Posted on 08/23/2012 5:43:51 PM PDT by opentalk
A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals evaluated by Medicare starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.
Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates --which refers to patients who return within a month --by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.
Doctors are concerned the penalty is unfair, since sometimes they have to accept patients more than once in a brief period of time but could be penalized for doing so --even for accepting seniors who are sick.
"Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates," said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. "So, which would we rather have --a hospital readmission or a death?"
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“”Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates,” said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. “So, which would we rather have —a hospital readmission or a death?””
The obvious answer from the bureaucrat charged with reducing Obamacare costs is: “Death, is much cheaper because it guarantees no more admissions or other costs. And if the person is over 65, the government gets to save on Social Security payments. It’s a TWO-FER!”
Wrong!!!!!
It should read: "A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish patients at roughly 2/3 of U. S. hospitals . . . ."--especially patients 65 and older, who may need to be re-hospitalized following surgery or other serious procedures.
The Book That Government Unions Hope You Won’t Read
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921219/posts
just wait until all hospital workers are unionized!
it’ll be The People’s Paradise!
The intention is not to reduce readmission rates, the intention is to pay less money to those who provide the services.
Hospitals will be forced to cut back on services and lay off technologists who perform imaging services and such, the desired result being longer waits by patients and fewer dollars paid for imaging services which are crucial in modern medicine.
Basically, it is an implementation of a form of rationing.
As the article points out, many in the medical community view this as unfair, to say the least. You can cut down on readmisson rates, but you cannot eliminate them. Furthermore, there are many hospitals that have much higher rates due to the nature of the patient population.
`
Same people are pushing partial birth abortion as normal, with no regard for life
My greatest personal fear is that I will be forced to become a government employee and union member against my will.
We do not have any unions in my hospital. We treat our employees well, we pay them competitive wages, and we openly discourage union actions.
They have had their eye on us for a long time, but haven’t been able to make inroads. We have watched and seen what tactics the union goons use to take over hospitals.
If this happens, I hope I have the guts to make the right choice.
Your post # 3 is correct. This is one of several provisions designed to reduce the elderly population.
Getting you while you’re down and sick.
Kill Obamacare, please.....vote in November and not for Obama!
regulate- - - Control - - - DESTROY
The idea is to encourage ways for doctors and hospital to come up with creative ways to avoid treating these expensive patients at the end of the complete lives system curve. There will be an emphasis on do not recusitate orders, discouraging patients from high risk procedures, and hospice.
Meanwhile, illegals will receive care at the expensive of Medicare patients.
*That phrase actually was uttered during the Reagan administration when "cost containment councils" were suggested for hospitals. The phrase, IIRC, came from a critic of the administration.
Yeah, from the D-tribe. My, how things change.
Jeepers. Thanks for the ping!
The article mentions Vanderbilt. I had in-house surgery there in 2005. Though I could walk unassisted after coming out of the anesthesia they kept me for 36 hours more until the surgeon was satisfied with my progress.
Before I left I was briefed by a nurse on the daily routine I should follow until I returned for a follow-up with the surgeon. She made me repeat everything she had said then gave me the instructions in writing along with a number to call if I had any problems.
The surgeon I had at Vanderbilt is nationally known. The intern who changed my dressings is a West Point graduate. The Army was financing his medical tuition.
When Medicare's formula for determining quality penalizes a place like Vanderbilt then we have arrived at the Theater of the Absurd.
When you get a bunch of politicians willing to pass a bill they won't read, written by idealistic 21 year old liberal staffers who don't understand medicine and have no real world experience, you get monstrous legislation that penalizes good and decent institutions like Vanderbilt and the one I work at.
It makes me crazy.
(BTW...hope you are doing well...:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.