When good times go bad: managing 'legal high' complications in the emergency department.

Patients can use numerous drugs that exist outside of existing regulatory statutes in order to get "legal highs." Legal psychoactive substances represent a challenge to the emergency medicine physician due to the sheer number of available agents, their multiple toxidromes and presentations, their escaping traditional methods of analysis, and the reluctance of patients to divulge their use of these agents. This paper endeavors to cover a wide variety of "legal highs," or uncontrolled psychoactive substances that may have abuse potential and may result in serious toxicity. These agents include not only some novel psychoactive substances aka "designer drugs," but also a wide variety of over-the-counter medications, herbal supplements, and even a household culinary spice. The care of patients in the emergency department who have used "legal high" substances is challenging. Patients may misunderstand the substance they have been exposed to, there are rarely any readily available laboratory confirmatory tests for these substances, and the exact substances being abused may change on a near-daily basis. This review will attempt to group legal agents into expected toxidromes and discuss associated common clinical manifestations and management. A focus on aggressive symptom-based supportive care as well as management of end-organ dysfunction is the mainstay of treatment for these patients in the emergency department.

Pediatric access to dermatologists: Medicaid versus private insurance.

BACKGROUND: There is disparity in access to outpatient care for Medicaid beneficiaries. This inequity disproportionately impacts children. Access for children with skin disease may be especially limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare access to dermatologists for new pediatric patients insured by Medicaid versus a private plan. METHODS: We surveyed 13 metropolitan markets by conducting secret-shopper scripted telephone calls to dermatology providers listed by Medicaid health plans. Paired calls, differing by insurance type, were made to each office on the same day, portraying a parent requesting a new appointment for a child with eczema. RESULTS: We called the offices of 723 Medicaid-listed providers. Final analysis included 471 dermatologists practicing general dermatology. Of these, an average of 44% refused a new Medicaid-insured pediatric patient. The average wait time for an appointment did not significantly vary between insurance types. Assuming that dermatologists not listed as Medicaid providers do not see Medicaid-insured children, our data indicate that pediatric Medicaid acceptance rates ranged from 6% to 64% by market, with an overall market size-weighted average acceptance rate of 19%. Relative reimbursement levels for Medicaid-insured patients did not correlate with acceptance rates. LIMITATIONS: Although the most current health plan directories were used to create calling lists, these are dynamic. The sample sizes of confirmed appointments were in part limited by a lack of referral letters and/or health plan identification numbers. Only confirmed appointments were used to calculate average wait times. CONCLUSIONS: Access to dermatologists is limited for Medicaid-insured children with eczema.