Penalties for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Violations Involving Obstetrical Emergencies

Civil Monetary Penalties for EMTALA Violations Involving Minors, 2002-2023

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (EDs). EMTALA requirements pertain to patients of all ages presenting to dedicated EDs regardless of whether facilities have dedicated pediatric specialty services. This study aims to describe EMTALA-related civil monetary penalty (CMP) settlements involving minors.

METHODS

Descriptions of all EMTALA-related CMPs occurring between 2002 and 2023 were obtained from the Office of the Inspector General web site and reviewed for involvement of minors (<18 years of age) using keywords in settlement summaries. Characteristics of settlements involving minors were described and compared with settlements not involving minors.

RESULTS

Of 260 EMTALA-related CMPs, 38 (14.6%) involved minors. Most involved failure to provide a medical screening exam (MSE) (86.8%) and/or stabilizing treatment (52.6%). Seven (18.4%) involved pregnant minors. Eleven (28.9%) involved ED staff directing a patient (or guardian) to another facility, typically by private vehicle, and another involved 2 patients referred to on-campus outpatient clinics without an MSE.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 7 CMPs related to EMTALA violations involved minors, and 1 in 5 of these minors was pregnant. One-third of CMPs involving minors included ED staff directing patients to proceed to another facility or on-campus clinic without MSE or stabilization. Findings suggest a need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate MSE, stabilization, and transfer, and for EDs at hospitals with limited pediatric services to implement policies for the evaluation of minors and protocols for transfer when indicated.

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.

The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Citation Events

OBJECTIVES

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law enacted in 1986 prohibiting patient dumping (refusing or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions without appropriate stabilization), and discrimination based upon ability to pay. We evaluate hospital-level features associated with citation for EMTALA violation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of observational data on EMTALA enforcement (2005-2013). Regression analysis evaluates the association between facility-level features and odds of EMTALA citation by hospital-year.

RESULTS

Among 4916 EMTALA-obligated hospitals there were 1925 EMTALA citation events at 1413 facilities between 2005 and 2013, with 4.3% of hospitals cited per year. In adjusted analyses, increased odds of EMTALA citations were found at hospitals that were: for-profit [odds ratio (OR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.96], in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11-1.57); that admitted a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.0-1.01); and were in the top quartiles of hospital size (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.10-1.99) and emergency department (ED) volume (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.14-2.12). Predicted probability of repeat EMTALA citation in the year following initial citation was 17% among for-profit and 11% among other hospital types. Among citation events for patients presenting to the same hospital's ED, there were 1.30 EMTALA citation events per million ED visits, with 1.04 at private not-for-profit, 1.47 at government-owned, and 2.46 at for-profit hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

For-profit ownership is associated with increased odds of EMTALA citations after adjusting for other characteristics. Efforts to improve EMTALA might be considered to protect access to emergency care for vulnerable populations, particularly at large, urban, for-profit hospitals admitting high proportions of Medicaid patients.