A new report for Slate.com reveals the darker side to those long waits in emergency rooms.
A major cause for E.R. crowding is the hospital practice of boarding inpatients in emergency departments. This happens when patients who come to the E.R. need to be admitted overnight. If there are no inpatient beds in the hospital (or no extra inpatient nurses on duty that day) then the patient stays in the E.R. long past the completion of the initial emergency work. This is what happened to Green, and it has become widespread and common. The problem is that boarding shifts E.R. resources away from the new patients in the waiting room. While E.R. patients wait for inpatient beds, new patients wait longer to see a doctor. As more new patients come, the waits grow.
So why would hospitals do such a thing?
There are two competing sources for inpatient beds. The first source is patients who come in through direct and transfer admissions. They are more likely to come with private insurance and need procedural care, both of which maximize profits. The second source is E.R. patients, who are more likely to be uninsured or have pittance-paying Medicaid and less likely to need high-margin procedures. Do the math: If you fill your hospital with the direct and transfer admissions and maroon the E.R. patients for long periods, you make more money.
In effect, then, E.R. boarding allows hospitals to insulate themselves from the burgeoning needs of the poor. E.R.s are safety nets: By law, we who work in them see any and all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. But as more E.R. beds are devoted to boarders, the E.R. has less space for new patients, which keeps a lid on the number of un- and underinsured. So unless you are having a heart attack and can jump the line, your emergency—though it may still be serious—may wait for so long that you give up and go home. Bad for you, good for the hospital’s bottom line.
Sick yet? Wonder how a country with universal health care might handle such a problem?
In England, the National Health System now has a rule that 98 percent of patients have to spend less than four hours in the E.R.. Apparently, the son of a member of parliament spent too long in an E.R., we’ve heard.
I experienced this first-hand last year when I went to the ER with appendicitis. I was in the hospital for around 24 hours, spent more than half of that time in the emergency room, and the hospital charged $16,000.00. That did not include the surgeon’s fees or the cost of testing to determine what was wrong. Thank God I had insurance.
Read the entire article here.


One Comment
I’ve experienced this - I’ve spent many a night in the ER with friends who were violently ill and in pain… and who had to wait the entire night before they either gave up or were admitted. I believe it’s high time American ended the practice of “health insurance” and started working on health CARE. The health and lives of our citizens should never be a for-profit endeavor.