Emergency Room Visits Increase Under Universal Coverage
By Mary Theroux • Tuesday September 22, 2009 10:53 AM PDT • 5 Comments
Responding to an op-ed by Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick calling his state’s plan a “Health-Reform Model,” the president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Dr. Angela Gardner, cites:
A study just published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine shows a 9% increase in emergency room visits since the commonwealth [of Massachusetts]‘s universal health-care plan was signed into law in 2006.
Dr. Gardner continues:
While the American College of Emergency Physicians supports universal health-care coverage, please do not perpetuate the myth that universal care will decrease emergency department visits. The evidence clearly says otherwise.
Thus, the drumbeat claim that government health-care will be at least partially funded by “savings” from shifting people from expensive emergency room care to affordable preventative care can now be shelved as simply another piece of “all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months” President Obama criticized in his Sept. 9 speech to Congress.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Healthcare, Insurance 
Any time you hear a politician use the words “reform,” “bipartisan,” or “for the children,” in describing a piece of legislation, hold your wallet and run for the hills.
Steve Hogan | Sep 22, 2009 | Reply
I was actually having this discussion with my mother last night. She’s a nurse, so she obviously knows much more about medicine than I do, but I made the case to her that universal healthcare would not decrease the amount of emergency room patients. I considered the reason twofold (from the perspective of a Southern Californian):
1. Illegal/legal immigrants who are not covered by the public healthcare system will still not be able to access preventive healthcare as much as those who are covered.
2. Just because you have health insurance does not mean that you go to visit the doctor. I have been covered by a private health insurance my entire life through my parent’s employers (well, I am reaching that age where I better get my own soon, though ;) ), and I think I can count the total amount of times I have gone to see a doctor on my two hands (that is, seen a doctor due to poor health)... indeed, I’d cut it down to one hand (as far as I can remember, I’ve gone to the doctor once for antibiotics).
There are probably a great deal of people like this. My cousin went to an emergency room for a HEADACHE. It goes to show that even when people have the option, they won’t necessarily use it. And, with universal healthcare, going straight to the emergency room will be more lucrative, since it will be covered. Why waste your time with preventive care visits, when you can just take care of it when it becomes a serious problem?
Jonathan Finegold Catalán | Sep 23, 2009 | Reply
PLEASE but PLEASE – EVERYONE – PLEASE STOP calling it “Healthcare reform”, it has nothing to do with “Healthcare” and everything to do with “Health Insurance.”
Regardless of what your views on health insurance, the discussions are about coverage, NOT health care!
It troubles me that they (the statists) claim that because so many people have finally realized that health insurance is simply not worth the premiums and begun canceling their insurance in droves that we suddenly have a health care problem. No where in the world can you find health-care as good as the care that we have here. Where else in the world can you break a leg at 1:00, and have it in a cast by 2:00? Where else in the world can you discover that you have a brain tumor and within 24 hours be flown across the country and be under the knife of the best brain surgeon in the world?
We do not have a health care problem, it’s just that the cost of government intervention has driven up insurance premiums and people have stopped paying.
Now they want to tax me if I do not buy their plan! If insurance companies can make money by selling the plans, doesn’t it stand to reason that we could make money by NOT buying them and self-insuring? Apparently it does for millions of Americans already – which is why the Nanny government feels that “something must be done!”
joe4liberty | Sep 30, 2009 | Reply
Just a few points:
1. Everyone in the United States has access to healthcare. Almost 90% of the population has health insurance as well.
2. Comparing current private health insurance costs to almost anything always omits this fact: We who have private medical insurance pay about 15-20% of the cost of those who use Medicare and Medicaid and 100% of the cost of those who have no insurance and no government-provided coverage. Cutting Medicare/Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals is nothing more than another tax on Americans who use private medical insurance.
3. If you like the economics of the Postal System you’ll love paying for public healthcare. Postal rates have increased at nine times the rate of inflation the past 60 or so years. Meanwhile, FedEx and UPS have figured it out, drive the same routes, and make money.
4. If you hear that government can do it cheaper since it doesn’t have to earn a profit, ask if there is one major government program that (a) operates at or below budget, and (b)could compete with a private for-profit business at the same job and win. No, there is a 30% cost premium on average across all government departments–it’s just the cost of being a government business, that’s all. No incentive to cut costs or drive efficiencies because they don’t have to concern themselves with making a profit.
Richard Wilkes | Oct 4, 2009 | Reply