An ER Doc Grapples With ‘Unnecessary’ Hospital Admissions


Published On: July 31st, 2009

hospitalIt’s all well and good to talk about reducing unnecessary hospital admissions to help control health costs. But the definition of “unnecessary” gets a lot more complicated when you’re the one doing the admitting, ER doc Jesse Pines writes in a column on WSJ.com.

He describes the case of a woman with a probable case of lung cancer who needed a comprehensive evaluation. She was on Medicaid, the government health insurance for the poor, which meant she’d have a hard time finding specialists to treat her as an outpatient. So Pines admitted her to the hospital, even though she wasn’t acutely ill.

In the hospital, she got a biopsy, a formal diagnosis of lung cancer and a plan for outpatient treatment. She met with a psychiatrist and a social worker. Pines argues that it was the best outcome, though more expensive than it would have been for her to be treated as an outpatient.

“She was not sick enough to need a hospital bed,” he writes. “But I believe admitting her was the right decision.”

Health Blog Questions of the Day: Who should decide when hospital admissions are necessary? Are there any instances where public insurance shouldn’t pay for a hospital admission?


View original post here:
An ER Doc Grapples With ‘Unnecessary’ Hospital Admissions



Loading...


Comments are closed.