN, child health care, etc.?
What if, through good health care, we can reduce the costs on the rest of the population? Would that not have an effect as well? Is that too not basic math?
# 103 Misanthropic Scott said, “I don’t. ”
Good, so you don’t oppose a system where participation and paying is voluntary. Cool, you’re the 1st proponent I’ve encountered that thinks that way.
#98 – MikeN,
I’ll grant you the 9 million non-citizens. I haven’t read the census report thoroughly enough to see where they are in the report. Also, I would think that we should provide care for them, but that’s just my liberal bent.
Still though 37 million without health care for even part of the year is a lot. Those who can “theoretically afford health care but choose not to buy it”, are likely choosing food over medical care. Is that really a choice?
Those without health care, even for only part of the year, still face bankruptcy if they get sick.
I’ll stick with the census number. But, at least I understand your point now. I’ll respectfully disagree with it though.
Oh, and sorry I replied to 97 before noticing 98.
#100 – Troll-e-o,
# 96 Misanthropic Scott said, “I am willing to pay more taxes for health care.”
YOU are willing. Keep dodging the issue of confiscating others money. You sound very funny. Can’t answer simple questions because you know what it would make you out to be. LOL
I’m not dodging anything. I said where I think the money should come from. You still have not stated how paying taxes for health care makes you a slave but paying taxes for corporate welfare, or even in the case of the military industrial complex corporate warfare, does not.
Stop drooling on your chin. You look silly that way.
So, tell me exactly how many IRS people had to show up at your door last April 15th with guns to get you to cough up your taxes? How many will it take this year? Then tell me why you are willing to pay for public school but not public health care, assuming you are. Or, tell me you think we don’t need schools, if you really believe that.
#106 – Paddy-O,
# 103 Misanthropic Scott said, “I don’t. ”
Good, so you don’t oppose a system where participation and paying is voluntary. Cool, you’re the 1st proponent I’ve encountered that thinks that way.
I guess after the way I just responded to pedro, I really shouldn’t call you an ass for this post. But, at the risk of a pot/kettle moment, I will anyway. Ass.
#109 LOL!
Trying to get a liberal to give a straight answer to a VERY simple question is like herding cats. Is it part of the mental illness that goes along with the belief system?
#110, 108, Paddy-troll,
You’re a liberal now?
Funny I went ten years without any health insurance. I didn’t consider myself ‘in crisis’ or choosing food instead of health care. It was a risk I felt worth taking. THe new HSA plans look good, and I’ll probably take one of those.
#97, Lyin’ Mike,
Scott, it is basic math. If the population is aging, and this is the part that uses more health care, then you can expect higher costs.
Mike, it is basic math. If Americans pay $X every year towards health care then why would it matter if that $X goes towards a bloated private, poorly run system or a government run efficient system. We are still paying $X. The only difference for your pocket would be where that contribution goes.
Before you claim that the government would only waste the money, think again. Currently 25 to 35% of health care dollars go into bureaucracy and profit. Ontario Canada’s health care program runs with less than 1% overhead and NO profit. That alone would pay for all those without insurance and the under insured.
As for the aging population, regardless of who is paying, they will still be there. The difference is as they retire, someone other than their private insurance company is going to have to cover them. So while the private insurers get the more healthy (and profitable) younger clients, the government has to pay for the older, more expensive people. Now that is a neo-con ideology if there ever was one.
#117 – pedro,
You’re probably right about that (and little else).
With the exception of the United States, every developed democratic nation in the world has some form of universal health care, as does most of the developing world. In fact, the only two countries I can name without it are the U.S. and Mexico.
Anyone else have list of the nations that still have only private health care? I’ve been unable to find one. Perhaps because it would make for extremely light reading.
#119 – pedro,
Well, if that’s your standard, then we also already have government run health care. Next time you’re in NYC and in need of a hospital, Check out Bellevue; I think it’ll be every bit as good as Mexico’s hospitals … and not much better.
Either way, by your standard, you’ve already lost. We have that level of government health care and more with medicare and medicaid.
Solving the problem of ED abuse (whether intentional or not) is very difficult. Patients over utilize an ED for a variety of reasons such as mental illness, drug abuse/diversion, no insurance, no primary physician, and a lack of understanding of the function of an ED (i.e. thinking that having a cold warrants going to the ED). Talking about sending ED power users away or denying them service is not realistic because 1) EDs are required by law to treat all patients 2) that does not help those who do have problems (like mental illness). Furthermore, as everyone is aware, discussion like that gets very politically charged and tends to just turn into a flame fest. The key is finding the appropriate treatment for these patients. For some patients (those who purposefully abuse the ED to get narcotics) that means treating them with out narcotics; for those that are with out insurance that may mean getting them signed up for Medicaid; for others that are mentally ill it may mean getting them in touch with the appropriate social services. Unfortunately, this is much easier said then done and EDs often do not have the technology or proper understanding of the problem to implement effective solutions.
However, EDs are awakening to the problems of patient over utilization. My company, Collective Medical Technologies, has been working on this very issue with several hospitals in the state of Washing. We are seeing very promising results in both reducing non-emergent/abusive visits to the ED as well as getting the appropriate treatment to patients. In some cases we have been able to reduce visits by 60% (and this is without denying a single patient treatment or service).
Adam Green
President
Collective Medical Technologies
http://www.collectivemedicaltech.com
Having trouble with literacy pedro?
http://tinyurl.com/djn7b8
Also:
Try again pedro; perhaps in a country with socialized medicine they could do a brain transplant to replace your defective one.