We report the case of a 32-year-old male recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes treated at an urban university emergency department (ED) crowded to 250% over capacity. His initial symptoms of shortness of breath and feeling ill for several days were evaluated with chest radiograph, electrocardiogram (EKG), and laboratory studies, which suggested mild diabetic ketoacidosis. His medical care in the ED was conducted in a crowded hallway. After correction of his metabolic abnormalities he felt improved and was discharged with arrangements made for outpatient follow-up. Two days later he returned in cardiac arrest, and resuscitation efforts failed. The autopsy was significant for multiple acute and chronic pulmonary emboli but no coronary artery disease. The hospital settled the case for $1 million and allocated major responsibility to the treating emergency physician (EP). As a result the state medical board named the EP in a disciplinary action, claiming negligence because the EKG had not been personally interpreted by that physician. A formal hearing was conducted with the EP’s medical license placed in jeopardy. This case illustrates the risk to EPs who treat patients in crowded hallways, where it is difficult to provide the highest level of care. This case also demonstrates the failure of hospital administration to accept responsibility and provide resources to the ED to ensure patient safety. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(2):137–141.]

Background

Health care delivery in the United States has evolved in many ways over the past century, including the development of the specialty of Emergency Medicine (EM). With the creation of this specialty, many positive changes have occurred within hospital emergency departments (EDs) to improve access and quality of care of the nation's de facto "safety net." The specialty of EM has been further defined and held to high standards with regard to board certification, sub-specialization, maintenance of skills, and research. Despite these advances, problems remain.

Objective

This review discusses the history and evolution of for-profit corporate influence on EM, emergency physicians, finance, and demise of democratic group practice. The review also explores federal and state health care financing issues pertinent to EM and discusses potential solutions.

Discussion

The monopolistic growth of large corporate contract management groups and hospital ownership of vertically integrated physician groups has resulted in the elimination of many local democratic emergency physician groups. Potential downsides of this trend include unfair or unlawful termination of emergency physicians, restrictive covenants, quotas for productivity, admissions, testing, patient satisfaction, and the rising cost of health care. Other problems impact the financial outlook for EM and include falling federal, state, and private insurance reimbursement for emergency care, balance-billing, up-coding, unnecessary testing, and admissions.

Conclusions

Emergency physicians should be aware of the many changes happening to the specialty and practice of EM resulting from corporate control, influence, and changing federal and state health care financing issues.