PDA

View Full Version : Medical Fraud? Hypothetically speaking


ASGOgator
03-15-2013, 07:42 PM
Lets take an example of a well known national corporation that owns multiple hospitals in Florida. Each one of these local hospitals applies to the state for a Certificate of Need, which in essence allows the hospital the permission to own and build facilities with a number of beds for that local area. Hospitals covet these CON's, and aggressively fight other rival facilities from obtaining CON in their area, because in essence it provides them the exclusive privilege of serving that area. Some might call this a monopoly protected by the government.

Now imagine hospital chain that is granted a CON to provide a service to that community, builds the facility, but finds it more profitable to understaff the facility. So it has a CON for 150 beds, but only hires enough nurses to staff 100 beds. Instead of having nurse to patient ratio on a medical floor of 1 nurse to 5 patients, they closed off 25 beds or an entire floor, and increase the ratio to 1 to 7 patients. As patients come into the Emergency room and are admitted they are placed in hallway beds "waiting for a room upstairs" in the ER. These patients are still charged for an inpatient room.

Instead of needing 60 nurses on a given day to operate the hospital, they are able to do it with 40 nurses and ancillary staff.

How does corporate accomplish this? Let's say that they provide a nice bonus for each one of the midlevel managers and the human resources director if they get through the quarter under a certain budget. That means they don't hire staff, they eliminate overtime, don't use agency help. They then tell the physicians, patients and the general public that corporate has not authorized the local hospital to hire additional nurses to fill the beds which have previously been authorized with the certificate of need.

So, hypothetically speaking, at this point the medical staff is frustrated to a boiling point. Patients are not getting beds, orders are not being carried out, meds are not being given, patients are laying on stretchers (as opposed to hospital beds) for days at a time, and of course there is the occasional patient that has an adverse outcome from lack of care. (hypothetically a patient who may have passed away with no monitor, found 6 hours later) None of which will be attributed to lack of the nursing staff.

The medical staff (meaning the physician leadership) arranges a meeting with a corporate VP. During this meeting it is determined that months ago Corporate authorized 20 nursing slots to be filled, however the authorization was never carried out. With a wink he simply explains to those present "you should do the math where the problem lies. Corporate has authorized the nursing positions, the Human Resource director is directly bonused for staying under a certain budget, and no one beyond the level of the HR Director and the CFO are aware that there has been an allocation".

For the hospital here is where the bonus comes to play.... The area Primary Care Physicians admit their patients directly from their office. This represents about 5% of hospital admissions. The Primary Care Physicians (PCP) are told that there are no beds available and that the patient will need to be brought through the emergency room. In some instances the direct admit orders are hidden so that the ER has no idea this is a direct admit. There is an additional charge to the patient and insurance for a ER visit that was unnecessary. Of course it was generated because the hospital did not fill it's allocation of hospital beds with personnel.

So whats left to do, patients can't go elsewhere because the certificate of need ensures there is limited competition for their services.

Winners
1. Corporate- no competition, higher profit margin, higher stock price
2. Individual hospital CEO- Higher admissions rate, lower over head, no competition from neighboring facilities.
3. Midlevel managers- rewarded/bonus checks for staying under budget.

Losers
1. Patients- receive poor care, long waits, worse outcomes because they have no choice.
2. Nurses-They get 25-35% more work with no compensation. When there is a bad outcome because they are trying to manage too much, no one will stand up for them to explain that they have been placed in a position to fail. They will be solely responsible for the bad out comes. Ask any nurse that works in a hospital unit if she has ever been forced to care for a patient in a situation that was not safe.
3. Physicians- They will also bear the brunt when a medical error occurs and when their patients have bad outcomes. Since they are not for the most employed by the hospital they have very little to say about about the process. ER physicians are stuck managing in patient cases that are in the ER for days, Hospitalists are managing patients that should have been discharged except for the inability of the nurse to manage the tremendous workload they are trying to bear.
4. The community-they are stuck with a hospital that really doesn't care about the community. Let's consider this, if it was up to the manager or hospital CEO to properly staff the hospital or loose his $30k bonus, which do you think they would choose?
5. The taxpayer----is footing the bill for ER visits (each one of these visits is likely in the $3000-6000 range) which aren't necessary, for prolonged visits.

So my question is this.... How is this hypothetical situation not fraud? How are hospitals allowed to create strained situations then profit from them. It's like paying a fireman for putting out the fire he threw gas on?

I would also like to add that I'm not a right or left guy. This corporation is obviously looking after the interests of it's shareholders, although at the expense of the community.

If the CON didn't exist and there was deregulation, fair competition would exist and this would result in another business having the ability to compete directly with this corporation and this behavior would cease.

Socialized medicine also has it's share of the blame in all of this. Those receiving government sponsored medicine are the absolute worst offenders for coming to the emergency room for routine problems, thereby clogging up the system. They have no co-pay, there for there is no reason for them not to come to the ER first. Even worse manipulation of the system will allow these patients to worsen their presenting complaint so that they are seen first. Chronic back pain turns into abdominal pain and chest pain.

gatorpa
03-15-2013, 08:35 PM
You speak very well and detailed of an issue that I have hypothesised on before. The lack of patients being direct admitted to the hospital and being sent to the ER for the ER to do it. There was a time when many patients were direct admitted, now many hospitalists will not take direct admissions, dumping the leg work to the ER (and a fair amount of medical/legal responsibility to boot). I have my own theories why this is allowed to continue.

G8trGr8t
03-15-2013, 11:29 PM
sounds like you need to contact the local media and/or a local personal injury attorney with cases pending and point them in the right direction. surest way to make any organization more responsive is to get into their pocketbooks

sappanama
03-15-2013, 11:43 PM
You speak very well and detailed of an issue that I have hypothesised on before. The lack of patients being direct admitted to the hospital and being sent to the ER for the ER to do it. There was a time when many patients were direct admitted, now many hospitalists will not take direct admissions, dumping the leg work to the ER (and a fair amount of medical/legal responsibility to boot). I have my own theories why this is allowed to continue.

my wife is a hospitalist and her primary reason for asking the patient to go through the er is to minimize risk to the patient as well as her license. many patients are seen in the office and have no lab, no cxr, no detailed h&p, often they are seen only by a np or pa and not by a physician. with her average load of 15-20 it may take an hour or more to see the patient and if they are sick enough to be "direct admitted" why shouldn't they be seen in the ER where the initial workup including xray, ct, lab etc are placed at the head of the line rather than at the end of the line where floor patients are placed.

WESGATORS
03-16-2013, 01:04 AM
There is absolutely no excuse for a local government to deny the presence of a hospital that wants to join the area and be a contributing member of the taxpaying community. This has happened in the GAINESVILLE area and it does not get enough publicity.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

ASGOgator
03-16-2013, 03:02 PM
my wife is a hospitalist and her primary reason for asking the patient to go through the er is to minimize risk to the patient as well as her license. many patients are seen in the office and have no lab, no cxr, no detailed h&p, often they are seen only by a np or pa and not by a physician. with her average load of 15-20 it may take an hour or more to see the patient and if they are sick enough to be "direct admitted" why shouldn't they be seen in the ER where the initial workup including xray, ct, lab etc are placed at the head of the line rather than at the end of the line where floor patients are placed.

This isn't meant as a dig to hospitalists or the ER, but humor me for a second and let's pretend that there is no insurance an you are footing the bill for all of this out of pocket. Your doctor sends you to the hospital with his orders in your hands to have labs, a chest xray, ekg, and ct scan. Instead of being directly admitted you are taken to the ER, charged for a visit and have the same exact tests done that are written on your orders. You are then admitted into the hospital administratively, which means the original orders your doctor wrote for you are then attached to your chart, and now you lay on a stretcher in the hallway for two days waiting for a bed to open up. When you finally get a bed assigned, you are taken up the elevator, down the hall where you pass by 10 rooms which are cleaned and empty, only to be told those rooms aren't used.

Would you be happy? would you think you got the service you are paying for? Ask your wife if she would prefer her patients be directly admitted in a timely manner or sit in the ER for days at a time.

If these are unstable patients then they should be transported by ambulance to be evaluated. If this is a patient that has had a skin infection for 6 weeks that isn't responding to oral treatment and she is being admitted for IV antibiotics then why does the patient need to go to the ER? She may be minimizing the risk to her license, but passing that risk to someone else.

And as far as seeing a practitioner.... ask you wife how many of the physicians in the hospital she would trust her life with. I know many nurse practitioners, PA's and midwives that are brilliant with what they do.

sappanama
03-16-2013, 03:32 PM
This isn't meant as a dig to hospitalists or the ER, but humor me for a second and let's pretend that there is no insurance an you are footing the bill for all of this out of pocket. Your doctor sends you to the hospital with his orders in your hands to have labs, a chest xray, ekg, and ct scan. Instead of being directly admitted you are taken to the ER, charged for a visit and have the same exact tests done that are written on your orders. You are then admitted into the hospital administratively, which means the original orders your doctor wrote for you are then attached to your chart, and now you lay on a stretcher in the hallway for two days waiting for a bed to open up. When you finally get a bed assigned, you are taken up the elevator, down the hall where you pass by 10 rooms which are cleaned and empty, only to be told those rooms aren't used.

Would you be happy? would you think you got the service you are paying for? Ask your wife if she would prefer her patients be directly admitted in a timely manner or sit in the ER for days at a time.

If these are unstable patients then they should be transported by ambulance to be evaluated. If this is a patient that has had a skin infection for 6 weeks that isn't responding to oral treatment and she is being admitted for IV antibiotics then why does the patient need to go to the ER? She may be minimizing the risk to her license, but passing that risk to someone else.

And as far as seeing a practitioner.... ask you wife how many of the physicians in the hospital she would trust her life with. I know many nurse practitioners, PA's and midwives that are brilliant with what they do.

With what they do being the crux of the matter, constantly pushing for broader scope of practice without broader scope of training. Often, not always, the sign out of the patient is poor in detail and facts, and is based on appearing sick without any objective testing. So the point being if they are sick to that degree the protocol that gets them worked up the fastest is best, you would probably agree if it were your mom, sibling etc... These days with declining reimbursement leads to volume paying the bills and thinking they are sick and referring them gets them out of the office and the provider to the next room. One way to counter this would be for the primary provider admit then turn it over once the work up was underway, but that won't happen for a multitude of reasons, just as they don't want the risk many hospitalist don't want the primary providers risk transferred to them