How the Affordable Care Act will affect emergency department payments

A recent article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine analyzed the revenue increases due to emergency physicians for services delivered to currently uninsured individuals when they begin to receive coverage (via either Medicaid or private plans) under the Affordable Care Act.

The authors analyzed payments for outpatient emergency department (ED) visits using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2005-2010. They looked into characteristics of charges and payments for the following groups: current Medicaid recipients, patients currently with private insurance, and uninsured patients either eligible for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion (up to 138% FPL) or not Medicaid expansion eligible (>138% FPL). Payments reported reflected both the physician and facility payments. The reimbursement ratio, i.e. the ratio of provider charges to actual payments received, was also calculated. The sample included over 18,000 observations.

Patients currently with Medicaid provided an additional $34 payment per ED visit compared to low-income uninsured patients that were Medicaid eligible ($562 vs. $528). In terms of the reimbursement ratio, current Medicaid reimbursed 40% of ED charges compared with 34% of the Medicaid-eligible uninsured.

The findings were more dramatic for privately insured patients compared to the moderate-income uninsured. Patients with private coverage paid $212 more for ED services than uninsured patients with incomes greater than 138% FPL ($956 vs. $744). These Medicaid expansion ineligible  patients would be able to obtain coverage in the insurance exchanges and/or marketplaces provided affordable coverage will not be offered to them via their respective employers. The reimbursement ratio for private patients was 54% while for the Medicaid expansion ineligible population the ratio was 39%.

The authors noted that a large number of uninsured patients potentially affected by the ACA’s coverage provisions reside in Southern states presently opposed to expansion.

Many physicians are unsure about how the Affordable Care Act will affect their bottom line. This study attempts to provide an objective analysis of that important information for providers of emergency services. Based on these data, emergency physicians and hospitals serving large numbers of uninsured patients can expect to be paid more after implementation of the ACA.

As emergency physicians (EPs) are required to evaluate all patients under the federal EMTALA mandate, the changes in payment brought about by the ACA could improve balance sheets among EPs serving high proportions of uninsured patients.

On the other hand, the impact on hospitals is less well understood. Other changes in the ACA — most importantly the decreases to Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funding — could negatively impact safety net facilities. Whether or not the increased revenue from patients gaining coverage will offset DSH decreases is unknown. Of great concern is that many states with the greatest uninsured populations have been reluctant to expand Medicaid or even operate their own health insurance exchanges. These choices would blunt to potential benefit to emergency care providers.

Nevertheless, incentives are aligned for both EPs and hospitals to advocate for the ACA’s attempts at expanding coverage.

Cedric Dark is founder and executive editor, Policy Prescriptions.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Bob

    This article would be better understood, if written with the various types of federal and state taxpayers payments instead of the government payment mechanism involved.
    EP’s normally are paid by their hospital employers, as individual physicians or under contract, who then bill for their services. If Medicaid pays more, as this article shows, and they receive care mainly in hospitals now, ACA is trying to get them to use PCP to avoid hospitals. Millennials in their much larger numbers are better off going to hospitals except hospitals haven’t increased in staff or size, at least around here, but have put in many EmergiCare facilities, I guess taking staff from hospital ER’s or physicians offices as we only have the same number of physicians and nurses and ER’s are meant for accidents and acute medical conditions not to replace physicians offices.
    But if the newly insured can’t see a PCP and are use to using and know Hospitals ER’s will take them without an appointment, when they can’t get appointments with Medicaid or without or even those with government subsidies might just do what they have for decades and when feeling sick or depressed, go hang out in the ER.
    If you don’t have to, or can’t pay, and know ER’s will take you and costs nothing and that the taxpayers will pay, you do what you always have. the ACA can’t change cultures or facts.
    As to states that don’t take ACA Medicaid expansion, since they all have tons of Medicaid fraud, $1.2 trillion Nationally they can live until ACXA dies, just by cutting fraud by inspecting Medicaid rolls and not paying for hospital admissions for ER visits that aren’t emergencies, but should be seen at a physicians office or emergency center. In those states that will take ACA they’ll gladly spend more federal income tax dollars and happen to be the states with the most waste, fraud and abuse! But they don’t have any more physicians per capita, so they can’t see more patients either! So much money to make but not enough workers, so just bill it and get paid!