Comments on: Emory versus Gwinnett

By: Kellie

Kellie — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:49:22 +0000

Thanks. I am treasuring each day. I go there everyday even though it’s an hour away and my house is falling apart. Spending time with him is much more important.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:06:58 +0000

Treasure the moment. I went thru a bunch of scares with my Dad over 20 years. Just treasure the moment like it’s the last one you get, because you really never know when that moment is supposed to come.

By: B Balz

B Balz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:00:53 +0000

Godspeed to him, Kellie. Serious medical encounters are tough going, hang in there.

By: The Baron bon Bloginsky Turn of a Word « Obi’s Sister

The Baron bon Bloginsky Turn of a Word « Obi’s Sister — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:14:45 +0000

[...] Emory is arguing that there is no “need” for Gwinnett County to have open heart services because… [...]

By: Kellie

Kellie — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:59:43 +0000

He went in Sunday. They wanted to do the angioplasty on Monday but once they started they realized his kidneys could not handle the dye so they had to hold off. By Wednesday all the dye used on Monday was out of his Kidneys and they were functioning better so they did the procedure; the doctors reopened the blockage and put 2 stints in. Since then his kidneys have gotten worse so he had to stay and now he is just worried. He does not want to be alone so we are up there everyday. I hope his kidneys look better today so he can go home. I know he will do better and actually get some sleep at home.
My dad is a big man who still rides a Harley at the age of 69. It is hard to see him like this.
Thanks for asking.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:44:32 +0000

Not fair you not telling us how he’s doing!

By: Kellie

Kellie — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:14:35 +0000

Having been at Emory everyday this week because my dad had a heart attack and chose to drive from Dacula to Decatur, I believe Emory has great service but it is a pain to get in and out of. My dad was closer to Gwinnett and Emory Eastside Medical but he want to be at their main location because he knew he’d get the best doctors and care there.

Having said that, Emory needs to win over patients through their service not through stopping competition because many can not make that drive and minutes save lives.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:53:33 +0000

No, it was Jay. I was wondering about that as well

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:51:20 +0000

The insurance company price was lower in all cases. That was the sucker is paying cash price.

Was your Dermo a man with the first name Leslie?

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:53:22 +0000

Liberal Emory is proving once again it is all about money not serving the people.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:27:16 +0000

It sounds like you’re using the dermo I fired last year for just that reason. You make an appointment with me for 8:30 a.m., don’t make me wait in a room without clothes for an hour why you try to catch up to your schedule.

As for your costs… I have no idea, since that’s a lot higher than the costs I’ve seen charged for those things.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:44:30 +0000

Speaking of the costs. I would love to see an audit of where the money goes in the medical system before any reforms happen.

Why did a specialist (a dermatologist) charge me $350 for 5 minutes of his time. (Well I did wait 2.5 hours for him to see me, but I don’t think that counts).

Why did an X-Ray cost $950? X-ray technology is about 5 decades old now, does it really cost that much?

Why did my lung function test cost over $1,000? You just blow into a tube and it measures the coversion of O2 to CO2.

Where does this money go?

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:58:53 +0000

Doctors aren’t the only cost involved in delivering medical care. So the 2% mark is probably still right.

As for the rest, I agree. I think the idea of medical panels, which are used in some places to determine if a case is frivolous or not, is one place to start, although if they get run down here anything like the Public Service Commission, we’re goin’ to heck in a handbasket.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:17:36 +0000

We are talking about the ER here and not the average doctor. The average doctor pays 3.5% of their revenue on malpractice alone. An ER doctor spends a great deal more.

I am not in favor of tort reform as proposed by most people. I think capping awards is ridiculous, but I also think frivolous claims should be severely punished; including disbarment of the attorneys and their firms that push such claims repeatedly.

Perhaps if we had a greater tolerance of “mistakes” caused more by the bad luck on the part of the patient as opposed to incompetence or lack of diligence on the part of the doctor, there would be no need of tort reform at all.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:53:47 +0000

BTW, saw something that studies had shown only 2% of overall medical costs come from “defensive medicine” and lawsuits. That’s still a lot of money, but relatively speaking, it’s not much that’ll get gained from “tort reform”.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:52:31 +0000

I didn’t say “release”, I’m thinking more like setting up a clinic within the hospital that handles non-emergencies. Some hospitals do it, others don’t and you end up next to a gunshot victim bleeding all over the place. Can’t imagine why all of them don’t.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:02:19 +0000

They are probably afraid of the liability they may be exposed to if someone makes a mistake and releases a “non emergency” patient.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:48:16 +0000

You gotta wonder why more hospitals don’t set up nurse-run triage and auxiliary clinics to route non-emergencies away from the ER as quickly as possible.

By: OleDirtyBarrister

OleDirtyBarrister — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:53:37 +0000

NONE of the hospitals, which are subject to the federal statutory mandate to treat, want to see the CON program eliminated. They do not want the competition from clinics and whatever other facilities the marketplace would create. In their view, if they have to provide services for which they know the consumer cannot pay, they need to be able to offset that with services to “paying” customers (insurance, medicare, medicaid, whatever) at highly inflated prices. There is some gravity to that argument, because if they get stuck with all the non-paying clientele and clinics, etc. get a large portion of the paying work through competition, the hospitals are going to have a hard time making it.

The safer approach is reform the federal “must treat” mandate to provide a relief valve for emergency rooms so that they do not have to treat everyone that comes through the door, only those with an emergency condition for which the ER was conceived. That would bar a lot of free riders and change the mentality of the self-insured that they can do without insurance and just go to the ER if they need medical attention. Obviously, a problem will arise in how to define an “emergency” for which a hospital must provide treatment, and a problem in execution, because hospitals would have a strong incentive to determine that a particular case was not an “emergency.”

Abuse of the ER is a major consideration to straightening out the healthcare system. It is the most expensive point of service provision, and is not the place for treating the flu and many other things it ends up treating.

By: Bucky Plyler

Bucky Plyler — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:32:11 +0000

WORD