EMTALA And HIPAA Case Study
With this definition in mind, the proficient application of EMTALA and HIPAA to our scenario and discussion of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of patients and providers can transpire.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act was passed as a feature of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. This federal law requires the stabilization and treatment of the patient who arrives at the emergency department, regardless of the individual’s insurance status or ability to pay for services. By law, public and private hospitals are forbidden to repudiate treatment of the patient in an emergency, transfer the patient to another hospital before he is stabilized, or stop treatment altogether because the patient cannot afford the cost of care (EMTALA). Transfers actually served as essential motivation for EMTALA. Studies conducted in the early 1980s revealed 250,000 transfers a year from private to public or Veteran Health Administration hospitals, and almost 90% …show more content…
With that said, he could request a transfer to a different institution, or refuse examination, treatment, or the combination of both. If he does refuse treatment, the physician must inform him or the person on his behalf of the risks and benefits associated with the accessible examination or treatment. The physician must then describe the examination or treatment that was declined in the medical record, secure the rejection in writing, and have the patient sign the document confirming he has chosen to refuse services despite being informed of the risks and benefits involved (FAQS). If our patient does not reject an examination or treatment, yet fails to receive the emergency care he needs, one may argue it is that patient’s duty to report the hospital that refused to provide the care in order to prevent future
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act was passed as a feature of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. This federal law requires the stabilization and treatment of the patient who arrives at the emergency department, regardless of the individual’s insurance status or ability to pay for services. By law, public and private hospitals are forbidden to repudiate treatment of the patient in an emergency, transfer the patient to another hospital before he is stabilized, or stop treatment altogether because the patient cannot afford the cost of care (EMTALA). Transfers actually served as essential motivation for EMTALA. Studies conducted in the early 1980s revealed 250,000 transfers a year from private to public or Veteran Health Administration hospitals, and almost 90% …show more content…
With that said, he could request a transfer to a different institution, or refuse examination, treatment, or the combination of both. If he does refuse treatment, the physician must inform him or the person on his behalf of the risks and benefits associated with the accessible examination or treatment. The physician must then describe the examination or treatment that was declined in the medical record, secure the rejection in writing, and have the patient sign the document confirming he has chosen to refuse services despite being informed of the risks and benefits involved (FAQS). If our patient does not reject an examination or treatment, yet fails to receive the emergency care he needs, one may argue it is that patient’s duty to report the hospital that refused to provide the care in order to prevent future