Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Whose EMTALA Is It, Anyway?

By ACEP Now | on June 1, 2012 | 0 Comment
Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

I would like to respond to Dr. David Baehren’s colum titled “Let My People Go” (April 2012, p. 2). I’ve been an ED clinician and an ED Director, each as a hospital employee and as a member of an independent, self-billing EM group. Also, for over a dozen years I was the managing partner of a regional EM group, responsible for contracting with payers and facilities, and for billing/collections.

You Might Also Like
  • Less Partisanship, Please
  • ISO a Just Health Care System
  • ED Waiting Room Posters on Prescribing Pain Medications May Violate EMTALA
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 31 – No 06 – June 2012

I understand the feelings expressed by Dr. Baehren, the pain and the emotion. However, there is no “taking” of services from emergency physicians under EMTALA. EMTALA squarely places the primary medical screening exam and stabilization mandate on hospitals. Hospitals can satisfy this obligation in three basic ways:

  1. Having their employees (including practitioner employees) perform the necessary services as part of their employment duties; or
  2. Obligating (i.e., transferring all or part of the obligation via hospital rules/regulations) certain practitioners or groups of practitioners to perform the necessary duties; or
  3. Contracting with certain practitioners or groups of practitioners to perform the necessary duties.

The first is a straightforward employment arrangement, and the employee can choose to accept the conditions of employment or not (and thereby not be employed at that hospital).

The second again presents the practitioner with a choice of abiding by the hospital’s rules/regs (presuming they’ve been appropriately drafted and approved) or not being on staff at that institution.

The third, the one Dr. Baehren apparently finds himself in along with many other emergency physicians, is a contractual issue – that is, the hospital offers or counteroffers a contract with certain terms (e.g., performance of EMTALA obligations, participation with specified payers), and the practitioner entity asks for certain operational (including sometimes financial) terms. And both sides have to agree upon all the contractual terms in order for there to be a contract. I have heard people rail about “contracting under duress” or “coercive contracting.” And it’s true that a contract signed under duress is unenforceable. However, having to leave a hospital or a community due to the absence of a contract is not deemed to meet the legal definition of duress, at least not to my knowledge. In general, entities fail to contract and contracts terminate every day.

While it’s true that hospitals usually are able to wield a greater amount of power than the EM practitioners in contract discussions, that’s not a product of EMTALA. Rather it’s the result of how the business of hospitals and emergency medicine has evolved to this point.

Dr. Peter L. Sawchuk, JD, MBA
Lake Havasu City, Ariz.

Pages: 1 2 | Multi-Page

Topics: Cost of Health CareEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianEMTALALettersPoliticsPractice ManagementPublic Policy

Related

  • June 2025 News from the College

    June 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Can This Patient Leave Against Medical Advice?

    March 10, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Emergency Physicians of the Sandwich Generation Face Unique Challenges

    March 10, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Download PDF

Read More

About the Author

ACEP Now

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “Whose EMTALA Is It, Anyway?”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603