The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital emergency departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) for anyone seeking treatment for a medical condition regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when the patient's condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines participating hospitals as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services', Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[3] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the United States, make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, not just to Medicare patients.[4][5]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not covered directly by the federal government, so it has been characterized as an unfunded mandate.[6] In 2009, uncompensated care represents 55% of emergency room care, and 6% of total hospital costs.[7][8]
Prior legislation
The Hill-Burton Act of 1946, which provided federal assistance for the construction of community hospitals, established nondiscrimination requirements for institutions that received such federal assistance—including the requirement that a "reasonable volume" of free emergency care be provided for community members who could not pay—for a period for 20 years after the hospital's construction. Amendments to the act in 1975 removed the 20-year expiration date and instead required hospitals receiving Hill-Burton funding to provide free care in perpetuity. However, the provisions of the act were vague and rarely enforced.[9]
Mandated and non-mandated care
Congress passed EMTALA to eliminate the practice of "patient dumping"—that is, refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual seeks treatment for a medical condition "or a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for that medical condition."[1]
The U.S. government defines an emergency department as "a specially equipped and staffed area of the hospital used a significant portion of the time for initial evaluation and treatment of outpatients for emergency medical conditions."[10] That means, for example, that outpatient clinics not equipped to handle medical emergencies are not obligated under EMTALA and can simply refer patients to a nearby emergency department for care.[10]
An emergency medical condition (EMC) is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition and/or currently in labor must be treated until delivery is complete, until the woman and the fetus are stabilized, or until a qualified personnel identifies the labor as a "false labor" or Braxton Hicks contractions, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.[10]
Patients treated under EMTALA may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs but are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law.
Non-covered medical conditions
Not all medical conditions qualify for uncompensated mandated services imposed by EMTALA, which is contrary to the misperception that many individuals assume: that if they are ill, they will be treated regardless of their ability to pay.
The sole purpose of the EMTALA-mandated MSE is to require emergency departments to make a determination about whether an emergency medical condition does or does not exist, using their normal assessment and diagnostic protocols. Because the MSE is a mandated EMTALA service, health insurers are required to cover benefits for their subscribers. They are also required to cover EMTALA mandated services necessary to stabilize individuals determined to have an EMC.
EMTALA intentionally omitted requirements that hospitals provide uncompensated stabilizing treatment for individuals with medical conditions determined not to be EMCs. Therefore, such individuals are not eligible for further uncompensated examination and treatment beyond the MSE.
A significant portion of emergency department visits are considered not to be EMCs as defined by EMTALA. The medical profession refers to such cases as "non-emergent". Regardless, the term is not recognized by law as a condition defined by the EMTALA statute. A term more relevant for compliance with EMTALA is "non-emergency medical condition". If the "non-emergent" term is used in the context of EMTALA, it must be defined as a medical condition that fails to pass the criteria for determination of being a true EMC as defined by EMTALA statute.
Admitted patients who experience a medical emergency while at a hospital are normally not covered by EMTALA but are instead protected by varying state laws and quality assurance under the deemed status of the facility.
Hospital obligations
Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:
An individual requesting emergency care or one for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable to do so must receive a medical screening examination (MSE) to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment, insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may start the process of payment inquiry and billing only once it has ensured that doing so will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
When an emergency department determines that an individual has an EMC, the hospital must provide further treatment and examination until the EMC is resolved or stabilized and the patient can provide self-care after discharge or, if unable to do so, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals cannot discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or if the patient otherwise discontinues payment during the course of stay.
If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. That includes long-term-care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility. A hospital has no obligation under EMTALA to provide uncompensated services beyond the screening exam unless it determines that the patient has an EMC.
Since the act's original passage, the Congress has passed several amendments to the act. Additionally, state and local laws in some places have imposed further requirements on hospitals. The amendments include the following:
A patient is defined as "stable", therefore ending a hospital's EMTALA obligations, if:
The patient is conscious, alert, and oriented.
The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient or representative and all potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening symptoms discovered by hospital staff have been ascertained to the best of the hospital's ability.
Any conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening have been treated to the best of the hospital's ability to ensure the patient does not need further, inpatient care.
The patient is able to care for himself or herself with or without special equipment, which, if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
Another competent person is available and able to meet the patient's needs after discharge.
All patients have EMTALA rights equally regardless of age, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, residence, citizenship, or legal status. If a patient's status is found to be illegal, hospitals may not discharge the patient prior to completion of care, but law enforcement and hospital security may take necessary actions to prevent a patient from escaping or harming others. Treatment may be delayed as needed only to prevent patients from harming themselves or others.
Overloaded hospitals may not discharge a patient unable to pay so they can make room for a patient who is able to pay or is otherwise viewed by society as a more-valued citizen. If the emergency department is overloaded, patients must be treated in an order based on their determined medical needs, not their ability to pay.
Hospitals may not deny or provide substandard services for a patient who already has outstanding debt to the hospital and may not withhold the patient's belongings, records, or other required services until the patient pays.
Hospitals and related services cannot receive a judgment against the patient in court filings made more than 36 months after the date the patient was discharged or the last partial payment the patient made to the hospital, contractor, or agent. After that period, the patient may not be threatened with legal action if payment is not made and may not be denied future outpatient services from the same company or agency that a patient is able to pay.
If a patient has been awarded monetary damages against a hospital or any related or affiliated services by a court of law or has settled out of court on damages, the hospital and related or affiliated services may neither withhold money for lack of payment nor count the money toward the bill in lieu of making payment to the patient. Voluntary consent for such an arrangement is permitted only if initiated by the patient. A hospital may not threaten or coerce a patient into such a settlement or mislead the patient into believing such an arrangement is required or recommended.
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay even if the patients become aware of inability to pay the hospital. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring patients into making payment. Patients can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false names, addresses, or other information to avoid payment, to avoid receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital cannot delay treatment while determining whether a patient can pay or is insured, but that does not mean the hospital is completely forbidden from asking for or running a credit check. If a patient fails to pay the bill, the hospital can sue the patient, and the unsatisfied judgment will likely appear on the patient's credit report. A third-party collector for a hospital bill would be covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care for patients who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or well-groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears that a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay and must meet all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services for a patient that are not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide that service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics may avoid providing continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies after discharge. If such services are recommended but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for such services and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist a patient as necessary to obtain such services by providing information as the patient requests.
Effects
Improved health services for uninsured patients
The most significant effect is that regardless of insurance status, participating hospitals are prohibited from denying an MSE of individuals seeking treatment for medical conditions. Currently, EMTALA requires only that hospitals stabilize the EMC. According to some analyses of the U.S. health care social safety net, EMTALA is an incomplete and strained program.[11][12]
Cost pressures on hospitals
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[7] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[13] For example, it has been estimated that cost shifting has amounted to $455 per individual, or $1,186 per family, in California annually.[13]
However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and they end up writing off more and more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,[7] but it is unclear what percentage of the amount was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.
Financial pressures on hospitals in the 20 years since EMTALA's passage have caused hospitals to consolidate or close facilities, thereby contributing to emergency department overcrowding.[14] According to the Institute of Medicine, from 1993 to 2003, emergency department visits in the United States grew by 26 percent, while in the same period, the number of emergency departments declined by 425.[15]Ambulances frequently get diverted from overcrowded emergency departments to other hospitals that may be farther away. In 2003, ambulances got diverted more than half a million times—not necessarily due to patients' inability to pay.[15]
Emergency abortions
After Roe v. Wade (1973) was overturned in June 2022, transforming the legal landscape for abortion in the United States, the HHS issued guidance on EMTALA protections for clinicians that apply regardless of state laws.[16][17][18] According to the guidance, which does not change policy, EMTALA, as a federal law, supersedes state laws that ban abortion. So, doctors who perform emergency abortions to stabilize a patient are protected by EMTALA. Hospitals that fail to do so could face fines or be booted from Medicare. The guidance also says EMTALA does not prevent a doctor from being sued, though EMTALA may be used in defense of the doctor in state court actions.[16]
The Biden administration filed a motion in federal court to block Idaho's enforcement of that state's abortion ban in cases in which EMTALA applied. The judge ruled against the state and ordered Idaho's law suspended in emergency cases.[19] Idaho appealed the ruling, arguing that the federal government “cannot use EMTALA to override in the emergency room state laws about abortion any more than it can use it to override state law on organ transplants or marijuana use.” The Supreme Court agreed to hear Idaho's challenge to that interpretation of the law in Moyle v. United States (2024), which was argued that April.[20][21][22]
Texas sued the federal government, winning in federal court. A 5th Circuit judge preliminarily enjoined the Biden administration's EMTALA guidance in Texas.[22]
In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 ruling in Moyle which reinstated the lower court ruling requiring EMTALA's emergency abortion provision to be enforced in Idaho.[23][24] However, the issue remains unresolved, with the ruling only seen as delaying the Idaho state law banning emergency abortions rather than striking it down altogether.[23][24] However, the Supreme Court ruling did allow for the case to return to a lower court which was previously favorable to upholding EMTALA's emergency abortion provision.[24]
↑ 42U.S.C.§1395dd (e)(2) The term "participating hospital" means a hospital that has entered into a provider agreement under section 42U.S.C.§1395cc of this title.
↑ "Report Brief. America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact but Endangered"(PDF). Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Science. 2000-01-01. Retrieved 2007-10-22. In the absence of universal health insurance, a health care safety net is the default system of care for many of the 44 million low-income Americans with no or limited health insurance as well as many Medicaid beneficiaries and people who need special services. The safety net system is neither uniformly available throughout the country nor financially secure.
1 2 (Peter Harbage and Len M. Nichols, Ph.D., "A Premium Price: The Hidden Costs All Californians Pay In Our Fragmented Health Care System," New America Foundation, 12/2006)
Emergency medicine is the medical specialty concerned with the care of illnesses or injuries requiring immediate medical attention. Emergency medicine physicians specialize in providing care for unscheduled and undifferentiated patients of all ages. As first-line providers, in coordination with emergency medical services, they are primarily responsible for initiating resuscitation and stabilization and performing the initial investigations and interventions necessary to diagnose and treat illnesses or injuries in the acute phase. Emergency medical physicians generally practice in hospital emergency departments, pre-hospital settings via emergency medical services, and intensive care units. Still, they may also work in primary care settings such as urgent care clinics.
In the United States, Medicaid is a government program that provides health insurance for adults and children with limited income and resources. The program is partially funded and primarily managed by state governments, which also have wide latitude in determining eligibility and benefits, but the federal government sets baseline standards for state Medicaid programs and provides a significant portion of their funding.
Medicare is a federal health insurance program in the United States for people age 65 or older and younger people with disabilities, including those with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It was begun in 1965 under the Social Security Administration and is now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Providence Health & Services is a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare system headquartered in Renton, Washington.
A public hospital, or government hospital, is a hospital which is government owned and is predominantly funded by the government and operates predominantly off the money that is collected from taxpayers to fund healthcare initiatives. In almost all the developed countries but the United States of America, and in most of the developing countries, this type of hospital provides medical care almost free of charge to patients, covering expenses and wages by government reimbursement.
The Massachusetts health care reform, commonly referred to as Romneycare, was a healthcare reform law passed in 2006 and signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Acute care is a branch of secondary health care where a patient receives active but short-term treatment for a severe injury or episode of illness, an urgent medical condition, or during recovery from surgery. In medical terms, care for acute health conditions is the opposite from chronic care, or longer-term care.
Patient dumping or homeless dumping is the practice of hospitals and emergency services inappropriately releasing homeless or indigent patients to public hospitals or on to the streets instead of transferring them to a homeless shelter or retaining them. These cases may usually require expensive medical care with minimal government reimbursement from Medicaid or Medicare. The term homeless dumping has been used since the late 19th century and resurfaced throughout the 20th century alongside legislation and policy changes aimed at addressing the issue. Studies of the issue have indicated mixed results from the United States' policy interventions and have proposed a variety of ideas to remedy the problem.
In the United States, health insurance coverage is provided by several public and private sources. During 2019, the U.S. population was approximately 330 million, with 59 million people 65 years of age and over covered by the federal Medicare program. The 273 million non-institutionalized persons under age 65 either obtained their coverage from employer-based or non-employer based sources, or were uninsured. During the year 2019, 89% of the non-institutionalized population had health insurance coverage. Separately, approximately 12 million military personnel received coverage through the Veteran's Administration and Military Health System.
In the United States, hospice care is a type and philosophy of end-of-life care which focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's symptoms. These symptoms can be physical, emotional, spiritual, or social in nature. The concept of hospice as a place to treat the incurably ill has been evolving since the 11th century. Hospice care was introduced to the United States in the 1970s in response to the work of Cicely Saunders in the United Kingdom. This part of health care has expanded as people face a variety of issues with terminal illness. In the United States, it is distinguished by extensive use of volunteers and a greater emphasis on the patient's psychological needs in coming to terms with dying.
Cost-shifting is an economic situation where one individual, group, or government underpays for a service, resulting in another individual, group, or government overpaying for a service. It can occur when one group pays a smaller share of costs than before, resulting in another group paying a larger share of costs than before. Some commentators on health policy in the United States believe the former currently happens in Medicare and Medicaid as they underpay for services resulting in private insurers overpaying. Although the term cost shift is used in the field of healthcare these days and there are many studies about it, other fields have more or less used it. For example, its origins go back to the environmental economy where cost-shifting referred to the practice where corporations pass the harmful consequences and negative externalities of economic production to third parties and communities whether those that are part of the production circuit or are in some way beneficiaries or those that are outside this circle, K.W. Kapp, is one who coined the concept. This concept is also used in the American legal system, especially since the cost of electronic discovery has increased dramatically due to a large amount of raw information and the urgent need to extract relevant data, its processing, and analysis. In the past, each of the plaintiffs and defendants had to bear the cost, but later many of those who prepared the summons demanded the transfer of the cost because they thought they would have to pay for something they did not do. In this regard, some courts have agreed to shift part of the costs to the complainant.
The Empowering Patients First Act is legislation sponsored by Rep. Tom Price, first introduced as H.R. 3400 in the 111th Congress. The bill was initially intended to be a Republican alternative to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, but has since been positioned as a potential replacement to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The bill was introduced in the 112th Congress as H.R. 3000, and in the 113th Congress as H.R. 2300. As of October 2014, the bill has 58 cosponsors. An identical version of the bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator John McCain as S. 1851.
Health care rationing refers to mechanisms that are used for resource allocation in health care.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and colloquially as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Most of the act's provisions are still in effect.
Health care finance in the United States discusses how Americans obtain and pay for their healthcare, and why U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world based on various measures.
The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a US federal government program created in 1992 that requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible health care organizations and covered entities at significantly reduced prices. The intent of the program is to allow covered entities to "stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services." Maintaining services and lowering medication costs for patients is consistent with the purpose of the program, which is named for the section authorizing it in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) It was enacted by Congress as part of a larger bill signed into law by President George H. W. Bush.
A safety net hospital is a type of medical center in the United States that by legal obligation or mission provides healthcare for individuals regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. This legal mandate forces safety net hospitals (SNHs) to serve all populations. Such hospitals typically serve a proportionately higher number of uninsured, Medicaid, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHiP), low-income, and other vulnerable individuals than their "non-safety net hospital" counterpart. Safety net hospitals are not defined by their ownership terms; they can be either publicly or privately owned. The mission of safety net hospitals is rather to provide the best possible care for those who are barred from health care due to the various possible adverse circumstances. These circumstances mostly revolve around problems with financial payments, insurance plans, or health conditions. Safety net hospitals are known for maintaining an open-door policy for their services.
A hospital readmission is an episode when a patient who had been discharged from a hospital is admitted again within a specified time interval. Readmission rates have increasingly been used as an outcome measure in health services research and as a quality benchmark for health systems. Generally, higher readmission rate indicates ineffectiveness of treatment during past hospitalizations. Hospital readmission rates were formally included in reimbursement decisions for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, which penalizes health systems with higher than expected readmission rates through the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Since the inception of this penalty, there have been other programs that have been introduced, with the aim to decrease hospital readmission. The Community Based Care Transition Program, Independence At Home Demonstration Program, and Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative are all examples of these programs. While many time frames have been used historically, the most common time frame is within 30 days of discharge, and this is what CMS uses.
An admitting privilege is the right of a doctor to admit patients to a hospital for medical treatment without first having to go through an emergency department. This is generally restricted to doctors on the hospital staff, although in some countries such as Canada and the United States, both general practitioners and specialists can have admitting privileges. The practice of credentialing physicians who do not work at a particular hospital to admit has been steadily declining, and as of 2022, is essentially non-existent in many areas.
Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether an Idaho abortion law conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The court initially agreed to expedite the appeal and temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban. After hearing the case, the court dismissed it as improvidently granted and restored a lower court order allowing emergency abortions under EMTALA. This returned the case to the lower courts without a ruling on the merits.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
