FEATURES >> YouTube | Top acute-care hospitals | Women in Health IT | Top BlackBerry Apps | Commentary
TOPICS >> Stimulus | Health Reform | CMS News | Finance | EMRs | Mobile Healthcare | Hospital Leadership Blog
LA hospital investigated for patient dumping
The Los Angeles city attorney's office has begun investigating whether staff from the city's Hollywood Presbyterian hospital dumped a paraplegic man in a gutter in front of a local mission. Security cameras recorded workers from the hospital arriving, wheeling the man on a gurney into the courtyard, then, after being challenged by the mission's security guards regarding the paraplegic's care, being wheeled back into the ambulance. Later, however, the man was found in a skid row gutter. Now, the LA city attorney's office is investigating whether the hospital's workers violated federal laws by dropping off someone who wasn't ready for discharge. The city may have additional grounds to sue under a state law used to deal with unfair business practices (typically used to prosecute slum lords). The federal government, however--not the LA city attorney's office--would decide whether this behavior also violates EMTALA. The paraplegic patient is now an inpatient at County-USC Medical Center, where he was taken by witnesses who saw him left on the street by a hospital van.
To learn more about the incident:
- read this article from the Los Angeles Times
Related Article:
The LA city attorney is also targeting Kaiser Permanente (and 10 other hospital companies) on dumping charges. Article
Comments
By Danny Vice | Posted 2:24pm | January 19, 2008
The last time I was unfortunate enough to require hospital care, I stayed for a few hours and the hospital ran some routine tests. The bill ran into the thousands although the tests conducted were simple $75 clinical sample tests.
Private hospitals thrive on massive revenue, city subsidies and tax advantages. How often after all do you see a hospital having a "going out of business" sale? What would a used bed pad be worth anyway?
Hospitals who thrive on it's monopoly of the sick while receiving perks and incentives from public sources should be banned from releasing a patient into a potentially harmful environment that's incompatible with his/her ailments.
The fact that the hospital should be sued in order to compel the hospital into civilized health practices is an outrage. Our government has seen fit to regulate everything else in hospital operations, yet the user of those operations is beholden to the hospitals option of securing their welfare?
Perhaps a private hospital can't be forced to provide treatment, but it should certainly be required to insure that it doesn't release patients into an environment that is likely to make the condition(s) worse.
If it's true that the hospital made a commitment to change their practice and still has not, then I would expect (and hope) that the hospital will be sued senseless to established a precedent in this case that equals the apathy it has shown towards it's customers (patients). We'll be watching this case to see what the legal outcome is.
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyviceblogspot.com
By Danny Vice | Posted 2:27pm | January 19, 2008
The last time I was unfortunate enough to require hospital care, I stayed for a few hours and the hospital ran some routine tests. The bill ran into the thousands although the tests conducted were simple $75 clinical sample tests.
Private hospitals thrive on massive revenue, city subsidies and tax advantages. How often after all do you see a hospital having a "going out of business" sale? What would a used bed pad be worth anyway?
Hospitals who thrive on it's monopoly of the sick while receiving perks and incentives from public sources should be banned from releasing a patient into a potentially harmful environment that's incompatible with his/her ailments.
The fact that the hospital should be sued in order to compel the hospital into civilized health practices is an outrage. Our government has seen fit to regulate everything else in hospital operations, yet the user of those operations is beholden to the hospitals option of securing their welfare?
Perhaps a private hospital can't be forced to provide treatment, but it should certainly be required to insure that it doesn't release patients into an environment that is likely to make the condition(s) worse.
If it's true that the hospital made a commitment to change their practice and still has not, then I would expect (and hope) that the hospital will be sued senseless to established a precedent in this case that equals the apathy it has shown towards it's customers (patients). We'll be watching this case to see what the legal outcome is.
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyviceblogspot.com
Post new comment
Home
| Subscribe | Advertise | Mobile Edition | RSS |
Privacy
| Site Map | List in Marketplace | Supplier MarketplaceTHE FIERCEMARKETS NETWORKFierceFinance | FierceFinanceIT | FierceComplianceIT | FierceHealthcare | FierceHealthFinance | FierceHealthIT | Hospital Impact | FierceMobileHealthcare | FierceCIO | FierceCIO:TechWatch | FierceContentManagement | FierceMobileIT | FierceGovernmentIT | FierceBiotech | FierceBiotech Research | FiercePharma | FierceVaccines | FierceBiotechIT | FiercePharma Manufacturing | FierceIPTV | FierceOnlineVideo | FierceTelecom | FierceVoIP | FierceBroadbandWireless | FierceDeveloper | FierceMobileContent | FierceWireless | FierceWireless:Europe© 2009 FierceMarkets, Inc. All rights reserved. |
 |