What a horrible thing for a hospital to do!

[Justin24]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dumping9feb09,0,7452706.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Paraplegic allegedly 'dumped' on skid row
L.A. police say man was dropped off in front of dozens of witnesses by van linked to Hollywood Presbyterian hospital.
By Andrew Blankstein and Richard Winton, Times Staff Writers
February 9, 2007

'I can't think of anything colder than that.'
— LAPD Det. Russ Long, on the alleged skid row dumping
Related Stories
- Suit accuses Kaiser of blackballing
- L.A. files patient `dumping' charges
A paraplegic man wearing a soiled hospital gown and a broken colostomy bag was found crawling in a gutter in skid row in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being dumped in the street by a Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center van, police said.

The incident, witnessed by more than two dozen people, was described by police as a particularly outrageous case of "homeless dumping" that has plagued the downtown area.

"I can't think of anything colder than that," said LAPD Det. Russ Long, who called the case the most egregious of its kind that he has seen in his career. "There was no mission around, no services. It's the worst area of skid row."

Los Angeles Police Department detectives said they connected the van to Hollywood Presbyterian after witnesses wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number.

They are questioning officials from the hospital, which the LAPD had accused in an earlier dumping case that is now under investigation.

Witnesses shouted at the female driver of the van, "Where's his wheelchair, where's his walker?"

Gary Lett, an employee at Gladys Park, near where the incident occurred, said the woman driving the van didn't reply, but proceeded to apply makeup and perfume before driving off.

"She didn't make any attempt to help him," Lett said. "He was in bad shape. He was incoherent."

Kaylor Shemberger, executive vice president for Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, said, "Obviously we are very concerned about the information that has been presented to us. We are continuing to investigate the incident. If some of the facts are correct, it is clearly not in line with our policy of handling these types of patients."

When the hospital was previously accused of dumping in 2005, a top executive said the facility takes discharged patients to Los Angeles Mission at their request.

The case comes three months after the L.A. city attorney's office filed the first indictment for homeless dumping against Kaiser Permanente. The charges stem from an incident earlier last year when a 63-year-old patient from Kaiser Permanente's Bellflower medical center was videotaped as she stepped from a taxi in gown and socks and then wandered the streets of skid row.

Los Angeles officials have accused more than a dozen hospitals, as well as some outside law enforcement agencies, of dumping patients and criminals on downtown's troubled skid row. The city attorney's office said it was considering filing charges against several other medical facilities.

Police describe the homeless people who congregate around Gladys Park, in the heart of skid row, as a tough crowd who have seen much and say little.

But there was no shortage of people willing to describe what they saw about 10:45 a.m. Thursday morning, when the white hospital van pulled up several feet from the curb.

"They were lining up to give their story," Long said. "They were collectively appalled. We were as shocked as the homeless folks."

Witnesses told police that the man propped himself up in the door of the van. He then hurled himself from the vehicle, tumbling to the street. He pulled himself along, dragging a bag of his belongings in his clenched teeth.

Police said several people began shouting at the driver, who in addition to applying makeup was more concerned that the seats of the van had been soiled, investigators said.

LAPD Officers Eric de la Cruz and Pernell Taylor said they arrived to find the man being carried out of the street on a chair that had been retrieved from the nearby park offices.

De la Cruz later asked the victim if he had wanted to be dropped off at the location.

"He said he had nowhere else to go, and the hospital staff told him he could no longer stay there," De la Cruz said of the man, who is being treated at County-USC Medical Center.

The LAPD has accused several hospitals of dumping patients on skid row over the last two years, including Kaiser's West Los Angeles hospital, Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center and Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center.

Officials at those hospitals have denied dumping patients, but some said they had taken homeless patients to skid row service providers.

In 2005, at attorney for Hollywood Presbyterian denied that the hospital had dumped patients, but he said skid row service providers offered treatment and care for some patients who had nowhere else to go.

City officials are trying to crack down on crime and blight in the district, which has the largest concentration of homeless people in the western United States. In recent months, a police crackdown has resulted in more than 1,000 arrests and a drop in crime.

 

[martha]

They've been doing this for years in LA. It's a huge deal here.

 

[CTU2fan]

Anyone who has a problem with this better support socialized medicine...otherwise they're hypocrites who can take their indignation & stuff it.

This is appalling, but it's done all over the country, in every city. If patients can't pay they're streeted ASAP. I don't know how people, individually, can do it though...I mean I understand, economically, why it's done, but how does someone toss a person out in the street like a piece of garbage?

 

[randhail]

This is F-ed up.... I have utmost sympathy to a homeless paraplegic guy who obviously needs to support a colostomy...

BUT

Do you force a McDonald to feed a homeless guy? Isn't food a necessity for life too? How can you force a hospital to take this guy..... The proper course is to find some sort of generous person or maybe a government program willing to donate money to put him in the hospital... not force a hospital to take him for free

 

[martha]

The proper course is to find some sort of generous person or maybe a government program willing to donate money to put him in the hospital... not force a hospital to take him for free

These two things are the same. The government program would be funded by the "donations" of the wealthy, don't you know. Or maybe we should stop spending fucking billions a day on a pointless war and actually take care of the people in our own country?


Or, as you have darkly hinted, what else is to be done with the sick and indigent?

 

[Angela Harlem]

These two things are the same. The government program would be funded by the "donations" of the wealthy, don't you know. Or maybe we should stop spending fucking billions a day on a pointless war and actually take care of the people in our own country?


Or, as you have darkly hinted, what else is to be done with the sick and indigent?

And yet the liberal view is still wrong.

 

[UberBeaver]

nm, wrong topic.

 

[mandy1973]

I am SO thankful I live in Australia!!!!!!!

 

[LyricalDrug]

I think the accurate title of this thread should be, "what a horrible thing for a superpower to do." Hospitals are only following the laws (or lack of laws) that regulate them.

Vote for Hillary in 2008 if you want to see true universal health care in the U.S. ...

 

[verte76]

I think the accurate title of this thread should be, "what a horrible thing for a superpower to do." Hospitals are only following the laws (or lack of laws) that regulate them.

Vote for Hillary in 2008 if you want to see true universal health care in the U.S. ...

I agree. Will do. I've supported universal health coverage through eight elections. A health care system that dumps paraplegics in homeless shelters is shameful.

 

[Lila64]

Universal healthcare - one can only hope. I feel it won't be a reality in my lifetime, I don't know why. Too big an "issue" to actually have anyone do something about. Big $$ wants to keep their big $$. And both parties will argue and vote against reform til the cows come home. Why would they want to help the people

Back in the early 80s, before I was dating my husband, we both worked a the same store. He got sick. He went to the hospital (we lived in L.A. at the time), and they ran some tests. The tests should have indicated appendicitis. I believe the white cell count (or whichever one it is) was very high. They sent him home and told him to keep an eye on it. He didn't have insurance. Later that night he was feeling sicker, and his cousin took him back in to the ER, I think Cedars Sinai this time. They operated that night or early the next morning to remove his appendix. At the time, I believe the bill was about $5000. He had to put it on his creditcard, cuz he didn't have the money. But there was nothing he could do. I don't think he even filed a complaint with the first hospital. I'm sure that same scenario today, dollarwise, would be

What happened to the Hippocratic Oath?

Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

 

[randhail]

If you want to cut healthcare costs by at least 20%, then figure out how to stop defensive medicine. There is way too much testing, consulting, imaging etc going on that it is virtually impossible to maintain that practice and expect cheaper healthcare costs. Get people to actually take care of themselves and practicing preventative medicine.

 

[Lila64]

I had some lab work done recently (actually had a lot done since November), and one of the bills from the lab for that set of tests was about $1100. With my insurance, I had to "only" pay about $280 of it. I've had more bloodwork done, and some other labs, but have yet to receive those bills yet. Not to mention the doctor's ones, the biopsy one, the cortisone shot one,... And I need a procedure done next month. My friend already told me I should pay the anesthesiologist beforehand, as he charges less for cash up front. If it's billed to insurance, most isn't covered and then I'm stuck with the balance. Literally. But it's not like it's a procedure you want to be awake for, so I have an issue with the insurer if my friend is correct.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Ironically, the hospitals that are doing the patient "dumping" are, in many ways, more generous than the big mainstream hospitals that cater to the middle class. A lot of those hospitals won't even let patients in the door unless they provide proof of insurance. That way, they avoid the bad press that comes with these sensationalized press stories about "patient dumping."

Instead, it's the more socially-conscious health care providers that end up having their names dragged through the mud, when they are forced to evict patients who have no coverage who have refused to leave the hospital or make other arrangements.

I'm not apologizing for anyone, and I think this is a serious problem that needs addressing. But these articles tend to divert attention from the root cause, which is the lack of a comprehensive national health care system that protects the poor.

 

[Justin24]

How would Universal Health Care work in a nation were the pharmysutical companies run everything?

 

[martha]

But these articles tend to divert attention from the root cause, which is the lack of a comprehensive national health care system that protects the poor.

Maybe these articles, and the accompanying photos in today's Times, will make people realize how fucked up things are. And maybe when the issue of a national health care system comes up again, it won't be shot down. Again.

 

[yolland]

States and U.S. at Odds on Aid for Uninsured

By ROBERT PEAR and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
New York Times, February 13, 2007

WASHINGTON — In the absence of federal action, governors and state legislators around the country are transforming the nation’s health care system, putting affordable health insurance within reach of millions of Americans in hopes of reversing the steady rise in the number of uninsured, now close to 47 million. But the states appear to be on a collision course with the Bush administration, whose latest budget proposals create a huge potential obstacle to their efforts to expand coverage. While offering to work with states by waiving requirements of federal law, the Bush administration has balked at state initiatives that increase costs to the federal government.

State efforts have almost invariably begun with children, building on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which is jointly financed by the federal and state governments. Many states are eager to expand eligibility for that program, and some are going far beyond the income levels deemed appropriate by the White House. In his budget last week, President Bush said he wanted to return the program to its “original objective” of covering children with family incomes less than twice the poverty level...A family of four is considered poor if its annual income is less than $20,650.

...In California, as part of a plan to cover all state residents, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, proposed increasing the income limit for the children’s insurance program to 300% of the poverty level, from 250%.

The movement to expand coverage is by no means limited to children any more...Officials cite a groundswell of state activity:
--Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee have new laws and programs to reduce the cost of insurance for small employers.
--Massachusetts and Vermont passed laws in 2006 to achieve universal or nearly universal coverage, while addressing the cost and quality of care.
--Several states, including Colorado and Delaware, are requiring insurers to cover young adults, the fastest-growing segment of the uninsured population.

“We have a goal that all Minnesotans should be covered by health insurance,” Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, said in an address to the State Legislature last month. In New York State, the Children’s Health Insurance Program covers 385,000 children, of whom 55,000 have family incomes above 200% of the poverty level. Another 50,000 children would be eligible under Governor Spitzer’s proposal to increase the income ceiling. The federal government now pays 65% of the cost of coverage for each child in New York’s program, or $1,154 a year out of a cost of $1,776. Judith Arnold, the program’s director, said Monday that under the President’s proposal, the federal contribution would be reduced by $266 a child. So, she said, New York would lose $14.6 million a year.

Knowing they cannot count on a major infusion of federal money, some states are looking to their own revenue sources, including tobacco taxes, pools of money set aside for charity care and uncompensated care, and assessments levied on employers who do not provide health benefits to their workers...State efforts face several potential pitfalls. The cost of coverage could spin out of control. An economic downturn could reduce states’ fiscal capacity. Moreover, a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, could block any state program that requires employers to alter their health plans.

In Washington, health policy debates highlight the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats over the proper role of government in helping the uninsured. Governors and state legislators tend to be more pragmatic. “There is such a political divide in Washington that many people believe that the only reasonable chance to succeed is at the state level,” said Jeffrey S. Crowley, a senior research scholar at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University.

Soaring health costs are placing pressures on employers and employees alike. In recent weeks, companies like Wal-Mart have joined labor unions and consumer groups in coalitions espousing universal coverage. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 23, Mr. Bush proposed a new tax deduction to help people buy health insurance outside the workplace, and he said he wanted to help “states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured.” In his budget, Mr. Bush said the way to transform the health care system was by “subsidizing the purchase of private insurance,” not by expanding public programs in a way that would increase costs to the federal government. To slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, Mr. Bush asked Congress to squeeze tens of billions of dollars from the programs.

Mr. Bush’s efforts, combined with the flurry of state activity, have forced Congress to face fundamental questions about the Children’s Health Insurance Program: If states run out of money, should the federal government bail them out? Should states be allowed to use the money to cover adults? More than a dozen states expect to exhaust their allotments of federal money in the next few months, raising the possibility that children will be removed from the rolls. Georgia and New Jersey, for example, said they would run out of money by May.

White House officials said that some states had strayed from the purpose of the program in another way, by covering adults. Mr. Bush wants to prohibit states from adding childless adults to the rolls. And he would restrict eligibility for parents. Jason A. Helgerson, policy director for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, said, “There is strong empirical evidence that when you cover adults and children, you get more kids covered.” In Wisconsin, the Children’s Health Insurance Program covers 36,900 parents and 29,800 children, Mr. Helgerson said.

 

[randhail]

How would Universal Health Care work in a nation were the pharmysutical companies run everything?

They don't run everything...the HMOs and other health organizations have an equal role in ruining things. The government does it's part too.

 

[randhail]

I'm not stating the current system is functioning well or at all right now, but univeral healthcare through the government is not the answer either. Increased government intervention to cover everyone will either bankrupt the middle class with mandatory insurance payments that keep rising or it will cause rationing. The second problem is so prevalent in Europe, that they are actually instituting market reforms across the continent in various forms to cover all of the people who can't get treatment. Most of the systems are going broke across the pond. It is less than the ideal that some promote. Not to mention that a lot of research will be stifled because there will be no money available.

 

[A_Wanderer]

.... or money to be made.

Having the rich pay huge money to get the best definitely yields benefits if you can pay.

 

[CTU2fan]

Simple way to pay for universal health care: raise taxes. And it shouldn't even be that bad, since you'd be cutting out a huge chunk of fat be elimination the middleman (insurance/HMO's). The idea that it can't be done is one of those myths that the right like to throw around (we'll go bankrupt/you'll have to WAIT/blah blah blah). Well guess what, there's already a good chunk of the population that has to wait...forever.

Obviously there will be problems, maybe rationing is the answer. Weed out the hypochondriacs (spelling?) and drug-seekers. Right now the uninsured are forced to get the most expensive care (the ER), because the ER can't turn them away...of course if they're uninsured they're probably poor, and can't pay - how screwed up is that? Get everyone covered and watch the non-emergency ER traffic drop.

 

[anitram]

Not to mention that a lot of research will be stifled because there will be no money available.

I don't necessarily think this is true.

Canada has universal health care and it has not stifled research. You always have government grants (which are not that great to begin with) and you always have private grants. Our lab was kept afloat largely because of private sector funding, and often US dollars from US companies.

There is some incredible research being done outside of the US in nations with universal health care. Certainly too much to jump to the conclusion that a lot of it would suddenly be stifled.

 

[randhail]

Simple way to pay for universal health care: raise taxes. And it shouldn't even be that bad, since you'd be cutting out a huge chunk of fat be elimination the middleman (insurance/HMO's).

I'm no fan of having my taxes raised and will not stand for it. I'd rather take money from the $450 billion currently being spent in Iraq. I'd also tax cigarettes more and junk food before I raised taxes across the board. Unhealthy habits should not be rewarded with me footing the bill.

The insurance companies won't go down without a real war. Their lobbies are very strong and it would take a miracle for them to lose their cut. Honestly, I don't know who I'd rather have in charge of a universal healthcare system - it's like choosing between the gas chamber and the electric chair.

Personally, I'd love to go back to a pay as you go system. You'd really eliminate the middle man in this situation. It's actually coming back into popularity among physicians and patients now. Do I realistically think this will happen? No way, but it would be the best solution.

 

[u2fan628]

she could have at least left him at the beach,with a beach chair and umbrella.

 

[Butterscotch]

Nobody cares about you if you don't have any money. Everyone is in it for money, everything is written off as a 'business desicion'. In the end it's only the cash that counts.

 

[Harry Vest]

This is F-ed up.... I have utmost sympathy to a homeless paraplegic guy who obviously needs to support a colostomy...

BUT

Do you force a McDonald to feed a homeless guy? Isn't food a necessity for life too? How can you force a hospital to take this guy..... The proper course is to find some sort of generous person or maybe a government program willing to donate money to put him in the hospital... not force a hospital to take him for free

This is precisely what is wrong with the attitude in the United States..."...not FORCE a hospital to take him for FREE" You have all been fed lie upon lie when it comes to your healthcare system. Just do the right thing and FINALLY institute UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. It's the only way to go. The government OWES YOU THAT PEOPLE...WAKE UP FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! They've been stealing your hard earned money for hundreds of years so WHY NOT get them to take care of you.???

 

[Angela Harlem]

Nobody cares about you if you don't have any money. Everyone is in it for money, everything is written off as a 'business desicion'. In the end it's only the cash that counts.

You must be American.

Private hospitals are creepy. I worked in one for a while, and I used to wonder if that was what it was like across the board in the US. Actually, forget creepy; it's downright disturbing. I dont think I could explain it so anyone from the US understands, as you have grown up with it and it is all you know.