Vascular surgery-related violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

OBJECTIVE: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law established in 1986 to ensure that patients who present to an emergency department receive medical care regardless of means. Violations are reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and can result in significant financial penalties. Our objective was to assess all available EMTALA violations for vascular-related issues. METHODS: EMTALA violations in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly available hospital violations database from 2011 to 2018 were evaluated for vascular-related issues. Details recorded were case type, hospital type, hospital region, reasons for violation, disposition, and mortality. RESULTS: There were 7001 patients identified with any EMTALA violation and 98 (1.4%) were deemed vascular related. The majority (82.7%) of EMTALA violations occurred at urban/suburban hospitals. Based on the Association of American Medical Colleges United States region, vascular-related EMTALA violations occurred in the Northeast (7.1%), Southern (56.1%), Central (18.4%), and Western (18.4%) United States. Case types included cerebrovascular (28.6%), aortic related (22.4%; which consisted of ruptured aortic aneurysms [8.2%], aortic dissection [11.2%], and other aortic [3.1%]), vascular trauma (15.3%), venous-thromboembolic (15.3%), peripheral arterial disease (9.2%), dialysis access (5.1%), bowel ischemia (3.1%), and other (1%) cases. Patients were transferred to another facility in 41.8% of cases. The most common reasons for violation were specialty refusal or unavailability (30.6%), inappropriate documentation (29.6%), misdiagnosis (18.4%), poor communication (17.3%), inappropriate triage (13.3%), failure to obtain diagnostic laboratory tests or imaging (12.2%), and ancillary or nursing staff issues (7.1%). The overall mortality was 19.4% and 31.6% died during the index emergency department visit. Vascular conditions associated with death were venous thromboembolism (31.6%), ruptured aortic aneurysm (21.1%), aortic dissection (21.1%), other aortic causes (10.5%), vascular trauma (10.5%), and bowel ischemia (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of vascular-related EMTALA violations was low, improvements in communication, awareness of vascular disease among staff, specialty staffing, and the development of referral networks and processes are needed to ensure that patients receive adequate care and that institutions are not placed at undue risk.

The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Citation Events.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law enacted in 1986 prohibiting patient dumping (refusing or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions without appropriate stabilization), and discrimination based upon ability to pay. We evaluate hospital-level features associated with citation for EMTALA violation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of observational data on EMTALA enforcement (2005-2013). Regression analysis evaluates the association between facility-level features and odds of EMTALA citation by hospital-year. RESULTS: Among 4916 EMTALA-obligated hospitals there were 1925 EMTALA citation events at 1413 facilities between 2005 and 2013, with 4.3% of hospitals cited per year. In adjusted analyses, increased odds of EMTALA citations were found at hospitals that were: for-profit [odds ratio (OR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.96], in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11-1.57); that admitted a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.0-1.01); and were in the top quartiles of hospital size (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.10-1.99) and emergency department (ED) volume (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.14-2.12). Predicted probability of repeat EMTALA citation in the year following initial citation was 17% among for-profit and 11% among other hospital types. Among citation events for patients presenting to the same hospital's ED, there were 1.30 EMTALA citation events per million ED visits, with 1.04 at private not-for-profit, 1.47 at government-owned, and 2.46 at for-profit hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: For-profit ownership is associated with increased odds of EMTALA citations after adjusting for other characteristics. Efforts to improve EMTALA might be considered to protect access to emergency care for vulnerable populations, particularly at large, urban, for-profit hospitals admitting high proportions of Medicaid patients.

Reflections on Charlie Gard and the Best Interests Standard From Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Charlie Gard (August 4, 2016, to July 28, 2017) was an infant in the United Kingdom who was diagnosed with an encephalopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by a mutation in the RRM2B gene. Charlie's parents raised £1.3 million (∼$1.6 million US) on a crowdfunding platform to travel to New York to pursue experimental nucleoside bypass treatment, which was being used to treat a myopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by mutations in a different gene (TK2). The case made international headlines about what was in Charlie's best interest. In the medical ethics community, it raised the question of whether best interest serves as a guidance principle (a principle that provides substantive directions as to how decisions are to be made), an intervention principle (a principle specifying the conditions under which third parties are to intervene), both guidance and intervention, or neither. I show that the United Kingdom uses best interest as both guidance and intervention, and the United States uses best interest for neither. This explains why the decision to withdraw the ventilator without attempting nucleoside bypass treatment was the correct decision in the United Kingdom and why the opposite conclusion would have been reached in the United States.

The New Wallet Biopsy and Involuntary Patient Transfers Abroad: How Physicians Can Help Protect Patients.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 was intended to bring an end to incidents of "patient dumping." However, due to the conflation of various federal legislative provisions, hospitals faced with the prospect of long-term unreimbursed care of an immigrant patient, whether legally present in the United States or not, are in some cases having such patients transported to another country. These transfers are often being effectuated without patient consent. After an overview of the flaws in the legal system that have effectively encouraged such patient transfers, this essay uses a clinical case to demonstrate how physicians can collaborate with an interdisciplinary team and with family members to ensure that the best interests of immigrant patients are met. Finally, the essay calls on physicians to advocate for the development of hospital policies and practices that will protect patients from international patient dumping.

When deservingness policies converge: US immigration enforcement, health reform and patient dumping.

As immigration and health policy continue to be contentious topics globally, anthropologists must examine how policy creates notions of health-related deservingness, which may have broad consequences. This paper explores hidden relationships between immigration enforcement laws and the most recent health reform law in the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which excludes immigrants from certain types of health services. Findings in this paper show how increasingly harsh immigration enforcement efforts provide health facilities a 'license to discriminate' against undocumented immigrants, resulting in some facilities 'dumping' undocumented patients or unlawfully transferring them from one hospital to another. Due to changes made through the ACA, patient dumping disproportionately complicates public hospitals' financial viability and may have consequences on public facilities' ability to provide care for all indigent patients. By focusing on the converging consequences of immigrant policing and health reform, findings in this paper ultimately show that examining deservingness assessments and how they become codified into legislation, which I call 'deservingness projects', can reveal broader elements of state power and demonstrate how such power extends beyond targeted populations. Exercises of state power can thus have 'spillover effects' that harm numerous vulnerable populations, highlighting the importance of medical anthropology in documenting the broad, hidden consequences of governmental actions that construct populations as undeserving of social services.

EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) Obligations: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted in 1986 in the United States to address "patient dumping," or refusing to provide emergency care to patients and instead transferring them to other hospitals. Under EMTALA, the "reverse-dumping" provision prevents hospitals from refusing patients who require specialized capabilities or facilities if the hospital has the capacity to treat them. Despite this provision, patients continue to be transferred to distant tertiary care centers. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on EMTALA in the context of a critically ill woman with an infection associated with an orthopaedic implant who was rejected from 2 geographically closer tertiary care centers and was ultimately transferred by helicopter ambulance to an academic teaching hospital that was 169 miles away from her home. RESULTS: After transfer to our tertiary care, level-I trauma center, the patient spent 61 days in the intensive care unit; she required 9 operative procedures, which totaled 1,520 minutes of operative time. Eighteen medical specialties and 8 ancillary medical consulting teams were involved in her care. She underwent 1,436 laboratory and 83 radiographic studies. The total reimbursement from Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid program) for her care in our tertiary care center was $463,753; the hospital charges were more than tenfold higher. CONCLUSIONS: Dumping and reverse dumping continue despite compromise of patient care and the high financial burden of the accepting institutions. This may be due to ineffective monitoring and enforcement, lack of uniformity among the courts, and lack of incentive to receive uninsured or poorly funded patients. Under EMTALA, it is difficult for tertiary care centers to argue lack of specialized capabilities or capacity to accept patients, and neither hospitals nor physicians are compensated for the charges of providing care to uninsured or underinsured patients. Moving forward, efforts to better align financial incentives through cost-sharing between community hospitals and tertiary care centers, increased clinician literacy regarding the provisions of EMTALA, and increased transparency with hospital transfers may help improve EMTALA compliance and patient care.

Individual Physician Penalties Resulting From Violation of Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act: A Review of Office of the Inspector General Patient Dumping Settlements, 2002-2015.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe characteristics of civil monetary penalty settlements levied by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) against individual physicians related to violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). METHODS: Descriptions of all civil monetary penalty settlements between 2002 and 2015 were obtained from the OIG. Characteristics of settlements against individual physicians related to EMTALA violations were described including settlement date, location, amount, whether there was an associated hospital settlement, the medical specialty of the physician involved, and the nature of the allegation. RESULTS: Of 196 OIG civil monetary penalty settlements related to EMTALA, eight (4%) were levied against individual physicians, and 188 (96%) against facilities. Seven of the eight penalties against individual physicians were imposed upon on-call specialists, including six who failed to respond to evaluate and treat a patient in the emergency department (ED), and one who failed to accept appropriate transfer of a patient requiring higher level of care. The only penalty imposed on an emergency physician involved a case where a provider repeatedly failed to provide a medical screening examination to a pregnant teen based on the erroneous belief that a minor could not be evaluated or treated absent parental consent. Four of eight penalties against individual physicians were levied within the first 3 years of the 14-year study period. Half of all physician settlements were associated with a separate hospital civil monetary penalty settlement. CONCLUSIONS: For emergency physicians, a civil monetary penalty is a feared consequence of EMTALA enforcement, as a physician can be held individually liable for fine of up to $50,000 not covered by malpractice insurance. Although EMTALA is an actively enforced law, and violation of the EMTALA statute often results in hospital citations and fines, and occasionally facility closure, we found that individual physicians are rarely penalized by the OIG following EMTALA violation. Individual physician penalties are far less common than hospital citations or fines related to EMTALA or malpractice claims or payments. The majority of penalties against individual physicians were levied upon on-call specialists who refused to evaluate and treat ED patients. Only one emergency physician was fined during the study period for a clear violation of the EMTALA statute. Physicians should be diligent to ensure appropriate patient care and that facilities are compliant with the EMTALA statute, but should be aware that settlements against individual physicians are a rare consequence of EMTALA enforcement.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 2002-15: Review of Office of Inspector General Patient Dumping Settlements.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 was enacted to prevent hospitals from "dumping" or refusing service to patients for financial reasons. The statute prohibits discrimination of emergency department (ED) patients for any reason. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services enforces the statute. The objective of this study is to determine the scope, cost, frequency and most common allegations leading to monetary settlement against hospitals and physicians for patient dumping. METHODS: Review of OIG investigation archives in May 2015, including cases settled from 2002-2015 ( https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/patient_dumping.asp ). RESULTS: There were 192 settlements (14 per year average for 4000+ hospitals in the USA). Fines against hospitals and physicians totaled $6,357,000 (averages $33,435 and $25,625 respectively); 184/192 (95.8%, $6,152,000) settlements were against hospitals and eight against physicians ($205,000). Most common settlements were for failing to screen 144/192 (75%) and stabilize 82/192 (42.7%) for emergency medical conditions (EMC). There were 22 (11.5%) cases of inappropriate transfer and 22 (11.5%) more where the hospital failed to transfer. Hospitals failed to accept an appropriate transfer in 25 (13.0%) cases. Patients were turned away from hospitals for insurance/financial status in 30 (15.6%) cases. There were 13 (6.8%) violations for patients in active labor. In 12 (6.3%) cases, the on-call physician refused to see the patient, and in 28 (14.6%) cases the patient was inappropriately discharged. Although loss of Medicare/Medicaid funding is an additional possible penalty, there were no disclosures of exclusion of hospitals from federal funding. There were 6,035 CMS investigations during this time period, with 2,436 found to have merit as EMTALA violations (40.4%). However, only 192/6,035 (3.2%) actually resulted in OIG settlements. The proportion of CMS-certified EMTALA violations that resulted in OIG settlements was 7.9% (192/2,436). CONCLUSION: Of 192 hospital and physician settlements with the OIG from 2002-15, most were for failing to provide screening (75%) and stabilization (42%) to patients with EMCs. The reason for patient "dumping" was due to insurance or financial status in 15.6% of settlements. The vast majority of penalties were to hospitals (95% of cases and 97% of payments). Forty percent of investigations found EMTALA violations, but only 3% of investigations triggered fines.

Difficult healthcare transitions: Ethical analysis and policy recommendations for unrepresented patients.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, patients who lack decision-making capacity and have no family or friends to act as substitute decision-makers currently rely on the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to consent to long-term care (nursing home) placement, but they have no legal representative for other placement decisions. OBJECTIVES: We highlight the current gap in legislation for difficult transition cases involving unrepresented patients and provide a novel framework for who ought to assist with making these decisions and how these decisions ought to be made. RESEARCH DESIGN: This paper considers models advanced by Volpe and Steinman with regard to who ought to make placement decisions for unrepresented patients, as well as current ethical models for analyzing how these decisions should be made. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: We describe an anonymized healthcare transition case to illustrate the fact that there is no legally recognized decision-maker for placement destinations other than long-term care facilities and to show how this impacts all stakeholders. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The case provided is an anonymized vignette representing a typical transition case involving an unrepresented patient. FINDINGS: As a result of a gap in provincial legislation, healthcare providers usually determine the appropriate placement destination without a clear framework to guide the process and this can cause significant moral distress. DISCUSSION: We argue for a team decision-making approach in the short term, and a legislative change in the long-term, to respect the patient voice, evaluate benefit and risk, enhance collaboration between healthcare providers and patients, and promote social justice. We believe that our approach, which draws upon the strengths of interprofessional teams, will be of interest to all who are concerned with the welfare and ethical treatment of the patients for whom they care. CONCLUSIONS: One of the main strengths of our recommendation is that it provides all members of the healthcare team (including nurses, social workers, therapists, and others) an increased opportunity to advocate on behalf of unrepresented patients.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act: what every physician should know about the federal antidumping law.

Since 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) has imposed an obligation on hospitals and physicians to evaluate and stabilize patients who present to a hospital ED seeking care. Available sanctions for noncompliance include fines, damages awarded in civil litigation, and exclusion from Medicare. EMTALA uses several terms that are familiar to physicians (eg, "emergency medical condition," "stabilize," and "transfer"), but the statutory definitions do not map neatly onto the way in which these terms are used and understood in clinical settings. Thus, there is potential for a mismatch between a physician's on-the-spot professional judgment and what the statute demands. We review what every physician should know about EMTALA and answer six common questions about the law.