LV Congressman Charlie Dent, along with Tennessee Democrat Bart Gordon, has previously introduced legislation designed to address the growing shortage of physicians and specialists willing to work in emergency rooms as hospital staff or as on-call providers.Yesterday, standing outside the Emergency Room at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Salisbury Township, Congressman Dent noted that current House legislation on health care ignores the issue of medical liability reform, and stressed the urgent need for Congress to act on this issue.
Emergency physicians and on-call specialists perform lifesaving feats everyday, often requiring quick, life-and-death decisions based on minimal information. But it's inherently risky because emergency and trauma patients are often sicker, have more serious complications and usually have no pre-existing relationship with the treating physician. Unfortunately, the high risk of being sued and the increased professional liability costs, which are far higher than for those who do not provide such care, have limited the availability of many emergency physicians and on-call specialists.
Under federal law, public access to emergency medical care must be provided, regardless of ability to pay. Dent's legislation provides emergency room doctors and on-call specialists with medical liability protection. The goal is to ensure that emergency medical care will be available when and where it is needed.
“The medical liability environment is creating a crisis in access to emergency care for all Americans, the insured and uninsured alike,” Congressman Dent said. “As Congress considers proposals to reform health care access in this country, it is essential that we focus on ensuring that quality health care is available."
“I believe there are certain, specific issues that must be addressed whether we pass a major overhaul or not,” Congressman Dent continued, calling his proposal a “common-sense reform."
Congressman Dent was joined by LVHN Emergency Department Director Dr. Richard Mackenzie and by Dr. Alex Rosenau, LVHN staff physician and board member of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which represents 27,000 emergency physicians nationwide. Dr. Rosenau noted that the liability issue is particularly daunting to younger doctors, and presents a barrier to doctors who might otherwise enter the essential community service of providing emergency care.
Nice gesture but when it comes to the healthcare crisis in this country, I think this is "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." When I think of emergency rooms I remember a job I had where I worked with a lot of uninsured. They went to the emergency room sometimes weekly for everything from a tummy ache to an unexplained headache because they wouldn't be turned away and had no insurance. A visit to a doctor for a headache is something like $78. A visit to the emergency roo for a headache costs $700 or more. Who pays? Us. Well, I have to go now, I'm going to organize all my denied claims and rescinded insurance contracts while I cough up blood and look up on the Internet how to perform a do-it-yourself appendectomy and remember: KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteLooking at "Thomas" on-line, it was referred to committee back in April. Most bills die in Committee, and considering that the Congress, President, and "town halls" are trying to get their hands around a more comprehensive approach, I have doubts that this bill will go anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the bill Dent co-sponsors attempts to address a very valid problem. Looking at the bill it notes, "...according to the Project on Medical Liability in Pennsylvania, funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, resident physicians in high-risk fields such as general surgery and emergency medicine named malpractice costs as the reason for leaving the State three times more often than any other factor....The crisis has even forced the closure of trauma centers in ...Pennsylvania ...at various times in recent years."
So, valid problem has been identified. However, I think this really points to one of the larger problems. Besides the high risk procedures inherent with true "emergency" care, many emergency rooms are also clogged with folks who should be seeing "their own doctor" but for the fact that they do not have medical insurance.
For fear of being too long of a comment, I break this into two.....
I make no claims to knowing what Congress and the President will, or should, decide. I am in a "listening and learning" mode. I have heard a lot of generalizations on one side of the issue, and a lot of hyperbole on the other side. I admit to needing and wanting to know the specifics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I just want to comment on part of the problem that gets lost in the extremes of calling each other "Nazis" or wanting to kill little Trig Palin(as I was accused of elsewhere for merely asking questions). What do you do without insurance? Where do you go without insurance? and who do you think pays? (e.g., you, I, and our employers via premiums).
I had to take a child to St. Luke's North. The "billed amount" was $1,129.50, but they accepted$342.81 after my insurance "discount". They accepted 30.35%; $0 "patient liability." What happened to the other 70%?
My dad had cancer at my age, and eventually died, so I get checked on a regular schedule. Last visit was "billed" $4,798, but $1,134.57 was accepted (23.64%). What happened to the other 76+%?
So, what do you do without insurance and without the "discount"? To illustrate I picked bigger ticket visits, but same goes for "routine visits".
And speaking of "death panels"...my dad's employer tried to get rid of him because of insurance....where was Sarah Palin then when a "private" business and insurance company thought (hyperbolically like a handicapped child) he wasn't worth it? The reality is we often DO need to eventually ask that cost-benefit question, but do you really think the current system doesn't already do that? (unlike the proposed "end of life counseling" which does NOT make those decisions of who should/should not receive care based on "societal standards").
Anyway, back to post point. I think Representative Dent attacks a valid problem. However, it is really a sidebar to the larger problem.
But who will pay with a new system?....I don't know...who pays the 70% billed but not collected now?
Listening and learning....any one know the answers?
Dent spews the popular Republican Party line the Limbaugh Lemmings like, kill the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteOf course tort reform is necessary and has been started and approved in many area's.
The idea that there will be zero opportunity to make a claim against medical malpractice is a joke.
The very folks who scream that the government should stay out and let the private market handle healthcare, want the GOVERNMENT to offer special protection to the field to protect it from liability.
Of course tort reform is the Republican Straw Dog, to hide the problem of over inflated Health Insurance rates and monopolies. As well as Pharmacuticals raking in double digit increase year after year.
Dent either is working towards a realistic solution or is hiding behind nice words and no action. Those days are over.
No surprise it takes Dent and his likes only a moment to connect the dots between lousy health care and "greedy" lawyers. Same old same old. News flash: Times are a changin.
ReplyDeleteTort reform should be an intregal part of any natioanl healthcare debate, but it is not even mentioned in the plan before Congress. Why would it be , most of them are attorneies who can make big money from malpractice suits.
ReplyDeleteTort reform will do musch more than save actual malpractice dollars, it will cut down on uncessasy testing, surgeries, Surgical baby deliveries ("C sections) It will also help to keep skilled professionals in PA
PA is one of the most litiginous states for malpractice. The result is that it is impossible to find physicians in the high risk sectors of medcicine (Nuerosurgeons, Obstetrics, etc)
Yes folks Mr. Dent is correct, and it was a small step forward toward truly lowering the high cost of medicine
Lets take a look at CYOA (cover your own Ass) medicine and see where the real money is being wasted.
The first rings of hell are reserved for the insurance companies.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious how much money Dent accepts from the insurance lobbyists. THey are spending $2 million a day on our Senators and representative. He must see some of that. I also think that if Dent is anti-healthcare reform, then he should renounce his Congressional healthcare plan which is taxpayer based, doesn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions and doesn't deny claims to increase profits. It's basically a public option which is why it's described as "the best healthcare in the US." He should have the same lousy insurance plans the rest of his constituents are stuck with, especially if he thinks it should be preserved. I would really admire him if he introduced a bill so that the Congress has to actually use the same insurance the Republicans insist we shouldn't change. That would keep me from voting for Callahan.
ReplyDeletePretty cool. Now next on your list is to help do something about the fact that the US pays more than anyone else in the world for healthcaer (with the exception of the Marshall Islands)...yet....
ReplyDeleteThe World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
The Stats for the countries with state run health care only count specific deaths. Babies born outside of hospitals do not count (over 50% in Europe) until they are 1 year old. People over 60 who are denied care because of the rationing do not count in these coutries. Why is it that people come to the US for health care if theirs is so much better? Lets get serious. Best in the world right here in the USA. The skewed stats from WHO are favorites from liberals, but they are not real numbers they are "adjusted"
ReplyDelete"The very folks who scream that the government should stay out and let the private market handle healthcare, want the GOVERNMENT to offer special protection to the field to protect it from liability"
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. It's definitely a form of government interference. And isn't the right to sue a bad doctor the most basic form of medical care reform? Having said that, Dent has a good point when it comes to ER care. There is a rule in common law that exempts the good samartian from liability, and it's common sense in an ER to do the same thing.
When you use the phrase "labor shortage" or "skills shortage" you're speaking in a sentence fragment. What you actually mean to say is: "There is a labor shortage at the salary level I'm willing to pay." That statement is the correct phrase; the complete sentence and the intellectually honest statement.
ReplyDeleteIf you start raising your wages and improving working conditions, and continue to do so, you'll solve your “shortage” and will shortly have people lining up around the block to work for you even if you need to have huge piles of steaming manure hand-scooped on a blazing summer afternoon.
Employers speak of shortages as though they represent some absolute, readily identifiable lack of desirable services. Price is rarely accorded its proper importance in their rhetoric.
Re: Shortage due to retirees: With the majority of retirement accounts down about 50% or more, people entering retirement age are being forced to work well into their sunset years. So, you won’t be getting a worker shortage anytime soon due to retirees exiting the workforce.
Okay, fine. Some specialized jobs require training and/or certification, again, the solution is to raise your wages and improve benefits. People will self-fund their re-education so that they can enter the industry in a work-ready state. The attractive wages, working conditions and career prospects of technology during the 1980’s and 1990’s was a prime example of people’s willingness to self-fund their own career re-education.
Citing the World Health Organization is akin to citing Marvel Comics on a doctoral dissertation. They have no credibility.
ReplyDeleteWHO numbers are often cited by those who just can't believe how stupid 83% of Americans who are satisfied with their current health care are.
It's so frustrating when you just know what's good for people; yet they agree in huge numbers that you're wrong.
Most believe we can still do better. But most understand that the three-week rush Obamacare scheme is not better.
Almost half the country voted against him. The other 33+ % likely voted for him and have very quickly had their fill. This is reflected in his crashing support among independents.
Whata I win for knowing where this photo was taken?
ReplyDeleteI could have helped with that appendectomy. Can't spell it but sure know I could harm you somehow.
ReplyDeleteRe: Dent and political contributions from the insurance industry:
ReplyDeleteAARP is firmly in the D camp, and, despite embarrassing Obama for overstating their support of his scheme (because their internal polling shows shit hitting fan with their members tearing up cards), they're launching a supportive ad today and have contributed regularly to Obamascheme supporters, exclusively.
They want an inside track on new health care legislation.
Why? Because AARP, is one of the largest insurers in the country. How much money have Obama and Pelosi and Reid taken from AARP (i.e. Big Insurance)?
They are all dirty. It's why they are politicians.
Will I receive coverage for my scheduled addadicktome? The co-pays are obscene.
ReplyDeleteUnder the current system, hospital physicians are overseen by 'evaluators' who make recommendations as to what course of treatments are recoverable from various insurance providers. Medicines are recommended as 'first course of treatment' pharmaceutical recommendations from insurance providers. These influence your treatment and carry weight over a physicians preference. Sometimes the may save costs, but is not necessarily the best course of treatment in all cases. And in some cases, when not done properly, actually result in prolonged treatment thus increased costs.
ReplyDeleteNote in many critical care units the 'doc in a box'. There will be a camera in the room and a laptop. A doctor at some central location, whether local or India, remotely monitors the cameras and vitals and makes recommendations in some cases, without ever entering your room! This is great for rural hospitals that do not have in house specialists. The lack of available trained medical personnel is one reason (they state) for the need for it, but also can be outsourced by hospitals as a means to save costs.
One of the greatest reasons for a shortage is the fact that and average hospital physician may have $500,000 upwards in college loans and can't even begin practicing till he/she's 25+ years old. We need to address medical school costs before we can expect physicians to take 6 years or more out of their life. Be in debt for a 1/2 $million then expect them to accept reasonable fees.
This is at the heart of it all before one even takes a look at the $100,000 malpractice insurances premiums they pay. Secondly after that, limited TORT needs to have a visit. But since many legislators are lawyers, how likely is that to happen?
"Whata I win for knowing where this photo was taken?"
ReplyDeleteAn autographed 8x10 glossy of Ron Angle, posing on his bearskin rug.
Given the prize, I'd like to state categorically that I have no idea where the photo was taken.
ReplyDeletePlease send Ron's photo to...
ReplyDeletethat photo is 17th and chew er at lvhhn.
bernie,
ReplyDeletedon't forget allentown meeting 6pm not 6:30 will be a crowd.
This is at the heart of it all before one even takes a look at the $100,000 malpractice insurances premiums they pay. Secondly after that, limited TORT needs to have a visit. But since many legislators are lawyers, how likely is that to happen?
ReplyDelete1:06 PM
so well said. last 3 weeks have listened to call-ins from young medical school students who say that with new washington control of all things medical, they are reconsidering medicine.
"Please send Ron's photo to..." Actually, he'll bring it down himself.
ReplyDelete