EMTALA threatens the safety net of community care

President Bush once said something along the lines of, “We do have universal health care in this country — just go to the emergency room.”

EMTALA.  The law requiring emergency rooms to treat everyone’s emergent conditions, a well meaning act that has had disastrous consequences for hospitals’ bottom lines.  A disgustingly flawed law on many levels.

How do you prove it is not an emergency condition?  You work it up.  You rack up the tests in the ER, you even admit the patient and rack up the costs again.

How do you really rule out an emergency condition?  You wait, you watch, you wait, you maybe run some tests again, you wait some more.  Which means that someone is occupying a valuable bed in your ER.  Leading to ED overcrowding.

How do you prevent lawsuits?  You treat everyone.  Even if it is that homeless man who comes every other day via ambulance just for his sandwich and a bed for a few hours with no immediately treatable medical condition.

What about the drunk driver or the guy who was stabbed?  Their insurance is not going to cover their care.  You treat them anyway, because that’s the right thing to do, but in states without no-fault mechanisms and when the patient can’t pay, the hospital loses.

Leading to uncompensated care.  Hospitals have to provide the care to everyone, regardless of if they can pay or not. EMTALA is a federal law, which has become an unfunded mandate.  Not all who are treated at the ER will qualify for emergency Medicaid or have their care paid for in some way by somebody.  So the hospital eats the costs and the physicians provide free care.  The federal government does pay for some of these patients’ care but not all, and then hospitals feel the pressure of the financial strain.

Like Atlanta’s public Grady Hospital.  A safety-net hospital that many uninsured and undocumented rely upon.  A safety-net that became a little less comprehensive now that it had to close it’s outpatient dialysis center, which treats those with end-stage renal disease.  ESRD dialysis is usually covered by Medicare (one of the few costs covered for people of all ages, not only those over 65).  But illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for Medicare or any of the new federal funding under the new health care law.

The agreement would not address the broader concern of how to care for illegal immigrants in the region who have developed renal disease since the Grady clinic’s closing, or those who will do so in the future. At the moment, their only option may be to wait until they are in distress and then visit hospital emergency rooms, which are required by law to provide dialysis to patients who are deemed in serious jeopardy.

Of course, waiting until you are in distress instead of receiving regular dialysis wreaks havoc on your body.  It takes much more time and much more aggressive treatment — inpatient, which is much more expensive — to deal with the state of your health after missed dialysis sessions.

The problem isn’t with the intent of EMTALA — we shouldn’t deny life-saving care based on someone’s ability to pay or their immigration status.  The problem is in EMTALA’s funding … and the fact that it is not funded.  The government is telling hospitals to fend for themselves on this one.  And more and more hospitals are finding themselves unable to stay afloat, further threatening the safety net of community care.

Suchita Shah is a medical student who blogs at University and State.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

email

  • http://www.edwinleap.com/blog Edwin Leap

    Suchita,

    You are very astute to grasp this during medical school. EMTALA has become an unmitigated disaster, resulting in closed ER’s, closed hospitals, outrageous costs and ridiculous wait times, even as hospital administrators try to figure out why it’s all happening. It’s so obvious that everyone is blinded to the misery of unintended consequences wrought by legislators who passed EMTLA and could then be self-congratulatory for providing care without providing funding or protection. Travesty!

  • Anonymous

    I dislike EMTALA just as much as the next person, but for what it’s worth, it should be kept in mind that EMTALA only applies to hospitals that take Medicare/Medicaid. I know that’s essentially everybody, but honestly speaking, I can’t say I think it’s extraordinarily unfair that if the government covers probably half the patient that they can make the rules. After all, there’s a way out. But for some reason, nobody seems interested in making a (would have to be small) hospital just for commercially-insured people. I know with my $2000 deductible, I’d go there for any acute concern (where time is not ultra-critical and death is not impending).

  • ninguem

    “……nobody seems interested in making a (would have to be small) hospital just for commercially-insured people…..”

    That would be a physician-owned specialty hospital. They are, in fact, tried. The government keeps trying to shut them down.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/04/05/obamacares-first-victim-physician-owned-specialty-hospitals/

  • Bill

    Well, gee, if so many people hadn’t gotten in the way of a government payor who would accept all uninsured–including those who convinced 40 percent of Americans that there are Death Panels in Health Reform–we might have had a way to pay for this uncompensated care. Add to that the people outraged at the “mandate” for everyone to have some form of insurance, and we’ve lost our way to finding a solution. Here in NJ we’ve lost over a third of our hospitals since 1990, mostly due to uncompensated care (though an oversupply of beds doesn’t help), and most of the survivors operate at a negative margin. Even the huge, brand-name hospital systems in NYC are operating with huge debts and miniscule margins thanks to the high concentration of uninsured. So what’s the solution? Kill those without insurance who come to the ED? Really?!?!? Show me a doctor who will turn his/her back to a sick patient, and I’ll show you someone who should leave the practice and take a corporate job. Physicians deserve to be paid for their work, but your efforts should be directed at getting everyone covered in one way or another because, on balance, the cost to cover them is far less than it’s going to cost to continue paying for uncompensated care and propping up safety net hospitals and other institutions on which this care falls.

  • http://paynehertz.blogspot.com Payne Hertz

    It’s a bit of a myth that hospitals provide free medical services under EMTALA. The services may be “free” at the point of service, but hospitals can and do send collection agencies after those who don’t pay and will garnish wages to get the money they are owed. Take this article as a prime example. Are we to feel sorry for the “non-profit” hospitals here?

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/loudon_hospital.html

    “In September, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa) released a study of 10 nonprofit hospitals. The study showed that the hospitals took advantage of many of the nation’s poorest individuals by charging them more than insured patients, using aggressive tactics for repayment and not informing patients of special programs to waive or decrease bills.

    “Federal, state and local governments give nonprofit hospitals tens of billions of dollars each year in tax breaks,” Grassley said in a prepared statement.

    So hospitals get tax breaks to provide charity care which they often don’t provide but then complain about not being paid when they do provide it?

    As I understand it, the government allows hospitals to write off unpaid medical bills in toto as “bad debt,” and not just the actual cost of providing the medical service. Please correct me if I am wrong about this as I am not entirely certain on the accounting mechanics here. So you might get a $5,000 write-off on “free” medical service that cost you $400.00 to provide. The tax savings may exceed the cost of the service producing a profit rather than a loss. I can see a real potential for shenanigans here, writing-off the “loss” to taxes in one year and then 5, 10 years down the road sending a collection agency out to collect the bill in full plus interest. Who’s to know?

    I’d like to see some hard numbers from an objective source on the real costs of EMTALA, the value of tax write-offs versus cost of providing “free” service, etc, and to what extent these allegedly “unfunded” services are offset by the widespread practice of overbilling by some hospitals. I have yet to see anything in the media but scare stories about hospitals being cut down by EMTALA like soldiers going over the top at the Somme. Where does that $2.3 trillion a year we spend on medical services go, anyway?

    The medical system already defrauds the government and private insurers of over $250 billion a year. Now we are to give hospitals a blank check whenever they claim to provide unaccountable medical services to untraceable illegal aliens? No thanks.

    • Vox Rusticus

      PH:

      Just as with medical practices, I don’t think the hospitals get to write off bad debt as actual losses. The write-down is just to clear books of unpaid receivables. They obviously don’t show anything for them as income, and the costs: wages, supplies, and indirect facility costs in bond service, utilities, cleaning, maintenance all get written down against total revenue. So the loss, which is real, since indigent patients do use resources, get diffused across the whole enterprise.

      You speak of the $250 billion fraud figure as fact. Where is the proof? That sounds like hyperbole, based on some exaggerated assumptions from small samplings.

      As far as collections and garnishments go, that is probably a net loser as an enterprise. It is a time-consuming effort, and most people still don’t pay, even with a judgment. Some states allow garnishment, but many don’t. But as with any organization that has to collect in arrears, there have to be teeth in the process somewhere, or nobody would feel any obligation to pay.

  • paul

    get rid of the lawyers and press-ganey and i will actually perform the MSE as it was intended. if you do not have an EMC you get turned away. most of the time i will be right, and if i’m wrong i don’t get blamed. society saves lots of money. you’re welcome.

  • http://paynehertz.blogspot.com Payne Hertz

    The write-down is just to clear books of unpaid receivables.

    I have my doubts about that. It is not clear if these are accounting write-offs or tax “write-offs” which are in fact deductions. I have been doing some research but have been unable to find a straight answer to this very simple question, but I have discovered that Medicare in fact pays at least $22 billion dollars a year to compensate hospitals for “bad debt” which means that at least some of those bills are being paid in full by Medicare, and not just at the cost of the service. Interesting I have never seen this mentioned before.

    http://www.caringforcommunities.org/caringforcommunities/principles/hhs.html

    (click on “Questions and Answers” link for PDF download)

    The costs you mention like wages, utilities, maintenance etc are mostly fixed costs which would be incurred regardless of the number of patients seen, and would not be included in the cost of providing care to an individual patient. That cost would be a variable cost, which is a cost generated exclusively by that visit: like IV’s, blood tests, disposable oxygen masks, administered drugs etc. If the patient never visited, those costs would never have been incurred. The fixed costs are the same whether the patient visited or not. In most cases, the money charged by hospitals is far greater than the variable cost of providing the service, and if that bill gets paid in full as a “bad debt” by Medicare, the hospital will have profited from the visit. The same applies to collection efforts if the money obtained through collections exceeds the variable cost of the service provided.

    As for medical fraud, the FBI “Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2007″ estimates medical fraud at between 3 to 10 percent of total health expenditures of $2.26 trillion. If the higher figure is used, that’s $226 billion a year. Michael Sparrow, a medical fraud expert from Harvard, estimates health care fraud at anywhere between $100 billion to $600 billion, but admits that there is no way to know for sure.

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111967435

  • Anonymous

    Before EMTALA, what did ERs do when an unconscious person was brought in with no identification or indication of ability to pay (e.g. robbery victim, or someone rescued from a water activity accident), and is not accompanied by any friends or relatives who could answer questions about his/her identity and/or ability to pay? How differently was it handled compared to with EMTALA?

    • paul

      probably the bare minimum necessary to keep the patient stable-ish before loading them on an ambulance and sending them off to the county hospital without giving them any advance warning.

      but there’s gotta be a way to deal with that problem without all of the unintended consequences of emtala.

  • gzuckier

    In my state, which has a law mandating that hospitals treat regardless of the patients’ ability to pay, of course the state funds earmarked for reimbursement for this care annually are a fraction of what the hospitals actually shell out. Would anyone expect any different?