Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Zuabi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4899053 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Zuabi Nadia N Weiss Larry D LD Langdorf Mark I MI

The western journal of emergency medicine 20160504 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>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 m ...[more]

PMID: 27330654

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective was to describe characteristics of civil monetary penalties levied by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) related to violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) involving psychiatric emergencies. METHODS:Descriptions of EMTALA-related civil monetary penalty settlements from 2002 to 2018 were obtained from the OIG. Cases related to psychiatric emergencies were identified by inclusion of key words in settlement descriptions. Characteristics of settlements involving EMTALA violations related to psychiatric emergencies including date, amount, and nature of the allegation were described and compared with settlements not involving psychiatric emergencies. RESULTS:Of 230 civil monetary penalty settlements related to EMTALA during the study period, 44 (19%) were related to psychiatric emergencies. The average settlement for psychiatric-related cases was $85,488, compared with $32,004 for non-psychiatric-related cases (p < 0.001). Five (83%) of the six largest settlements during the study period were related to cases involving psychiatric emergencies. The most commonly cited deficiencies for settlements involving psychiatric patients were failure to provide appropriate medical screening examination (84%) or stabilizing treatment (68%) or arrange appropriate transfer (30%). Failure to provide stabilizing treatment was more common among cases involving psychiatric emergencies (68% vs. 51%, p = 0.041). Among psychiatric-related settlements, 18 (41%) occurred in CMS Region IV (Southeast) and nine (20%) in Region VII (Central). CONCLUSIONS:Nearly one in five civil monetary penalty settlements related to EMTALA violations involved psychiatric emergencies. Settlements related to psychiatric emergencies were more costly and more often associated with failure to stabilize than for nonpsychiatric emergencies. Administrators should evaluate and strengthen policies and procedures related to psychiatric screening examinations, stabilizing care of psychiatric patients boarding in EDs, and transfer policies. Recent large, notable settlements related to EMTALA violations suggest that there is considerable room to improve access to and quality of care for patients with psychiatric emergencies.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (ED). While controversies exist regarding the scope of the law, there is no question that EMTALA applies to active labor, a key tenet of the statute and the only medical condition - labor - specifically included in the title of the law. In light of rising maternal mortality rates in the United States, further exploration into the state of emergency obstetrical (OB) care is warranted. Understanding civil monetary penalty settlements levied by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) related to EMTALA violations involving labor and other OB emergencies will help to inform the current state of access to and quality of OB emergency care. METHODS:We reviewed descriptions of all EMTALA-related OIG civil monetary penalty settlements from 2002-2018. OB-related cases were identified using keywords in settlement descriptions. We described characteristics of settlements including the nature of the allegation and compared them with non-OB settlements. RESULTS:Of 232 EMTALA-related OIG settlements during the study period, 39 (17%) involved active labor and other OB emergencies. Between 2002 and 2018 the proportion of settlements involving OB emergencies increased from 17% to 40%. Seven (18%) of these settlements involved a pregnant minor. Most OB cases involved failure to provide screening exam (82%) and/or stabilizing treatment (51%). Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common for OB (36%) compared with non-OB settlements (21%) (p = 0.041). Fifteen (38%) involved a provider specifically directing a pregnant woman to proceed to another hospital, typically by private vehicle. CONCLUSION:Despite inclusion of the term "labor" in the law's title, one in six settlements related to EMTALA violations involved OB emergencies. One in five settlements involved a pregnant minor, indicating that providers may benefit from education regarding obligations to evaluate and stabilize minors absent parental consent. Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common among OB settlements. Findings suggesting need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate transfer and for EDs at hospitals without dedicated OB services to implement policies for evaluation of active labor and protocols for transfer when indicated.

Dataset Information

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

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets