The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Citation Events.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Terp S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630639 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7081879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay, plays an important role in protecting the uninsured. Yet many hospitals do not comply. This study examines the reasons for noncompliance and proposes solutions. We conducted 11 semistructured key informant interviews with hospitals, hospital associations, and patient safety organizations in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services region with the highest number of EMTALA complaints filed. Respondents identified 5 main causes of noncompliance: financial incentives to avoid unprofitable patients, ignorance of EMTALA's requirements, high referral burden at hospitals receiving EMTALA transfer patients, reluctance to jeopardize relationships with transfer partners by reporting borderline EMTALA violations, and opposing priorities of hospitals and physicians. Respondents suggested 5 methods to improve compliance, including educating subspecialists about EMTALA, informally educating hospitals about borderline violations, and incorporating EMTALA-compliant processes into hospital operations such as by routing transfer requests through the emergency department. To improve compliance we suggest (1) more closely aligning Medicaid/Medicare payment policies with EMTALA, (2) amending the Act to permit informal mediation between hospitals about borderline violations, (3) increasing the hospital's role in ensuring EMTALA compliance, and (4) expanding the role of hospital associations.
| S-EPMC8340543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsReview of OIG investigation archives in May 2015, including cases settled from 2002-2015 ( https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/patient_dumping.asp ).ResultsThere 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).ConclusionOf 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.
| S-EPMC4899053 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7237063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation of medical emergency teams has been identified as a potential strategy to reduce hospital deaths, because these teams respond to patients with acute physiological decline in an effort to prevent in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, prior studies of the association between medical emergency teams and hospital mortality have been limited and typically have not accounted for preimplementation mortality trends. METHODS:Within the Pediatric Health Information System for freestanding pediatric hospitals, annual risk-adjusted mortality rates were calculated for sites between 2000 and 2015. A random slopes interrupted time series analysis then examined whether implementation of a medical emergency team was associated with lower-than-expected mortality rates based on preimplementation trends. RESULTS:Across 38 pediatric hospitals, mean annual hospital admission volume was 15?854 (range, 6684-33?024), and there were a total of 1?659?059 hospitalizations preimplementation and 4?392?392 hospitalizations postimplementation. Before medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality decreased by 6.0% annually (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.96) across all hospitals. After medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality continued to decrease by 6% annually (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), with no deepening of the mortality slope (ie, not lower OR) in comparison with the preimplementation trend, for the overall cohort (P=0.98) or when analyzed separately within each of the 38 study hospitals. Five years after medical emergency team implementation across study sites, there was no difference between predicted (hospital mean of 6.18 deaths per 1000 admissions based on preimplementation trends) and actual mortality rates (hospital mean of 6.48 deaths per 1000 admissions; P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of medical emergency teams in a large sample of pediatric hospitals in the United States was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality beyond existing preimplementation trends.
| S-EPMC5839663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe 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).MethodsDescriptions 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsFor 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.
| S-EPMC7237064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Data on the effects of helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) transport and treatment on the survival of severely injured pediatric patients in high-level trauma centers remain unclear. (2) Methods: A national dataset from the TraumaRegister DGU® was used to retrospectively compare the mortality rates among severely injured pediatric patients (1-15 years) who were transported by HEMS to those transported by ground emergency medical service (GEMS) and treated at trauma centers of different treatment levels (levels I-III). (3) Results: In total, 2755 pediatric trauma patients (age: 9.0 ± 4.8 years) were included in this study over five years. Transportation by HEMS resulted in a significant survival benefit compared to GEMS (odds ratio (OR) 0.489; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.282-0.850). Pediatric trauma patients treated in level II or III trauma centers showed 34% and fourfold higher in-hospital mortality risk than those in level I trauma centers (level II: OR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.70-2.56; level III: OR 4.63, 95% CI: 1.33-16.09). (4) Conclusions: In our national pediatric trauma cohort, both HEMS transportation and treatment in level I trauma centers were independent factors of improved survival in pediatric trauma patients.
| S-EPMC7922049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMedical Emergency Teams (METs), also known as Rapid Response Teams, are recommended as a patient safety measure. A potential benefit of implementing an MET is the capacity to systematically assess preventable adverse events, which are defined as poor outcomes caused by errors or system design flaws. We describe how we used MET calls to systematically identify preventable adverse events in an academic tertiary care hospital, and describe our surveillance results.MethodsFor four weeks we collected standard information on consecutive MET calls. Within a week of the MET call, a multi-disciplinary team reviewed the information and rated the cause of the outcome using a previously developed rating scale. We classified the type and severity of the preventable adverse event.ResultsWe captured information on all 65 MET calls occurring during the study period. Of these, 16 (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16%-36%) were felt to be preventable adverse events. The most common cause of the preventable adverse events was error in providing appropriate therapy despite an accurate diagnosis. One service accounted for a disproportionate number of preventable adverse events (n = 5, [31%, 95% CI 14%-56%]).ConclusionsOur method of reviewing MET calls was easy to implement and yielded important results. Hospitals maintaining an MET can use our method as a preventable adverse event detection system at little additional cost.
| S-EPMC2750180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Whether types of hospitals with high readmission rates also have high overall postdischarge acute care utilization (including emergency department and observation care) is unknown. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS:Nonfederal United States acute care hospitals. MEASURES:Using methodology established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we calculated each hospital's "excess days in acute care" for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries aged over 65 years discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), or pneumonia, representing the mean difference between predicted and expected total days of acute care utilization in the 30 days following hospital discharge, per 100 discharges. We assessed the multivariable association of 8 hospital characteristics with excess days in acute care and the proportion of hospitals with each characteristic that were statistical outliers (95% credible interval estimate does not include 0). RESULTS:We included 2184 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction [228 (10.4%) better than expected, 549 (25.1%) worse than expected], 3720 hospitals for HF [484 (13.0%) better and 840 (22.6%) worse], and 4195 hospitals for pneumonia [673 (16.0%) better, 1005 (24.0%) worse]. Results for all conditions were similar. Worse than expected outliers for pneumonia included: 18.8% of safety net hospitals versus 26.1% of nonsafety net hospitals; 16.7% of public hospitals versus 33.1% of for-profit hospitals; 19.5% of nonteaching hospitals versus 52.2% of major teaching hospitals; 7.9% of rural hospitals versus 42.1% of large urban hospitals; 5.9% of hospitals with 24-<50 beds versus 58% of hospitals with >500 beds; and 29.0% of hospitals with nurse-to-bed ratios >1.0-1.5 versus 21.7% of hospitals with ratios >2.0. CONCLUSIONS:Including emergency department and observation stays in measures of postdischarge utilization produces similar results as measuring only readmissions in that major teaching, urban and for-profit hospitals still perform disproportionately poorly versus nonteaching or public hospitals. However, it enables identification of more outliers and a more granular assessment of the association of hospital factors and outcomes.
| S-EPMC6170884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) are adverse outcomes caused by medical care. Several studies have indicated that a substantial number of patients experience AEs before or during hospitalization. However, few data describe AEs after hospital discharge. We determined the incidence, severity, preventability and ameliorability of AEs in patients discharged from the general internal medicine service of a Canadian hospital. METHODS: At a multisite Canadian teaching hospital, we prospectively studied patients who were consecutively discharged home or to a seniors' residence from the general internal medicine service during a 14-week interval in 2002. We used telephone interview and chart review to identify outcomes after discharge. Two physicians independently reviewed each outcome to determine if the patient experienced an AE. The severity, preventability and ameliorability of all AEs were classified. RESULTS: During the study period, outcomes were determined for 328 of the 361 eligible patients, who averaged 71 years of age (interquartile range 54-81 years). After discharge, 76 of the 328 patients experienced at least 1 AE (overall incidence 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19%-28%). The AE severity ranged from symptoms only (68% of the AEs) or symptoms associated with a nonpermanent disability (25%) to permanent disability (3%) or death (3%). The most common AEs were adverse drug events (72%), therapeutic errors (16%) and nosocomial infections (11%). Of the 76 patients, 38 had an AE that was either preventable or ameliorable (overall incidence 12%, 95% CI 9%-16%). INTERPRETATION: Approximately one-quarter of patients in our study had an AE after hospital discharge, and half of the AEs were preventable or ameliorable.
| S-EPMC331384 | biostudies-literature