Part 2 of his Dr. February interview:
The ER is a huge money drain on the hospitals because of paltry reimbursements (Remember, EMTALA is an unfunded mandate.) Thus, it is the aim of the hospital administrators to limit the loss as much as they can. Since they can’t control the patient census, they’ll go after the ED physician’s reimbursements. Very, very, very few ED’s are profitable for the hospitals. As a result you approach the bargaining table already in a hole.
Related posts:
- Charity hospitals cherry-picking patients?
- The hospital arms race continues
- "The days of the wealthy physician are over"
- Is a hospital bailout coming?
- The Impact of Killing & How to Prepare the Soldier
- Cockroaches in the OR
- Religion and charity care
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Boo hoo.
The ER isn’t as big of a money drain as you think for most hospitals, though. The department may show a loss, but net of downstream revenue (ancillaries ordered in the ER, admits, etc.), the situation can be quite profitable.
Don’t believe the hype from the management team.
Because of the medico-legal environment we’ve got, ER docs will be more likely to admit.
Soft admits are the most profitable admits of all.
I agree that there’s a point at which the amount of charity care provided eventually depletes these additional margins.
ER docs, however, don’t stand to lose nearly as much as the primary care docs. Not to mention the fact that there are often additional subsidies to ER physician groups precisely to offset this impact–fees for being a subcontracted group.
Forgive me (or not…I don’t really care)–but the ER is still a relatively sheltered economic environment compared to the rest of us (esp. primary care, where we’re not talking about just reimbursement cuts affecting income, but rather our immediate viability).
(P.S.–Anesthesia and Radiology have the same complaints. Metastatic effects post-admission. And no sympathy from the rest of us.)
Comments on this entry are closed.