Having U.S. Medicaid insurance may in...

Having U.S. Medicaid insurance may increase ER use: study

There are 16 comments on the Reuters story from Jan 2, 2014, titled Having U.S. Medicaid insurance may increase ER use: study. In it, Reuters reports that:

Expanding access to Medicaid, a major plank of President Barack Obama's health reform law, could increase emergency room visits by people on the healthcare program for the poor rather than decrease them, results of a study published on Thursday suggest.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

whocoudaknowed

Portland, OR

#1 Jan 2, 2014
Looks like none of the TURDS in office can figure jack out. Everything is a Go--amned experiment. Geesus have we been duped or what?
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#2 Jan 2, 2014
Is this a surprise to anyone?

Romneycare in Massachusetts increased ER visits. It also increased demand on primary care clinics, pushing up costs and increasing wait times for appointments. Many primary care facilities in MA aren't accepting new patients, and if someone is ill, they can't wait two to six weeks to see a doctor...so, off they go to the ER.

This is the problem any time the Washington Elite Politician Class decides what is good enough for the rest of us. They will never have to be in this position and have no idea (or care) what hardships they legislate upon the common citizen.

This is the tip of the iceberg. This party is just getting started.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3 Jan 2, 2014
whocoudaknowed wrote:
Looks like none of the TURDS in office can figure jack out. Everything is a Go--amned experiment. Geesus have we been duped or what?
these people have never had insurance before..they never had a doctor...wouldn't know how to go about making a doctors appointment...

did you even read about this study and how it was implemented?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4 Jan 2, 2014
Chicopee wrote:
and if someone is ill, they can't wait two to six weeks to see a doctor...so, off they go to the ER.
.
how would romneycare or obamacare change this basic fact of life? are you even aware of what you are posting?
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#5 Jan 3, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how would romneycare or obamacare change this basic fact of life? are you even aware of what you are posting?
Plenty aware, thank you. In fact, there are hundreds of articles written about Massachusetts ,Romneycare, and they why's and wherefore's of how and why it's caused such changes. Perhaps you could peruse them yourself. Learning is fun!
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#7 Jan 3, 2014
Would the remedy then be to find a way to drop those who newly acquired access to health care services to provide more convenience and eliminate the wait times of others seeking health care services?

In what civilized society would that be a sufficient solution and, by what method would you choose to select those undeserving and dropped from access to health care services?

How would you thin the heard?
Chicopee wrote:
Is this a surprise to anyone?
Romneycare in Massachusetts increased ER visits. It also increased demand on primary care clinics, pushing up costs and increasing wait times for appointments. Many primary care facilities in MA aren't accepting new patients, and if someone is ill, they can't wait two to six weeks to see a doctor...so, off they go to the ER.
This is the problem any time the Washington Elite Politician Class decides what is good enough for the rest of us. They will never have to be in this position and have no idea (or care) what hardships they legislate upon the common citizen.
This is the tip of the iceberg. This party is just getting started.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#8 Jan 4, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Would the remedy then be to find a way to drop those who newly acquired access to health care services to provide more convenience and eliminate the wait times of others seeking health care services?
In what civilized society would that be a sufficient solution and, by what method would you choose to select those undeserving and dropped from access to health care services?
How would you thin the heard?
<quoted text>
Jumping the gun and adding your own dramatic flair, as usual, as well as crediting me with words I never said. Are you sure your name isn't Erica? You exhibit all the hand wrenching drama of the average fourteen year old drama queen.

As I said to another poster, the studies and figures are all available, so why don't you try reading instead of reacting?

Kindly point out where I said, or even intimated, that anyone is A) undeserving, or B) that anyone should be dropped from access. And the word is 'herd', not heard.

It must be very difficult at times to live between your ears...as well as exhausting.

Oregon just released their numbers for the states recently expanded Medicaid program. And guess what? People go to the ER more often, both in average visits per year and in cases that a primary care facility would have rendered the same or better care.

While the report doesn't specifically define a reason why this happened, per se, it did suggest that because those who are on Medicaid pay nothing at all, they are more likely to show up for things that either don't require medical treatment or for things that could have waited to see a primary care doctor, compared to the uninsured and compared to those who pay for insurance, and insurance includes co-pays and percentages. The study did note that this has happened in other states, as well as noting that the average 'poor' person in the Portland area is white, therefore, eliminating any suggestion that race is a factor.

It also suggests that people new to Medicaid or any insurance coverage seek medical services because they couldn't before, and now they can. So they might be a little exuberant at the onset.

But using the ER as primary care is a bad plan for overall health and it is far more costly. Oregon ran out of money for Medicaid and had to choose recipients through a lottery system.

Try reading.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#9 Jan 4, 2014
Your post of which I responded opened railing against the additional case loads of physicians.......

This is your conclusion: "This is the problem any time the Washington Elite Politician Class decides what is good enough for the rest of us. They will never have to be in this position and have no idea (or care) what hardships they legislate upon the common citizen."

My question was simple, is it your solution to eliminate the inconvenience of wait times for those seeking health care services by eliminating those who may be considered less deserving of access and, go back to the failed system we had where 49 million citizens were omitted from purchasing health care insurance?

None of the drivel below provided in your reply answers that simple question.
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Jumping the gun and adding your own dramatic flair, as usual, as well as crediting me with words I never said. Are you sure your name isn't Erica? You exhibit all the hand wrenching drama of the average fourteen year old drama queen.
As I said to another poster, the studies and figures are all available, so why don't you try reading instead of reacting?
Kindly point out where I said, or even intimated, that anyone is A) undeserving, or B) that anyone should be dropped from access. And the word is 'herd', not heard.
It must be very difficult at times to live between your ears...as well as exhausting.
Oregon just released their numbers for the states recently expanded Medicaid program. And guess what? People go to the ER more often, both in average visits per year and in cases that a primary care facility would have rendered the same or better care.
While the report doesn't specifically define a reason why this happened, per se, it did suggest that because those who are on Medicaid pay nothing at all, they are more likely to show up for things that either don't require medical treatment or for things that could have waited to see a primary care doctor, compared to the uninsured and compared to those who pay for insurance, and insurance includes co-pays and percentages. The study did note that this has happened in other states, as well as noting that the average 'poor' person in the Portland area is white, therefore, eliminating any suggestion that race is a factor.
It also suggests that people new to Medicaid or any insurance coverage seek medical services because they couldn't before, and now they can. So they might be a little exuberant at the onset.
But using the ER as primary care is a bad plan for overall health and it is far more costly. Oregon ran out of money for Medicaid and had to choose recipients through a lottery system.
Try reading.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#10 Jan 6, 2014
Having Medicaid has increased ER usage since at least 1977.

At that time welfare people got paid gas money to go to for medial treatment.
Friday evening, they would pack the kids into the car and go to town, first stop the ER. Submit verification Monday morning to get payment.

Some of the regular Medicaid people have been refused care by all PCPs in the county, for behavior issues. ER cannot refuse them.

It has to do with the fact that the ER cannot refuse treatment.

I'm no fan of ACA. more wrong with it than right, but fair is fair.
This is a "people on Medicaid" issue, not an ACA issue.
We can say that the Medicaid expansion portion of ACA increased the number of people on Medicaid - in those 25 or so states with Medicaid expansion, but that is the limit.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#11 Jan 6, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Your post of which I responded opened railing against the additional case loads of physicians.......
This is your conclusion: "This is the problem any time the Washington Elite Politician Class decides what is good enough for the rest of us. They will never have to be in this position and have no idea (or care) what hardships they legislate upon the common citizen."
My question was simple, is it your solution to eliminate the inconvenience of wait times for those seeking health care services by eliminating those who may be considered less deserving of access and, go back to the failed system we had where 49 million citizens were omitted from purchasing health care insurance?
None of the drivel below provided in your reply answers that simple question.
<quoted text>
You don't ask simple questions, Erica. You ask emotive and rhetorical questions, which you then use to segue into an equally emotive rant, full of the usual hyperbole and short on facts.

Actual facts aren't 'drivel' Go back to Huffpo and post there, in the echo chamber of fabricated disasters, fabricated statistics and all the other mumbo jumbo many of our elected officials were peddling to try and convince us all that America's medical delivery system was an utter failure.

That must be where you learned that 'strap' throat and earaches were pre-existing conditions that prevented people from getting health insurance (you posted that nonsense on a different thread). That the supposed 49 million who don't have insurance were 'omitted' from purchasing it, rather than the reality of the 49 million being a combination of illegal aliens, of those who were unemployed, those who chose not to waste their money (usually the young and healthy) and those who couldn't afford to buy their own insurance and ... still can't afford to buy insurance no matter what the law mandates.

Then dismiss as 'drivel' the simple and well documented fact that a certain percentage of people who get medical care for free do abuse the privilege because it costs them absolutely nothing to run to the ER for every little sneeze and hangnail. And that for others, the treatment Medicaid provides isn't a good, long term plan for wellness and health, and that it's a highly expensive and inefficient form of medical treatment.

Your mind is made up, and you won't let yourself be confused by facts.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#12 Jan 7, 2014
My question was simple, is it your solution to eliminate the inconvenience of wait times for those seeking health care services by eliminating those who may be considered less deserving of access and, go back to the failed system we had where 49 million citizens were omitted from purchasing health care insurance?
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't ask simple questions, Erica. You ask emotive and rhetorical questions, which you then use to segue into an equally emotive rant, full of the usual hyperbole and short on facts.
Actual facts aren't 'drivel' Go back to Huffpo and post there, in the echo chamber of fabricated disasters, fabricated statistics and all the other mumbo jumbo many of our elected officials were peddling to try and convince us all that America's medical delivery system was an utter failure.
That must be where you learned that 'strap' throat and earaches were pre-existing conditions that prevented people from getting health insurance (you posted that nonsense on a different thread). That the supposed 49 million who don't have insurance were 'omitted' from purchasing it, rather than the reality of the 49 million being a combination of illegal aliens, of those who were unemployed, those who chose not to waste their money (usually the young and healthy) and those who couldn't afford to buy their own insurance and ... still can't afford to buy insurance no matter what the law mandates.
Then dismiss as 'drivel' the simple and well documented fact that a certain percentage of people who get medical care for free do abuse the privilege because it costs them absolutely nothing to run to the ER for every little sneeze and hangnail. And that for others, the treatment Medicaid provides isn't a good, long term plan for wellness and health, and that it's a highly expensive and inefficient form of medical treatment.
Your mind is made up, and you won't let yourself be confused by facts.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#13 Jan 7, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
My question was simple, is it your solution to eliminate the inconvenience of wait times for those seeking health care services by eliminating those who may be considered less deserving of access and, go back to the failed system we had where 49 million citizens were omitted from purchasing health care insurance?
<quoted text>
Your question is invalid for several reasons.

No one is underserving-or denied access due to lack of insurance, money or even citizenship. Hospitals CANNOT turn people who need treatment away.

Millions CHOSE not to purchase insurance, and millions more aren't eligible to buy insurance...and they all get and have gotten treatment in spite of that. And many of those millions actually paid their bills all by themselves. Imagine that? Those who were "omitted" from buying insurance due to the inability to afford it STILL can't afford it and don't have insurance, and now they'll get slapped with a fine on top of it. They, too, will STILL get treatment.

Got any salient questions, sans sappy rhetoric and bullsh!t??. You just don't want to understand or admit that the 'system' wasn't a failed system. But it will fast become one now.
Enrique

Detroit, MI

#14 Jan 8, 2014
The only people that get hurt are those who work for a living. The freeloaders and morons keep voting to kill the working people. Enough already your experiment was a tremendous failure.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#15 Jan 8, 2014
Hospitals do not provide comprehensive health care, their obligation ceases at stabilizing emergencies.
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is invalid for several reasons.
No one is underserving-or denied access due to lack of insurance, money or even citizenship. Hospitals CANNOT turn people who need treatment away.
Millions CHOSE not to purchase insurance, and millions more aren't eligible to buy insurance...and they all get and have gotten treatment in spite of that. And many of those millions actually paid their bills all by themselves. Imagine that? Those who were "omitted" from buying insurance due to the inability to afford it STILL can't afford it and don't have insurance, and now they'll get slapped with a fine on top of it. They, too, will STILL get treatment.
Got any salient questions, sans sappy rhetoric and bullsh!t??. You just don't want to understand or admit that the 'system' wasn't a failed system. But it will fast become one now.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16 Jan 8, 2014
Enrique wrote:
The only people that get hurt are those who work for a living. The freeloaders and morons keep voting to kill the working people. Enough already your experiment was a tremendous failure.
Exactly the Old Left's and the New Left's Liberalism and the Great Society have been a tremendous failure just like it was with the Jamestown colonist too with the common-store system as it was called.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#17 Jan 8, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Hospitals do not provide comprehensive health care, their obligation ceases at stabilizing emergencies.
<quoted text>
Bullshit.

Our local hospital has 'clinics' that provide comprehensive treatment for a wide variety of ailments and sicknesses, including cancer treatment, dialysis, prenatal wellness and childbirth, among others. Typically, the hospital applies to the state for funds, and typically and after as much as two years, they are reimbursed at the rate of about 50%, usually with Medicaid funds. I know a woman who went through treatment for stage II breast cancer, low income, no insurance, no personal property the hospital could attach. And she was treated in the same oncology department for eight months as everyone else goes to. Through an administrative office in the hospital, she was approved for Medicaid about halfway through her ordeal.

My friends sister fell ill in Ohio a couple of years ago. She was unfortunately diagnosed with ALS, but her initial hospitalization was for nearly six weeks before she was transferred to another facility for long term treatment. Once she was stabilized (about two weeks), the hospital refused to release her because her son and his wife were found unfit to care for her...that was an administrative decision by the hospital. Again, after several weeks and at the request of the hospital, she was approved for Medicaid. It took the fed quite a while more before she was approved for Social Security Disability (guaranteed for her diagnosis). Only after SS was approved was she moved to a long term care facility.

You believe so much that just isn't true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Waltham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
natalie amora otenti HIV POSITIVE hooker May 14 magicman 1
News Is The Driving Age In MA Too Young? (Apr '06) May 10 EverettCitizen 327
Judge Peter Digangi named " A**-hole of the mon... (Sep '11) May 8 Change now 115
News Hotel Guard Charged With Sex Assault On Child (Jun '06) May 7 Anthony Scarpuzzi 2
News Criticized for Lack of Transparency, Boston Red... May 4 Joan 1
burning plastic smell in east arlington (May '14) Apr '16 Olivia 4
attempted murder disconnected fire alarms walt... Apr '16 snoopy 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Waltham Mortgages