A borderline admission from the ER, or not

A woman on Medicaid is newly diagnosed with lung cancer in the emergency department. Although medically stable, should she be admitted to facilitate the coordination of the care she will require?

That’s a question emergency physician Jesse Pines asks in a recent WSJ op-ed. In the end, despite the resistance of the admitting hospitalist, he admitted the patient. Dr. Pines writes that, “Without expert help, arranging a timely, multi-step outpatient work-up for something serious can be a full-time job even for patients with private insurance. For those with Medicaid, it’s an even greater challenge. Some doctors will not treat Medicaid patients, which pays less than private insurance, and those who do often have long waiting times for appointments.”

He notes, correctly, that primary care doctors often do not have the time or incentive to properly coordinate care with specialists. So the words, “discharge from the emergency room, follow-up with your PCP,” can be largely meaningless to patients, and “sometimes puts them in the same position they were in when they arrived: adrift, with no doctor steering the ship.”

So, although admitting these patients is more expensive than advising an outpatient follow-up, sometimes it’s money well-spent to ensure proper patient care.

What that says about our broken health care system, however, is a different matter altogether.

email

  • christophil, M.D.

    4 word response- “personal responsibility”, “social worker”

  • Matt

    This illustrates a difficult dichotomy that exists for physicians. What hat do I need to be wearing right now- the one where I’m looking out for what is in the best interests of the patient in front of me, or the utilitarian hat, looking out for what’s best for the system, thus looking out for costs. At this juncture, it is quite difficult to find a happy medium in many situations.

  • http://askanmd.blogspot.com/ Doctor D

    Ah, the “social admission.” These things are tricky: If the ER doc gave her good instructions on how to seek follow up and how important it is she would likely get the appropriate care.

    The problematic word in that last sentence is “likely.” The doc worries what if the “unlikely” happens and she just never follows up, even though the doc told her about the cancer and what to do about it.

    Who would be responsible? A jury may decide the physician not the patient is responsible. So the doc adds an extra $10,000 or so to her medical costs in order to ensure she is responsible.

    I admit I’ve done it too.

  • Okulus

    Well, Dr. Pines admitted her (or pressured the IM service to admit) and he feels good about that, even if he admits himself she was not sick enough for admission, and he got some column space in the paper for his trouble. No matter. The utilization review folks will cast their vote–using the criteria of Medicaid–and will force the patient out of the bed even Dr, pines thinks she really doesn’t need, or does need, or whatever.

  • http://kidney-beans.blogspot.com/ dennis

    This is the sad reality that has become our society. Where money is often weighed against that which benefits the good of people.

  • Doc99

    Physicians should make medical recommendations/decisions based on medical considerations, not economic. Ultimately, the patient has the right of first refusal. One day, the late Michael DeBakey received a call from the hospital administrator concerning one of his patients’ length of stay. Dr. DeBakey replied that if the administrator wished the patient discharged, let him come and write the discharge order.

  • http://rebeldoctor.blogspot.com/ Michael Rack, MD

    “Dr. DeBakey replied that if the administrator wished the patient discharged, let him come and write the discharge order.”

    That was a while ago. Currently, if a doc said something like that, he would likely be labeled a “disruptive physician” and terminated from the medical staff.

  • Marc Gorayeb, MD

    Hold on a minute. Why isn’t it the emergency physician’s responsibility to arrange for a definitive next step? E.g., schedule a CT scan and follow-up with an identified primary physician, with whom one has made dirrect contact. Talk about passing the buck. The inpatient wards are not a dumping ground for difficult logistical problems; they are for acutely sick patients requiring treatment now. We should at least attempt to solve the logistical problem. This is the kind of practice behavior that will get us to Obamacare.

  • http://askanmd.blogspot.com/ Doctor D

    Marc, a lot of these situations happen at 2 am or on a Sunday when no one will answer the phone to set up the CT or the appointment with primary care. The ER doc isn’t passing the buck, he/she simply has no ability to set up what the patient needs at the time he is with the patient.

    The only way I can think to solve the “logistical problem” would be to staff primary care offices and radiology scheduling offices 24/7 like an ER. That would certainly increase the cost of healthcare.

    A little responsibility by the patient might be required. We should treat our patients as adults rather than children.

  • Robert Ricketson

    There is no dichotomy. The responsible choice was to exactly what was done. Stay true to the philosophy and not the system. The only question I had was, when she was diagnosed with lung CA. were there any discussions as to her immediate and future needs? Was the dx from an OP bx or inpatient? What may have been done before that could have been done before the ER visit.? The right thing was done given the immediate circumstances. Take a beating in UR. So what? You still have to go home with yourself.

  • jsmith

    Do the right thing for the patient, not for society or the insurance company. This is a no-brainer. America screws up the medical system and then expects us docs to be the bad guys for them. Screw them.