Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labour Act

Emtala Basics
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor's Name
Due Date
EMTALA basics
TQ 2.1
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labour Act (EMTALA) is a statute that helps patients seeking medical care in any hospital emergency department to receive treatment and stabilization regardless of their ability to pay. As such hospitals that do not have an emergency department are not covered by EMTALA, such as private hospitals and military hospitals since these do not receive payment from the Department of Health and Human Services. Any hospital that observes EMTALA regulations cannot send a patient away from the emergency room without conducting a screening examination because they will have violated rules and will be liable for fines. If a hospital conducts a screening and a medical condition is present, the patient should receive treatment because EMTALA laws will be applicable. If a patient's health or a pregnant woman will be at risk if treatment is not administered then as per the EMTALA statutes providing treatment is an obligation of the hospital. Moreover, if a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient, or lacks the appropriate equipment for treatment, then a transfer should the patient to a specialize facility. EMTALA requires transfers to hospitals with specialized facility, transferring a patient to a hospital that lacks such facilities is a violation of EMTALA. The hospital that sent the patient will be at violation since it places the life of the patient at risk. A patient can only recover damages from the hospital and not from the doctors, because EMTALA protects physicians from lawsuits brought by patients.
TQ 2.3 Moses v Providence Hospital
The courts decision in Moses v Providence Hospital conflicts with CMS regulations because these rules need hospitals to stabilize a patient only during an emergency. Once admitted to the hospital and they become an inpatient the rules of EMTALA are no longer bidding even if the individual remains unstable. For instance, Mr Howard went to the hospital experiencing an emergency medical condition, the hospital admitted and discharged him ten days later, under these circumstances EMTALA requierements were meet and thus the court ruling is in conflict with CMS rules. The Sixth Circuit rejected the regulations because they found them "to be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Thus, the regulations were not entitled to deference" (EMTALA: Access to Emergency Medical Care). Additionaly, the rejection was because EMTALA prevents hospitals from "releasing patients with emergency medical conditions without providing treatment to stabilize the condition". Providence Hospital release of Mr Howard led to the rejection because the patient was not stable and 10 days after release he committed murder. In short, the court rejected the regulations because the release of the patients was in breach of EMTALA regulations (Turer et al,. 2020). The patient still had an emergency medical condition and his diagnosis was still unstable. The court would not have adopted a different result because the CMS regulations would "permit hospitals to avoid EMTALA liability by admitting and immediately discharging patients without providing any treatment". In conclusion, the verdict reached by the court was good, Providence Hospital admitted a patient and released him before stabilizing him hence they were in breach of EMTALA statutes.
Moses v Providence hospital was correctly decided by the court, because the hospital released a patient who was not stable and this lead to death. In this case the stabilization procedure was not complete since the patient had not recovered. Furthermore, EMTALA act also provides protections to any individual who is harmed as a result of a hospital not adhering to EMTALA (Warby & Borger, 2020). In short the case was correctly decided becasue "EMTALA requires a hospital to treat a patient with an emergency in such a way that, upon the patient's release, no further deterioration of the condition is likely". Providence hospital failed in the process to stabilize the patient and as such the judgment was good.
TQ 2.2 Baber v Hospital Corp
In Baber v Hospital Corp, the court ruling was against the plaintiff and the defendants received summary judgement because they acted with the bounds of EMTALA. The medical screening her sister received was enough and the court should have used another hospital and compare the procedures to determine whether doctors at Raleigh General Hospital were in violation. For instance, the failure by the doctors to conduct CT scan and X rays, for head injury could be compared with other hospitals, if other hospitals would have performed these tests, then the judges could have held the hospital accountable. The rejection of Mr Babaer's proposal was due to lack of enough evidence, and further because the hospital had provided a medical screening that was appropriate and within its emergency department capability. The court adopted the EMTALA standard which "does not give patients a private cause of action against their doctors', in short, the court employed this standard because the plaintiff was trying to recover personal injury damages from the doctors and EMTALA also to protects doctors. Also, it is possible for a screening to be inadequate, and appropriate at the same time, because the doctors performed a screening and treated her of the symptoms that the tests provided (Warby & Borger, 2020). The screening was inadequate because the doctors misdiagnosed her condition and treated her for the wrong medical condition. If the hospital had not perfromed a screening they would have been in breach of EMTALA, because the law requires screening of patients with an emergency medical condition, and not doing so breaks the law, and the hospital would be liable to pay a fine for the violation.
D.Q 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of EMTALA
One major benefit of EMTALA is that it saves lives, by ensuring persons with emergency medical conditions receive treatment. Furthermore, it prevents patient dumping whereby patients are wrongfully discharged or refused treatment due to their insurance status or inability to pay. By mandating hospitals to provide screening exams and stabilization procedures to any person who goes to an emergency department with serious illness or injuries EMTALA saves lives. In short, EMTALA's main benefit is that it ensures hospitals attend to people who request their help in an emergency. Additionally it safeguards patien...