Analysis of federally imposed penalties for violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act

Vascular surgery-related violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

OBJECTIVE

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law established in 1986 to ensure that patients who present to an emergency department receive medical care regardless of means. Violations are reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and can result in significant financial penalties. Our objective was to assess all available EMTALA violations for vascular-related issues.

METHODS

EMTALA violations in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly available hospital violations database from 2011 to 2018 were evaluated for vascular-related issues. Details recorded were case type, hospital type, hospital region, reasons for violation, disposition, and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 7001 patients identified with any EMTALA violation and 98 (1.4%) were deemed vascular related. The majority (82.7%) of EMTALA violations occurred at urban/suburban hospitals. Based on the Association of American Medical Colleges United States region, vascular-related EMTALA violations occurred in the Northeast (7.1%), Southern (56.1%), Central (18.4%), and Western (18.4%) United States. Case types included cerebrovascular (28.6%), aortic related (22.4%; which consisted of ruptured aortic aneurysms [8.2%], aortic dissection [11.2%], and other aortic [3.1%]), vascular trauma (15.3%), venous-thromboembolic (15.3%), peripheral arterial disease (9.2%), dialysis access (5.1%), bowel ischemia (3.1%), and other (1%) cases. Patients were transferred to another facility in 41.8% of cases. The most common reasons for violation were specialty refusal or unavailability (30.6%), inappropriate documentation (29.6%), misdiagnosis (18.4%), poor communication (17.3%), inappropriate triage (13.3%), failure to obtain diagnostic laboratory tests or imaging (12.2%), and ancillary or nursing staff issues (7.1%). The overall mortality was 19.4% and 31.6% died during the index emergency department visit. Vascular conditions associated with death were venous thromboembolism (31.6%), ruptured aortic aneurysm (21.1%), aortic dissection (21.1%), other aortic causes (10.5%), vascular trauma (10.5%), and bowel ischemia (5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the frequency of vascular-related EMTALA violations was low, improvements in communication, awareness of vascular disease among staff, specialty staffing, and the development of referral networks and processes are needed to ensure that patients receive adequate care and that institutions are not placed at undue risk.

Complying with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA): Challenges and solutions

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.

Overcrowding crisis in our nation's emergency departments: is our safety net unraveling?

Emergency departments (EDs) are a vital component in our health care safety net, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for all who require care. There has been a steady increase in the volume and acuity of patient visits to EDs, now with well over 100 million Americans (30 million children) receiving emergency care annually. This rise in ED utilization has effectively saturated the capacity of EDs and emergency medical services in many communities. The resulting phenomenon, commonly referred to as ED overcrowding, now threatens access to emergency services for those who need them the most. As managers of the pediatric medical home and advocates for children and optimal pediatric health care, there is a very important role for pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics in guiding health policy decision-makers toward effective solutions that promote the medical home and timely access to emergency care.

Medical staff knowledge of EMTALA at a large, tertiary-care hospital

The study objective was to determine what percentage of a hospital's medical staff have heard of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) statute, and of those who have heard of it, to determine the extent of their knowledge. A questionnaire was mailed to 600 members of the active medical staff of an urban, 900-bed, private, tertiary-care hospital asking if they had ever heard of the EMTALA statute, and if so, to complete a 20-question multiple-choice quiz on specifics of EMTALA law. The main results were whether they had ever heard of EMTALA; if knowledge of EMTALA was related to specialty, age, years in practice, or frequency of ED call; and the quiz scores and any relationship they might have to those same demographic factors. Questionnaires were returned by 41.5% (n = 249). Thirty-one specialties were represented and seven had greater than 10 physicians each. Physician age and years in practice were skewed toward older ages. Approximately one-third (34.5%) took ED call at least monthly. Only 29.3% had ever heard of EMTALA. There was a significant linear correlation between on-call frequency and positive knowledge of the law, but of those who took call at least monthly, 50% had never heard of EMTALA. The average score on the 20-question quiz was 69%. Questions concerning definition of a transfer, definition of an emergency medical condition, investigations of EMTALA, on-call staff responsibilities, and the number of hospitals cited for EMTALA violations were answered correctly by <50% of the respondents. Most members of the medical staff of a large, tertiary-care hospital have never heard of EMTALA, and of those who have, the extent of their knowledge is limited. This presents challenges for the hospital to facilitate education efforts to reduce liability.

Adverse outcomes of managed care gatekeeping

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether telephone preauthorization for reimbursement of ED care (medical "gate-keeping") by managed care organizations (MCOs) is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A structured review was performed of case reports solicited during 1994 and 1995 with possible adverse outcomes related to managed care gatekeeping. Gatekeeping was defined as the requirement imposed by an MCO that ED staff contact on-call gatekeepers (i.e., clinical or nonclinical MCO personnel) to request preauthorization for ED treatment (a requirement that such MCOs enforce by refusing payment for the ED care unless preauthorization is obtained). Cases in which gatekeeper denial of preauthorization occurred were sought. Two physicians agreed on patient eligibility and classification criteria, then independently, retrospectively classified case reports identified as MCO ED payment denials into 1 of 4 categories: 1) adverse outcome; 2) patient placed at increased risk of death or disability; 3) "near miss" (emergency physicians prevented adverse outcome by caring for patient despite denial); and 4) none of the above.

RESULTS

Of the 143 cases reviewed, 29 reports represented MCO ED payment denial. Of these 29 eligible cases, there were 4 (14%) patients with adverse outcomes, 4 (14%) patients placed at increased risk, and 21 (72%) near misses. All of the 29 cases came from different EDs, representing 9 different states, with the majority from California. Adverse outcomes included respiratory failure from fulminant meningococcemia, hypovolemic syncope from ruptured ectopic pregnancy, hypovolemic arrest from vascular fibroid hemorrhage necessitating emergency hysterectomy, and prolonged postoperative course following ruptured duodenal ulcer. Patients placed at increased risk were diagnosed as having epiglottitis, myocardial infarction, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and delayed treatment of hip septic arthritis. Near misses included diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy (n = 2), pneumothorax (n = 2), alcohol withdrawal seizures and pancreatitis necessitating intensive care unit admission, appendicitis, bacterial meningitis, cerebrovascular accident, cryptococal meningitis in immuno comprised host, endocarditis, incarerated inguinal hernia, meningocococemia, meninoccocal meningitis, peritonsillar abscess, pneumococcal meningitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, shock from gastrointestinal bleeding, small bowel obstruction, schizophrenic crisis resulting in psychiatric hospitalization, suicidal depression resulting in psychiatric hospitalization, and unstable angina.

CONCLUSION

Adverse outcomes occur with MCO gatekeeping, Although the present study cannot ascertain whether this is a frequent event or a rare one, the safety of MCO gatekeeping deserves further study.

Managed care and emergency medicine: conflicts, federal law, and California legislation

The traditional use of the American ED, one of unrestricted access by patients and payment for services by insurers, is being questioned in this era of health care reform. Both primary care physicians and managed care organizations have questioned the use of the ED by patients without obvious problems of an emergency nature. We attempt to address this issue from the emergency medicine and managed care perspectives.

Prehospital pearls, pitfalls, and updates

The rapid proliferation of emergency medical services in the United States has led to numerous controversies concerning delivery, interventions, and efficacy. This article presents a brief overview of the important literature in this expanding field. Important clinical topics, including first-responder defibrillation, rapid sequence intubation, and airway management, are reviewed. In addition, several important medicolegal topics pertaining to pre-hospital care are analyzed.