- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 8,260
- Reaction score
- 1,064
- Location
- Whitewater, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Wouldn't it be helpful to post the actual EMTALA laws for everyone to see?
Here are excerpts from EMTALA:
TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER XVIII, Part E, § 1395dd
(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor
(1) In general
If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.
[Sections c and d skipped for the sake of brevity.]
e) Definitions
In this section:
(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A) a medical 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—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
If I am not mistaken, nothing in EMTALA requires an emergency room staff to treat a patient for a non-emergency problem once the emergency room staff has determined that the patient has a non-emergency problem.
If I am correct, then Pawlenty is mistaken about EMTALA needing changed.
:shocked2: misterman, do you have a link to a story that confirms what you say about "right wingers"?The hospital where Michelle Obama was on the board set up a program to try to do exactly this - divert people who really didn't belong in the ER to regular doctors.
The right wingers screamed "patient dumping"!
Is it really taking money without our consent? After all; if enacted into law, it was with our consent.
The cheaper option is to establish after-hours urgent care clinics .. a great idea! .
:shocked2: misterman, do you have a link to a story that confirms what you say about "right wingers"?
Having been to the emergency room at least 15 or 20 times in my life and 4 times last year I know a little bit about how they work.
The triage system evaluates treatment based most in need and likely hood of benefiting and recovering from immediate treatment.
This is the time people with a minor condition such as a splinter or other problem treatable at home should be given instructions on how to deal with the issue and sent on their merry way. Those people are the ones who find they get to wait hours and hours for a band aid.
If you show up with shortness of breath and chest pains your wait will be less than a few minutes guaranteed. I know this for a fact.
But you still have the issue of what happens when the person who decides who is really in need makes a mistake and sends the wrong person away. Many problems that appear to be minor on the surface can be complicated by problems that are not readily visible at a certain point in time.
In that case the cost to the hospital is going to be very high indeed.
Pawlenty has an idea I just don't see it as the cure to high costs, and the current plans under consideration as I have said over and over fail to address the real issues at all.
michelle obama patient dumping - Google Search
Scroll through it and you'll find plenty of right wing sources complaining about it. You'll have to wade through the responses explaining that they are full of crap though.
Oh, OK. Thanks.michelle obama patient dumping - Google Search
Scroll through it and you'll find plenty of right wing sources complaining about it. You'll have to wade through the responses explaining that they are full of crap though.
Oh, OK. Thanks.
misterman, you are correct. I found examples of whining by people who don't know what EMTALA actually requires of hospital emergency rooms.I'll bet you'll even see some of the same people who whined about Michelle Obama endorsing Pawlenty's proposal!
Obama's was alot better - her hospital didn't just turn people away (it legally couldn't), it found doctors for the patients.
misterman, you are correct. I found examples of whining by people who don't know what EMTALA actually requires of hospital emergency rooms.
Nothing in EMTALA prevents an emergency room staff from sending established non-emergency cases to a health care provider outside of the emergency room.
Being that I don't suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, I can correctly understand what the Urban Health Initiative is all about. It's about reducing the number of non-emergency cases handled by emergency rooms so that those emergency rooms handle more cases that are actual emergencies.
Especially within each state.Tort reform is the key to this whole problem.
Although I am in favor of tort reform, it's a different subject that does not pertain to the subject of this thread.Tort reform is the key to this whole problem.
Although I am in favor of tort reform, it's a different subject that does not pertain to the subject of this thread.
So I'm curious how else capitalism can come in and fill the void?
But let's concentrate on the "cases that should be in the clinics". How do we classify them?
As a physician and being married to a physician, my wife and I can come up with myriad examples of patients that could have been turned away at the point of entry following immediate assessment. Common examples include patients that come to the ED for insulin or blood pressure Rx refills. A typical ED intake charge by the hospital is $1,100-1,500. Many of these patients arrive with no exacerbation of their primary ailment a several days remaining of their prescription, but claim they don't have to wait as long if they come to the ED (I find this hard to believe). Anyway, in most cases the local taxpayer ends up paying for the ED intake. We also see children being brought in for vaccinations. Again, a ED intake charge in addition to the vaccination (usually charged to the taxpayers) when the child can receive vaccinations at the county health department. My state (Oklahoma) has a program that provides these vaccinations to children free of charge as opposed to ~$1200 via the ED.
There's a way around that. Call an ambulance for the stubbed toe, splinter, etc. Then you get seen immediately. And cost the system even MORE.Having been to the emergency room at least 15 or 20 times in my life and 4 times last year I know a little bit about how they work.
The triage system evaluates treatment based most in need and likely hood of benefiting and recovering from immediate treatment.
This is the time people with a minor condition such as a splinter or other problem treatable at home should be given instructions on how to deal with the issue and sent on their merry way. Those people are the ones who find they get to wait hours and hours for a band aid.
Although I am in favor of tort reform, it's a different subject that does not pertain to the subject of this thread.
Tort reform is a nonsensical attempt to prevent unscrupulous big business scumbags from being held completely responsible for the damage their greed causes.
In three words: Mindless Republican Bull****!
If hospitals were allowed to turn away non-emergency cases, I can easily see capitalism stepping into the void and filling it.
You should probably direct your question to the poster who made the statement.
There are plenty of public clinics to handle cases who cannot pay much. The problem (in many cases, based on experience working in public hospitals) is that these patients don't really want to fill out the paperwork and wait. In a public health system, people will pay with their time.
Are you pooling physicians into the "big business scumbags" group? Because they're the primary defendant in frivolous lawsuits.
Wouldn't it be helpful to post the actual EMTALA laws for everyone to see?
Here are excerpts from EMTALA:
TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER XVIII, Part E, § 1395dd
(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor
(1) In generalIf any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.
[Sections c and d skipped for the sake of brevity.]
e) Definitions
In this section:
(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—(A) a medical 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—(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
If I am not mistaken, nothing in EMTALA requires an emergency room staff to treat a patient for a non-emergency problem once the emergency room staff has determined that the patient has a non-emergency problem.
If I am correct, then Pawlenty is mistaken about EMTALA needing changed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?