http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/homeless.dumping.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Say all you want about how awful socialized health care would be, but I bet they don't do this in Canada...

There Republican solution shall be: Make the patient's cough up the dough before they get admitted.  I'm sick of paying the tab for these worthless, criminal, no good, illegal immigrant, welfare queen, free-loading bums!  If they don't take enough personal responsibility to have a meager 60 grand in their private healthcare savings accounts, they deserve to die of the flu on Skid Row.  An' if you get that hippie liberal socialized medicine freakshow from Canada, my wife will have to wait two years for her second boob job!

BTW, this Republican solution won't violate the the Hippocratic Oath.  You don't have to worry about the Hippocratic Oath when you don't let the bums get to see the doctor in the first place!
;D

NOW THAT'S JUST PLAIN CRUEL!
http://blog.blogwhy.com/axlwang/upload/skid%20row.jpg
(Sorry, it had to be done.)

Didn't the hospital state that some of them were from a homeless shelter there, and it was at the patients request to be dropped off there?  The homeless shelter stated that they had never had these people as their clients.  I'm wondering if they dump anyone there that didn't come from there?  I wonder what the California Attorney General's office will do?

NOW THAT'S JUST PLAIN CRUEL!
http://blog.blogwhy.com/axlwang/upload/skid%20row.jpg
(Sorry, it had to be done.)


Like they even know how to treat most diseases. I bet they don't even have a simple dialisis machine.

According to the story, all of the people "dumped" had been released.  It says nothing about them having treatment refused.  In fact, since there is no mention, I can only assume that any treatment they were in for had been taken care of.  Otherwise, they would have made a point of stating that their treatments had been refused.

And I am curious, when was the last time any of you had a hospital do anything once you left the front door?  To be honest, I have never heard of hospitals driving people home, no matter where they lived.  And if anything, the problem seems to be the fault of the Ambulance and Taxi companies, not the hospital.

When I had my accident in 1990, my ex and I were taken to 2 different hospitals.  She went to a civilian one, and was discharged after an hour.  I was taken to the military hospital, and discharged 3 hours later.  She had to take a taxi to the hospital I was at, and I had to call a friend to take the two of us home.  I have honestly never heard of hospitals transporting patients home.

According to the story, all of the people "dumped" had been released.  It says nothing about them having treatment refused.  In fact, since there is no mention, I can only assume that any treatment they were in for had been taken care of.  Otherwise, they would have made a point of stating that their treatments had been refused.

And I am curious, when was the last time any of you had a hospital do anything once you left the front door?  To be honest, I have never heard of hospitals driving people home, no matter where they lived.  And if anything, the problem seems to be the fault of the Ambulance and Taxi companies, not the hospital.

When I had my accident in 1990, my ex and I were taken to 2 different hospitals.  She went to a civilian one, and was discharged after an hour.  I was taken to the military hospital, and discharged 3 hours later.  She had to take a taxi to the hospital I was at, and I had to call a friend to take the two of us home.  I have honestly never heard of hospitals transporting patients home.


maybe that's because they didn't want people to know they were being discharged?

In one case, a man dropped off at Skid Row was in fact not homeless, said Smith, the LAPD captain. A police officer took him home and the man's family was "outraged," he said.

"Not only did they not know that he was discharged, but the fact that he had been brought to Skid Row instead of being brought home was what further outraged that family," Smith said at a news conference Tuesday.

Why would a person who is not homeless, be taken from the hospital and dumped on skid row?  Whether they provide a discharge service or not isn't even really the issue.  Instead of telling a person they had to leave, they didn't simply show them the door, they drove them to a dangerous neighborhood and dropped them off. 

maybe that's because they didn't want people to know they were being discharged?

In one case, a man dropped off at Skid Row was in fact not homeless, said Smith, the LAPD captain. A police officer took him home and the man's family was "outraged," he said.

"Not only did they not know that he was discharged, but the fact that he had been brought to Skid Row instead of being brought home was what further outraged that family," Smith said at a news conference Tuesday.

Why would a person who is not homeless, be taken from the hospital and dumped on skid row?  Whether they provide a discharge service or not isn't even really the issue.  Instead of telling a person they had to leave, they didn't simply show them the door, they drove them to a dangerous neighborhood and dropped them off. 



Maybe they were hoping that he would get mugged and had to be readmitted to the hospital so they can get more $$$ from him or his insurance company.  :-\\




Cat

How many homeless people do you know have medical insurance?  If they had medical insurance they probably wouldn't have been dumped.  Hospital's usually admit people with or without insurance in an emergency, but if the hospital is not getting paid for caring for people they are discharged very quickly.  In LA I'm guessing it's Skid Row.

How many homeless people do you know have medical insurance?  If they had medical insurance they probably wouldn't have been dumped.  Hospital's usually admit people with or without insurance in an emergency, but if the hospital is not getting paid for caring for people they are discharged very quickly.  In LA I'm guessing it's Skid Row.


California has comprehensive health care available through the MediCal program.  Even if you are homeless and live on the street, or are working at McDonalds, the state will provide health and dental care at little or no charge (depending on your ability to pay).

But as far as I know, there is no requirement for a hospital to provide a patient or former patient with transportation back home.  I know that when my mother-in-law was released after she was shot, her husband had to pay for an ambulance to bring her home (it was something like $500).  Most of us just have somebody come and pick us up.

We don't have that kind of medical coverage system here in PA.  You're right though most ambulances will not take the patient home.

According to the story, all of the people "dumped" had been released.  It says nothing about them having treatment refused.  In fact, since there is no mention, I can only assume that any treatment they were in for had been taken care of.  Otherwise, they would have made a point of stating that their treatments had been refused.

And I am curious, when was the last time any of you had a hospital do anything once you left the front door?  To be honest, I have never heard of hospitals driving people home, no matter where they lived.  And if anything, the problem seems to be the fault of the Ambulance and Taxi companies, not the hospital.

When I had my accident in 1990, my ex and I were taken to 2 different hospitals.  She went to a civilian one, and was discharged after an hour.  I was taken to the military hospital, and discharged 3 hours later.  She had to take a taxi to the hospital I was at, and I had to call a friend to take the two of us home.  I have honestly never heard of hospitals transporting patients home.


For most people, once you leave the hospital, you're on your own.  My father even drove himself home from the hospital.  Although, my father-in-law has been transported to and from the hospital by an ambulance company many times, he has Medicare (or is it Medicaid??). 

I'm thinking it's probably some lame ambulance company trying to make as many pick-ups and drop-offs as possible.

I don't know for a fact, but I have heard anectdotally, that there are some private hospitals that will send you to a public hospital if you don't have the right insurance.  Depends on the state.  I believe most states have laws that require all hospitals to provide care on a trauma or emergency level.  Thus, the private hospital might do the minimum amount possible and discharge you to the city hospital. You might wait all day, maybe two days, in your suffering before you receive the proper care. 

Some hospitals provide no emergency care whatsoever.  This should be illegal.  If you're in a trauma situation, the nearest hospital should treat you.  Most hospitals I know of run in the red.  Healthcare is so damn expensive.  I don't care.  It needs to be a right, not a prvilege.

At some of the worst public hospitals, you might be better off drinking a bottle of gin and setting the broken bone yourself!

There's King/Drew hospital in L.A., for instance.  Legend has it people have jumped out of speeding ambulances upon hearing they're headed for King/Drew!  I'm pretty certain this is hyperbole, but such a legend didn't come from nowhere!
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/public-service/works/latimes16.html

I don't know for a fact, but I have heard anectdotally, that there are some private hospitals that will send you to a public hospital if you don't have the right insurance.  Depends on the state.  I believe most states have laws that require all hospitals to provide care on a trauma or emergency level.  Thus, the private hospital might do the minimum amount possible and discharge you to the city hospital. You might wait all day, maybe two days, in your suffering before you receive the proper care. 

Some hospitals provide no emergency care whatsoever.  This should be illegal.  If you're in a trauma situation, the nearest hospital should treat you.  Most hospitals I know of run in the red.  Healthcare is so damn expensive.  I don't care.  It needs to be a right, not a prvilege.

There's King/Drew hospital in L.A., for instance.  Legend has it people have jumped out of speeding ambulances upon hearing they're headed for King/Drew!  I'm pretty certain this is hyperbole, but such a legend didn't come from nowhere!
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/public-service/works/latimes16.html


Hospitals may not refuse service on an emergency basis, reguardless of the ability to pay.  It is actually a federal law.  Only after the patient is stable and will not be endangered by being transported may they be shipped to another facility.

And some hospitals have reduced or eliminated their emergency departments.  This is often done in larger cities like LA, where some smaller hospitals will instead concentrate on things like outpatient care, or some other kind of specialty because of the number of hospitals in the area.  LA is actually scattered with a large number of closed hospitals.  I know of 3 that closed in a 5 mile radius in the 1980's because of this.  One became an office building, 1 became generic doctors offices, and 1 is now a strictly outpatient facility.

And reguardless of any argument for/against universal health care, as a general rule hospitals are not responsible for the transportation from their facility unless you are being transfered to another medical facility.  The article was about the treatment of patients after they are released.

The reason why King-Drew is often avoided is because it is a university teaching hospital.  It is associated with Charles R. Drew Medical University.  Like most teaching hospitals, it has a huge number of medical students and first year interns doing the primary care.  While their surgical center is among the best in the area, their primary emergency cair is pretty poor.  Although to be honest, it is on par with any other teaching hospital.  Consider it as in the show ER.  Who would you rather have work on you, the 1st season Intern Carter, or the 6th season Dr. Carter?  You are much more likely to get an intern there then a resident.

And to be fair, some of the best Trauma Doctors in the LA area come out of King-Drew.  Because it is situated on the boundry between Compton, Inglewood and Watts, it sees a huge number of gunshot wounds.  Students from other university facilities (USC-UCLA) often choose to do a rotation there because of the huge number of trauma and shooting patients. 

The main reason it is avoided though is simply because you are much more likely to get treated by a student.  If you have a choice of having a broken bone set by a first year intern or a 6 year resident, who would you choose?

Hospitals may not refuse service on an emergency basis, reguardless of the ability to pay.  It is actually a federal law.  Only after the patient is stable and will not be endangered by being transported may they be shipped to another facility.

And some hospitals have reduced or eliminated their emergency departments.  This is often done in larger cities like LA, where some smaller hospitals will instead concentrate on things like outpatient care, or some other kind of specialty because of the number of hospitals in the area.  LA is actually scattered with a large number of closed hospitals.  I know of 3 that closed in a 5 mile radius in the 1980's because of this.  One became an office building, 1 became generic doctors offices, and 1 is now a strictly outpatient facility.

And reguardless of any argument for/against universal health care, as a general rule hospitals are not responsible for the transportation from their facility unless you are being transfered to another medical facility.  The article was about the treatment of patients after they are released.

The reason why King-Drew is often avoided is because it is a university teaching hospital.  It is associated with Charles R. Drew Medical University.  Like most teaching hospitals, it has a huge number of medical students and first year interns doing the primary care.  While their surgical center is among the best in the area, their primary emergency cair is pretty poor.  Although to be honest, it is on par with any other teaching hospital.  Consider it as in the show ER.  Who would you rather have work on you, the 1st season Intern Carter, or the 6th season Dr. Carter?  You are much more likely to get an intern there then a resident.

And to be fair, some of the best Trauma Doctors in the LA area come out of King-Drew.  Because it is situated on the boundry between Compton, Inglewood and Watts, it sees a huge number of gunshot wounds.  Students from other university facilities (USC-UCLA) often choose to do a rotation there because of the huge number of trauma and shooting patients. 

The main reason it is avoided though is simply because you are much more likely to get treated by a student.  If you have a choice of having a broken bone set by a first year intern or a 6 year resident, who would you choose?

I think there it depends on how complex the procedure is.  Setting a fractured tibia is not complex.  The doctor better do it just right or else there will be trouble.  The more experience the better, of course, but an intern is still an M.D.  I would rather not have an intern work on me if he's been awake for 30 hours straight.  This "long hours" tradition of the medical internship programs has come under fire several times in the last few years. 
The King/Drew problems semed to stem from administrative corruption and litigious scam artists, rather than inferior medical staff.  If the medical staff doesn't have the equipment, medications, and personnel thy need at any given time, they may appear more incompetent than they are.
As you say, hospitals adjacent to high crime areas may see so much more trauma and death that they get a bad rep just by that association.  If your trauma center sees fifty shooting victims a week versus two shooting victims a week, a lot more patients will go in alive and come out dead.  Poor funding and corruption will increase the risk of inadequate care.  In the case of trauma, this means more death.

As you say, hospitals adjacent to high crime areas may see so much more trauma and death that they get a bad rep just by that association.  If your trauma center sees fifty shooting victims a week versus two shooting victims a week, a lot more patients will go in alive and come out dead.


And it also works the other way around.  Since the 1980's, a lot of Military Doctors go through trauma training in major US cities with high crime rates.  LA, NY, Chicago, DC, Atlanta.  They do this because unless there is a war going on, a gunshot wound is almost never seen in the military.

And afterwards, a lot of former Military Doctors later on make the best trauma Doctors.  Most of what we know about trauma medicine today comes from experience gained in Korea and Viet Nam.

However, I would still not care to have an intern work on me.  A lot of those that work in King-Drew are not even Interns yet, but are just students still in medical school. 

I did not know about the corruption problem though.  That broke in 2004, after I left the LA area.  It does seem that KDMC is having some major problems with overspending.

NOW THAT'S JUST PLAIN CRUEL!
http://blog.blogwhy.com/axlwang/upload/skid%20row.jpg
(Sorry, it had to be done.)
You can dump me on them anytime!  ;D