Almost half of ER doctors say they are seeing more patients since key provisions of the health law took effect Jan. 1, while more than a quarter say their patient volume has remained the same, according to a survey to be released Wednesday by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹
Erin Shields Britt, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said it was too soon to draw broad conclusions from the study. “This survey, looking at only the first three months of coverage, cannot speak to the long-term effects of expanded coverage, which will be shaped by our continuing efforts to help people use their new primary care and preventive care benefits and to invest in innovative approaches aimed at improving our nation’s system of primary care,” she said.
Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2014
The truth probably is that it is too early to tell what may be affecting ER visits, but isn’t it interesting that HHS should make the above statement when only a few weeks ago the same organization was giving the ACA credit for reducing the growth rate in health care costs for the entire Country even before the law was fully implemented?
There are two ways to look at this. If you now have insurance, in theory you can afford to go to a doctor and thus avoid the emergency room or at the very least you can go to a urgent care center. But if you have been using the ER for years and know no better, you now have insurance to pay, so why not still go to the ER … even more often perhaps?
But wait, for those who have recently gained health insurance, their coverage is only going to pay for emergency room care if there is a real “life threatening” emergency and frequently there is a significant deductible for the ER unless the visit results in a hospital admission, ie. a true emergency.
Surprise‼️ We may be back where we started 🔻🔻🔻convenience over common sense and in some areas of the Country, still a necessity.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 