Redirecting patients from hospital ERs. Legal? Ethical? (University of Chicago)

Some background:

The University of Chicago is located in the South Side of Chicago. Its immediate neighborhood is Hyde Park (now renamed Obamaland) but most of the surrounding areas are pretty dang poor. The Hospital has alway been a tertiary care specialty hospital having to provide some basic general care to the people in its broad community. Given its tertiary focus it tends not to be the place that cost effective medicine is delivered, or honestly, great primary care. Still the poor in the area have been cared for there and middle class elders of Hyde Park on Medicare have been going there for decades as well. U of C loses money on providing care to the poor and the elderly.

In recent months U of Chicago Hospital has been attempting to implement a program thatredirects patients out of their ERs and into other community hospitals. These patients are allegedly those who do not need an ER so are sent to “Urgent Care” elsewhere, or elderly better served by a new geriatric program being developed at a participating community Hospital tens of miles away elsewhere on the South Side. What a surprise many of the redirections are either poor or have Medicare as their payment source.

Let’s focus on these elderly patients - Hyde Parkers - being redirected from the hospital and the care they know into a community South Side Hospital out of their neighborhood, on the basis of nothing other than their being Medicare.

Let us just say that these Hyde Park elders are not so happy especially when they get there and are told that there are no University of Chicago staff there running a specialty geriatric program (as advertised in the U of C press releases) and it is very clear that they are just being dumped there for budget purposes.

So is this legal? Ethical? What recourses do these Hyde Park elders have?

Directing patients who don’t need to be seen in the ER to other hospitals seems like a good policy to me.

Odesio

But if the determination of need is being made on the basis of the hospital’s ability to collect from them, it seems we might be in sketchier territory.

I could understand if there is a need to balance out the number of non-paying or lesser paying patients in order to keep the hospital running, but I don’t know if that is the case here.

According to EMTALA, the ER is required by federal law to perform a medical screening examination and to stabilize any problems found during said screening exam. The definitions of ‘medical screening exam’ and ‘stabilize’ may very from place to place.

With the elder patients this means sending patients who may be ill enough to need admission but are not unstable to another hospital rather than see them in the University Hospital ER. The issue as I understand it is that is NOT legit to discriminate based on payer source but that the hospital system appears to be using proxies for payer status: “urgency” and elder status that should benefit from a specialty geriatric service that they claim to be setting up in the other hospital even though elders who have been transferred there say it does not exist and that docs there said that no U of C docs have been there.

Odesio why does it seem like a good policy to transfer from one hospital’s ER to another to you?

Caveat lector the U of C is not about to fold without doing this but it does make economic sense. They make more taking care of the tertiary care patients with insurance who are sent to them from an entire metropolitan region and they provide basic community hospital service extremely inefficiently. OTOH the community hospitals do provide that care more cost effectively and need their beds filled with those low margin volumes.

But they cannot be straight up using that economic justification because they are obligated to provide care to the community.

Unfortunately the other option is simply to close the hospital and relocate it to better area.

The south side is full of hospitals that were abandoned or moved to the suburbs. Doctor’s Hospital, near U of Chicago hospital closed. The thing is the city of Chicago even re-opened Provident Hospital (on the South Side) as an extra public hospital. We don’t have another public hospital on the North Side or West Side or NW Side. The South side is already SERVED by a public hospital in addition to the central located Cook County Hospital.

These people are just too lazy to go to the public hospital or they don’t like the wait in line. More likely the latter. Also in Illinois elderly people over 65 ride public transportation for FREE. It costs them nothing. (Our now discredited former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, saw to that). So it’s not a matter of cost for these urgent care people, it’s just they don’t want to wait.

So Markxxx you believe that people who have Medicare, everyone over 65 even if they also have some supplemental insurance, should hoof it or take a bus or two, to a public hospital when they are ill enough to need admission to a hospital? That they are lazy for wanting to get their care at the hospital that is within a mile of their home, where their friends could visit them, where they’ve gone for decades, rather than traveling five times as far into an urban poor neighborhood. Not a very reasonable position, sorry.

Their Urban Health Initiative may have started out with good intentions. And I suspect that parts of it have done some good. Indeed building up the primary care capacity and quality of the South Side Communities and helping people without primary care docs find a medical home is A Good Thing. Using that otherwise worthwhile program as an excuse force patients of the community to go to hospitals outside their community that they do not want to go to in order to free up the beds for more profitable patients is not.

Do these elders have any way to fight this?

I work in Holy Cross’ ER as an RN.

Is it legal? Maybe. Is it ethical? No, it isn’t. But when UofC eventually completely closes their adult ER (which is what they REALLY want to do), the ethics of the issue will be a moot point.

Holy Cross already receives so many patients that should go to other hospitals because the surrounding hospitals (including University of Chicago, Christ nearby in Oak Lawn, St. Bernard’s, Little Company of Mary) are often on bypass (ambulance diversion). Almost every day that I work, at least one, and usually more than one, of the area hospitals surrounding us are on bypass. So while we’re getting slammed with everyone else’s ambulances (plus our own), we also have tons of people sitting in our waiting room, sometimes for hours and hours because they are ESI level 4 or 5 and we keep getting ESI 1s, 2s, and 3s from CFD.

We almost never go on bypass. Why? I don’t know. One night we were so insanely busy in the ER that we RAN OUT OF VENTS. The entire hospital ran out of vents because we had so many intubated patients in the ICU and we had so many patients who got intubated in the ER. But we still didn’t go on bypass. We had to bag one patient for 45 minutes while waiting for an outside company to deliver more ventilators to us.

We have no Ob/gyn/L&DRP unit anymore; it was closed in July 2008. Yet we still get pregnant Ob patients with pregnancy related issues (including labor!) from CFD BLS ambulances. (ALS ambulances seem to have gotten the memo…)

So, it may not be legal, and it’s probably not ethical. But UofC is going to close their adult ER altogether relatively soon because it’s a money pit: they see many, many uninsured patients whose care is never paid for or reimbursed.

This is true of Holy Cross, too, of course. Which is why we’ve had 2 ten-percent “workforce reductions” (layoffs) in 2008, including closing our Ob LDRP unit entirely.

Moving their geriatric patients to Holy Cross was seen as a good move because the geriatric patients typically have Medicare. So we’ll get reimbursed for their care. . . Eventually.

I’m aware that Holy Cross has a pretty bad reputation. But did you know we received more EMS ambulance runs in 2007 than any other hospital IN THE STATE? (Northwestern was second that year after us; in 2006, they were number one for most EMS ambulance runs, and we were number two.) It was AFTER that year – where we received more ambulance runs than any other hospital in the state of Illinois – that we had our two ten-percent work-force layoffs. So, after UofC starts diverting their patients to us, do you think the patient care will get better at Holy Cross? And all those so-called “direct admits” AREN’T. They all wind up going through the ER, so far, using up beds that could be used for other patients or people who’ve been waiting for hours in the waiting room because they’re ESI 4s or 5s (low priority, low acuity patients).

I’ve worked there 20 months. In that time, we’ve had 3 ER directors. We lost so many long term FT RN staff after the firing of our ER old director last April '08, and then more long-term FT RNs left our ER after our LDRP unit closed and we started getting pregnant Ob patients with no Ob unit to back us up.

Now on every single shift, there are at least two agency nurses working, and usually as many as four or five or six… because Holy Cross can’t attract and keep FT ER RNs. There’s few perks. Our 401Ks are no longer matched. The tuition reimbursement (a paltry $3000/year) was eliminated.

So, you can see where this is going. But the CEO got his bonus, of course.

Is it true that UofC and all the south side hospitals get a lot of patients in their ERs who don’t belong in ERs? Yes. It’s true for us at Holy Cross, too.

OTOH, consider the lack of urgent care facilities anywhere in these communities. Where else would you go, at 11pm at night, if your kid just had a febrile seizure?

Consider the level of health care literacy of the patients who come to south side hospital ERs with health issues which would be better seen in a doctor’s office or clinic. We are talking about patients who think that diabetes and hypertension can be cured, who don’t understand that they need to take medications for those conditions for the rest of their lives. We’re talking about patients who don’t really have the foggiest idea of what exactly is wrong with them.

We’re talking about patients who may not be able to read or write beyond a first or second grade level. We’re talking about people who have multiple children under age 6 in their home but do not have their homes stocked with thermometers or Children’s Tylenol or Children’s Motrin. We’re talking about patients who don’t understand that if they have chronic health conditions like heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, etc. that they need to be followed by a regular doctor… so whenever their meds run out, they come to the ER in crisis with exacerbation of CHF, hyperglycemia and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic non-ketotic acidosis (HHNKA), insanely high blood sugar levels.

For all intents and purposes, the local hospital ER is this patient populations’s primary care physician, area clinic, STD clinic, urgent care clinic, AND their ER. Why? They’ve been trained that way. No ER can turn a patient away for any reason. We have to see everyone… even those patients that don’t really belong in the ER because their health problem is neither acute nor going to worsen acutely overnight before they are routed to a more appropriate setting, like a local STD or primary care clinic. Yes, we have an express care… which closes at 4pm. So after that, all the low acuity patients get routed back to the ER.

So, inner city ERs are in this trick bag now, and there’s no way out. We have to see patients who aren’t truly emergent. This further encourages those patients – and any family or friends they tell – to come back to us for similar non-acute health problems. And since we can’t turn them away… and they have few clinics in their neighborhoods anyway… and since more and more doctors refuse to see Illinois Medicaid patients because the reimbursements are so much less than the costs of care and take months and months to be paid… where else are they going to go, but a local hospital ER?

There’s no good solution to this problem. At least none I can think of. Except maybe some sort of universal health insurance that doctors and clinics can NOT refuse to accept. But that smacks of socialism (heaven forfend), which many people don’t like… most especially the AHA and deep pockets of managed care companies, who can afford to throw lobbyists at politicians for wining and dining, while the people who need the solution have no lobbyists to wine and dine on their behalf.

This seems to be a consequence of the Urban Health Initiative that Michelle Obama put into place when she headed up the hospital’s Community and External Affairs efforts.

Now, she was pretty explicitly trying to get people to use the emergency room in different ways than they were accustomed to, so it is easy to see how these efforts led to this. The article doesn’t make clear whether these specific policies were put into place by her or by her successors, though, and I think that would be nice to know.

I saw the same troubles at hospitals in Detroit back in the 90’s. holyxRN seems to be describing people using the ER exactly the way they were accustomed to. What does Michelle Obama have to do with it? These aren’t new behaviors, or new problems.

No, the point was to educate people to STOP using the emergency room when there isn’t a medical emergency. I suppose you can say that’s using it “differently”, but that’s misleading. Apparently the education hasn’t worked very well, as people continue to try and use it the same way as they always did. It would be more accurate to say the failure of the education program meant the the community behavioral practices didn’t change sufficiently. So now the hospitals is getting more forceful about not accepting patients who don’t meet the admissions criteria. It’s happening everywhere.

My hospital has established an office staffed by RNs to review all inpatients and those scheduled for admission, ER and otherwise. One set of nurses examines all proposed admissions and will not allow admission unless patients meet certain criteria. Another set examines current inpatients and makes sure they are discharged once they no longer meet the criteria for inpatients.

Boyo, do those criteria include that you are not on Medicare?

As for Michelle Obama’s role - as Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center she

The Urban Health Initiative has since been used as the cover to shunt less profitable patients to poorer South Side hospitals.

No, but neither do the UC criteria. Your own OP link says:

According to the Tribune story, 32% of the patients transferred to Mercy Hospital had no insurance at all, or had only Medicaid. I conclude from that that 68% of them DID have some form of insurance besides Medicaid.

The story also says UC is, or is becoming, a “specialized” hospital treating patients with particular kinds of illnesses, and referring others elsewhere. It seems to me that there is pretty good evidence that they accept Medicaid patients who fit certain medical profiles, and don’t fit others.

Am I missing something? Are you saying that UC shouldn’t be allowed to change for some reason? What – tradition?

I went to both med school and residency at University of Chicago over two decades ago. They have always been a specialty program trying desperately to attract referrals from the broad metropolitan area and to not serve the community (but having no choice.) There is no change of tradition here, merely the attempt to “improve” upon it. Well, a little change: in past years they at least made a facade of providing care to the community.

No, University of Chicago administrators are not explicitly using payment criteria; they are using correlates of payment criteria which modify their mix - the one that I highlighted is using age as a criteria, which of course correlates with Medicare as a primary payment source. If you are over 65 (Medicare often primary) then by default you are part of “the geriatric program” and transferred to Holy Cross (see holyxRN’s description of conditions there). They say they will help Holy Cross build a geriatric program there so maybe at some point the elder Hyde Parker that my wife knows, who presented to the U of C ER by ambulance with internal hemorhaging (but presumably a stable BP and HR) will be able to have a different experience than basically being laughed at when she asked if there were any U of C doctors there building a geriatric program, the services of which she didn’t need anyway.
holyxRN I never responded to this of yours:

How about the solution of making payments a modest bit more than the costs of care and paying within a reasonable cycle consistently? Maybe even rewarding actions that show that a primary care doc has become a Medicaid patient’s medical home?

The elders though have medical homes. They are on Medicare is all. They go to primary care doctors. They are just being shunted to you because they are not profitable enough.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want the state of Illinois, in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, to increase Medicaid payments a bit more than costs of care. At a time when revenue is falling. And the budgets of counties are forced to make deep cuts.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a nice idea. It just isn’t going to happen. Certainly not now. Maybe never.

As to rewarding PCPs who accept Medicaid patients and make their clinic/office/hospital the patient’s medical home… again, in this economic climate, I’m not sure how any rewards could be built into the system.

Paying within a reasonable cycle? They’ve been trying to do that for years. Clearly there hasn’t been much progress.

In some respects, forcing patients to pick a “medical home” is a good idea. There is so much seeking of care in ERs, we often get patients at Holy Cross who were at St. Bernard’s or Christ or UofC within the last few days for the same or similar complaint. Obviously, this makes continuity of care practically impossible.

(I won’t go into the intrainstitutional barriers to continuity of care… let’s just say the patchwork computer systems now being used make it difficult to go through previous records, except for diagnostics like lab results and radiology. There’s that, at least.)

The big problem is forcing patient’s to use a “medical home” that’s farther from where they live (when many/most don’t have cars, public transit stops at night, and neighborhoods often aren’t safe anyway) kind of defeats the purpose.

As to re-educating people on what is and what is not an appropriate use of an emergency – in other words, teaching them what IS and what ISN’T an emergency – I don’t think it is possible. I remember once, vividly, a 17 year old patient called 911 because his sore throat (for which he’d been seen by us the night before) had not improved. He arrived by ambulance.

The ER doc read him the riot act about abusing public services and how incredibly wasteful it was to use 911 for a sore throat, when real people with real emergencies (oh, heart attacks, strokes, etc.) might need those ambulances. She really gave it to him.

But that kid was back not a week later, complaining that his symptoms hadn’t gone away, they were worse. He also hadn’t filled the RXs for antibiotics he had been given by us. Gee, maybe that was why his symptoms worsened. Ya think? He sure had a bling phone, though.

This is far from the only patient we have seen this way. Last winter we had a guy who left our ER about 3pm, sick, with RXs for appropriate meds and printed discharge instructions (not that we’re ever certain the patients can read them because illiteracy is also a common problem, the local schools being what they are).

He showed back up about four AM that night, looking miserable, with a high fever, chills, the crackhead dried white lines of spit running from the corners or his mouth to his chin, and clearly severely dehydrated. He still had our printed discharge instructions and RXs in his pockets and he showed them to me. I asked him why he hadn’t gone to get the med RXs filled. He said he was walking home and he saw “some of the guys” so he went to go hang out with them. Needless to say, he came up positive for alcohol and multiple drugs… because that’s what he did with “the guys.” He said he didn’t have the money to fill the prescriptions. Which I’m sure he didn’t… by that point.

There are patients who have come back days or weeks past their “return to the ER/Fast Track” instructions (for things like suture/staple removal and wound checks). It’s not politically correct to ask if their school or work commitments prevented them from returning. But it’s strange that the people who have school and work commitments are the ones who *do *show up on the dates specified… and the patients who have no school or work to go to are the ones who show up days or weeks late, when significant scarring or infection has developed.

This is the thinking process (or perhaps lack thereof) we are often battling. There is a total inability to prioritize that which is serious from that which is not. Personally, I’d buy Children’s Tylenol and Children’s Motrin and a thermometer for use with my kids at home rather than furry boots or a designer bag. And of course if I really, really wanted furry boots and a designer bag, I might consider not having children in the first place. But that’s because I was raised by people who would do those things and think that way – and all my friends’ parents were that way, too. I grew up thinking those things are perfectly normal.

But we are dealing with a patient population who suffer no cognitive dissonance whatsoever when making such decisions, because they didn’t grow up with the same “normal” we did. They simply do not understand, and we can not make them understand in their short (though frequent) times spent with us. The ability to make long and short term goals, to schedule appointments and keep them, to recognize and plan for RXs running out and the need for refills or new RXs, to prioritize what’s important to have around the house when you have kids, to differentiate between a true emergency and just a bump on the head – when and how would you develop that in a community with crappy & dangerous schools, full up with violence and drugs, and with no jobs (and for which you’d be unqualified even if there were jobs because you can’t do basic math or read on a very basic level)?

Where would you learn these healthy parenting priorities when your community has high rates of teen pregnancy, violence, and drug use? When kids are being raised by their grandparents and aunts and uncles and friends of the family because their parents are drug addicts who can’t raise them? And how many other kids aren’t being raised at all and just run wild (getting into all kinds of trouble and trauma) because their parents are either absent or dead and so are their grandparents because they died young of preventable diseases? Or because parents simply aren’t home because they have to work one or two jobs just to scrape by, and they can’t find safe, appropriate daycare or after school care?

This patient population lives in the now. I’m not talking about culturally elastic senses of time, I mean there’s little thinking beyond this moment Right Now… and the moment right after this one which will shortly become Right Now. If you look at it from their perspective, there is no point in thinking beyond Right Now. There’s no work to go to. Finishing high school does not qualify you for most jobs any more, because the schools are so bad. There’s few parents and adults equipped to channel the energy of the young into constructive activities. There are few wholesome places to hang out and burn off that energy, except churches… but that implies family members who attend and who bring the kids with.

When you never have anything to do, you don’t develop the thought processes for making and sticking to plans, making goals and achieving them, or prioritizing anything. You can do whatever you want whenever you want because nothing means anything and you know that your life, and the lives of everyone else you know, will never change – because you’ve grown up seeing all the adults around you living exactly the same way.

How can we change this? I don’t know. I can think of a lot of ways that would be fascistic, none of which would respect patient rights, patient autonomy, or the right to refuse treatment. I have wracked my brain to think of other, voluntary ways to change this kind of thinking, but haven’t yet thought of any other ways.

The fact is that the ways these problems manifest in inner city ERs are merely an extension of the economic and social breakdown and dysfunction of these patients’ communities. Those are much bigger problems to solve, and hospitals and ERs are not the systems to solve those. The other systems in place to solve those problems aren’t and don’t; they’re overwhelmed and underfunded (and now, thanks to the economy, they’re probably having their budgets cut… unless they can get some of the stimulus package money).

Head Start would at least give somewhat of a fighting chance – longitudinal studies bear out that kids who attend Head Start programs are more likely to finish high school and more likely to be employed in adulthood, as well as less likely to get pregnant as teens or to do drugs. But how well funded is Head Start? And how to fund a massive expansion of it during an economic downturn? How to make sure all children attend? You can offer it as free daycare – that’s an incentive – but then if there aren’t a ton of local Head Start programs within walking distance or near safe public transit, how do those moms get the kids there?

I would love to solve these problems that result in the poor health and inappropriate ER use of inner-city community hospital ER patients, but I don’t even know where to begin. It all sounds so easy when you’re in school. But when you see the reality of it, day in and day out, it is incredibly discouraging, and you resign yourself to doing health care “damage control” rather than actually improving the health of inner city patients. We work in the ER. That’s all we do. That’s our only sphere of influence. But it is dwarfed by the influence of the community at large, and all of that community’s problems.

I understand your jaundiced eye given the slice of this the poor population that you see but I hope you can recognize that you have a bit of a biased sample.

First off, 100% any healthcare reform must include that providers are paid more than it costs them to provide care. This is a real basic premise. In truth even current Medicaid for adult primary care pays that - just not that much more and on a payment cycle that is untenable.

On the pediatric side we actually can do okay with Medicaid and AllKids, especially if we do provide a real medical home for this population. Illinois is among a few states that have actually made real efforts to facilitate getting kids into medical homes by correctly aligning incentives. We not only collect for performing developmental screens and screening for postpartum depression and get a fee for administering immunizations - which are provided by the state via Vaccines For Children (VFC), we get a bonus for meeting thresholds of having our identified population so screened. Altogether it comes to less than our FFS and other private payor patient payments but it isn’t bad. And the experience of other states with these medical home incentives and decent primary care provider payments has saved the system money overall. We are just that much less expensive of care than you are.

Yes, I’m in a suburban practice but we still get a meaningful fraction of this population group. Amazingly enough most of these kids are not running wild, most of these parents are not running to the ER, and those who did are learning to call us first and being guided through how to manage things at home and to use our office appropriately. You do not see these people of course. They see us instead. Sometimes it is grandparents who are raising the kids, or aunts, or foster parents. Yes there are disrupted households and drugs in some cases. Yet believe it or not, given a place to go and a number to call at night, and clear directions of what to do if this or that, they can do it just as fine as you can.

I’m a bit less jaundiced and a bit more sanguine. Align the incentives. Have the state be a reliable payor. Have a place for people to go that treats them with respect and speaks in terms they understand, that has hours they can make and available times and that sees them sometime near the scheduled appointment time. And you can provide better care that is cheaper to deliver.

You work in the ER. That’s all you do. I work in the office. That’s been my reality for over 20 years. That’s what I do.

Nice posts holyxRN. Thank you for putting these problems in sharp contrast.