What Is EMTALA?

In the Code of Ethics for Nurses provision 4 states “The nurse has authority, accountability, and responsibility for nursing practice; makes decisions; and takes action consistent with the obligation to promote health and to provide optimal care.” This was not done, there was no regard for human life. The patients in the hospital were treated as a burden. A meeting was held where the doctors agreed that

Since the development of the EMTALA Act in 1986, any individual which presents to the emergency department, must be accessed and triaged by qualified medical personnel. (www.cms.gov) Individuals are aware that if they present to the emergency department, regardless if it is for just a tooth ache or a major illness like a heart attack, they will have to be treated. “This mandate does not extend to private physician offices, however, which creates an incentive for those without the means to pay for care to

Any reasonable organization would be able to predict or expect that the ER nurses condition needed to be addressed by the hospital as it would ultimately lead to harmful result if they didn’t act upon the physician’s recommendation and the previous history of errors (Pozgar, 2012). The hospital failed to supervise or establish appropriate policies to provide reasonable accommodations for the pregnant ER nurse. While not directly at fault for the negligence by the nurse under the borrowed servant doctrine the hospital would be liable for the acts of their agents and in the least contributed to the negligence (Pozgar, 2012 and “Comparative and Contributory Negligence”,

In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted. The federal government enacted the law to provide everyone with access to emergency medical care, even for those unable to pay. EMTALA declared that any individual who enters a “qualifying hospital” is entitled to an “appropriate” medical examination to determine if an “emergency medical condition” is present. The individual cannot be “transferred” until the “emergency medical condition” is “stabilized.” Only if the individual cannot be “stabilized,” an “appropriate transfer” may be performed. Hospitals must accept

The filing of the complaint must be completed within 72 hours of the transfer (Sally Austin, 2011). As a result of this, it has been difficult to see whether or not EMTALA has truly been successfully implemented and effective (Sara Rosenbaum, 2012). Another disadvantage is that EMTALA only requires hospitals to treat “true emergencies”, which are subjective in nature. The last revisions in 2003 for EMTALA by policymakers and CMS limited EMTALA to only patients that arrived to the emergency department, not to other areas of the hospital, such as a doctor’s office appointment or outpatient surgery (Sara Rosenbaum, 2012). Another negative consequence of EMTALA that is not addressed by the law is that emergency department physicians can still be held liable and face malpractice issues by uninsured patients (Singer, 2014). There have been legislative proposals by members of Congress that are working to change this to include physicians as members of the Public Health Services, which would address these concerns (Singer, 2014). These hesitations by physicians has forced some hospitals to close their emergency departments in California to avoid these financial consequences of lawsuits (Friedman, 2011).

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted in 1986 as a part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985. EMTALA was enacted to prevent hospitals with Emergency Departments from refusing to treat or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions (EMC) due to an inability to pay for their services. This act also applies to satellite locations whom advertise titles such as “Immediate Care” or “Urgent Care,” and all other facilities where one-third of their patient intake are walk-ins. Several rules and regulations to this act have been established and it has become a very serious piece of legislation and health

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

(TCO 1) How could a hospital legally avoid being covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)?

The rising costs of unpaid emergency room expenditures were an issue that had to be addressed by state authorities. EMTALA required that all persons be treated, however, it did not include any legislation to reimburse payment that left hospital left with unpaid bills and growing expenses.

The ethical right for individuals to have access to health care already has a form of legal binding within the United States as seen in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. “In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which forbids Medicare-participating hospitals from “dumping” patients out of emergency departments” (Pozgar, 2010, p. 221). The act provides that:

This issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible for any injuries sustained on the premises of the medical facility could set them up for legal ramifications. The public in this litigiously happy society are more than willing to take advantage of this situation. Staff has the right to feel secure at their place of employment. If they feel harassed while at work either physically, sexually, or emotionally then they too may have a case for litigation against their place of employment. In Arizona the “injunction against workplace harassment; definitions” (Arizona state Legislature, 2011) can be found in 12-1810 of Arizona Revised Statutes.

No, even though hospitals are obligated to provide a medical exam and stabilizing treatment for anyone that comes to the ED during a disaster; the facility is only requires to provide services within their capabilities. Under EMTALA, if an individual’s condition requires immediate stabilizing treatment and the hospital do not have the capability to stabilize the individual, then the individual should be appropriate transfer to another hospital for medical care. Transferring a patient because the hospital cannot provide stabilizing treatment is a violation of EMTALA (Gravely, Whaley, & Sanders 2007).

HB 1661 lets an individual render emergency assistance to any injured or ill person who is the victim of an accident fire or any other life-threatening emergency. It also covers if the individual is en route to any hospital, medical clinic, or doctor's office. Emergency care or assistance includes shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of

I myself have been in that situation before. I did get sick and needed to see a doctor. My options were a visit to the local emergency room or urgent care. I chose urgent care. I chose urgent care for two reasons. Yes, I was sick, but it was not an emergency. Also, urgent care was much cheaper. After all, this expense was coming completely out of my pocket. The urgent care visit was very affordable, less than $100. The doctor was aware I did not have health insurance and prescribed medications I could receive in a generic form and on the Wal-Mart $4 prescription list. I believe our emergency rooms are overwhelmed with individuals that really should be seen in the office setting but without insurance, the emergency room becomes their sense of primary care. I realize they feel they do not have a choice and feel it’s their only option to receive

In the case of Marlise Munoz a 33-year-old women suffered from cardiac arrest on November 26, 2013 although she had heart beat, Doctors informed Munoz husband, that the hospital wasn 't going to disconnect Marlise from the ventilator, because the Texas law prohibited it because she was 14 weeks pregnant. The Texas Advance Act states, "A doctor may not