3 ms·
It's to avoid "bounce back" charges and the risk of litigation. I am not disputing your point that it's obnoxious but it's a risk avoidance behavior that the ho
by skmurphy 12y ago
It's to avoid "bounce back" charges and the risk of litigation. I am not disputing your point that it's obnoxious but it's a risk avoidance behavior that the hospital does not have to pay for.
- FireBeyond 12y agoThere's reasonable risk mitigation and there's unreasonable. Cabulance. Even a BLS ambulance for sicker patients. But an ALS ambulance (and the resulting bill between $2-3000), with ventilators, cardiac drugs, etc., for a patient who is comfortable as described, and has no history of respiratory or cardiac issues goes beyond overkill. The actual form has lines as follows: "Bed confinement defines the patient as being (1) unable to get out of bed without assistance; AND (2) unable to ambulate; AND (3) unable to sit in a chair or wheelchair", "condition must be of sufficient severity that going by means other than this would be hazardous to the patient's health or wellbeing" (and I'd argue that other than for end-of-life care or similar, if you require an ALS transport to go home, perhaps you're too sick to be going home). That really crosses the line of reasonability to borderline fraud.
- JshWright 12y agoMakes me glad I just run 911...
- FireBeyond 12y agoPretty much. We are dual service, 911 and IFT. I don't mind the IFT side of things from the patient management experience, especially with chronic patients, but yes.