History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA | Page 9 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1677 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Because of threat from lawsuits, almost any condition can and is viewed as a potential emergency. If I show up with a cut, they are going to clean and dress it.

You are describing a de facto requirement, not a de jure one.

quote:

What they fail to mention is that a patient has a right of refusal. If they come to me and say "we are going to transfer you to charity" I can say no, I want to be treated here. By law they cannot refuse my request and must treat me at their facility.


quote:

(3) Refusal to consent to transfer
A hospital is deemed to meet the requirement of paragraph (1)
with respect to an individual if the hospital offers to transfer
the individual to another medical facility
in accordance with
subsection (c) of this section and informs the individual (or a
person acting on the individual's behalf) of the risks and
benefits to the individual of such transfer, but the individual
(or a person acting on the individual's behalf) refuses to
consent to the transfer. The hospital shall take all reasonable
steps to secure the individual's (or person's) written informed
consent to refuse such transfer.


Sounds like if the patient refuses the transfer, then the EMTALA requirement is met, and the hospital owes the patient nothing past this point.

LINK







Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
53628 posts
 Online 

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

quote:

Because of threat from lawsuits, almost any condition can and is viewed as a potential emergency. If I show up with a cut, they are going to clean and dress it.
You are describing a de facto requirement, not a de jure one.
Were that the case, legal threat would not be inevitable.
quote:

quote:

The hospital shall take all reasonable
steps to secure the individual's (or person's) written informed
consent to refuse such transfer.
Sounds like if the patient refuses the transfer, then the EMTALA requirement is met, and the hospital owes the patient nothing past this point.
Perhaps you should read it again?






Back to top
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1677 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Because of threat from lawsuits, almost any condition can and is viewed as a potential emergency. If I show up with a cut, they are going to clean and dress it.

You are describing a de facto requirement, not a de jure one.

Were that the case, legal threat would not be inevitable.


Please link the portion of the law that classifies all conditions as a potential emergency.

Yes, Virginia, there are legally acceptable definitions of non-emergent care that can legally be refused treatment by the hospital. I'll leave it to you to find specific examples.


quote:

Sounds like if the patient refuses the transfer, then the EMTALA requirement is met, and the hospital owes the patient nothing past this point.

Perhaps you should read it again?


quote:

The hospital has no obligation to the patient if an emergency condition does not exist. Nor does the hospital have an obligation to a patient who refuses examination, treatment, or transfer. The hospital is required to keep a record of this and also must try to get the patient’s refusal in writing. The patient should also be told about the risks incurred in leaving the hospital.


LINK







Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
53628 posts
 Online 

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

The hospital has no obligation to the patient if an emergency condition does not exist.
The hospital has no obligation to the patient IF an emergency condition does not exist.

Got it?

Because John Edwards types sure as frick do.






Back to top
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1677 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


We seem to be in agreement that IF an emergency condition exists, then the hospital is obligated to treat.

The post to which I was replying implied that all conditions are considered emergent BY LAW 100 percent of the time and that hospitals have no chance to beat it in a courtroom, and I disputed that.

The fact that hospitals tend to roll over and treat all conditions anyway to cover their arse from the John Edwards types does not change the fact that hospitals could potentially win a suit brought by the John Edwards types.






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23247 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

We agree that nothing is free. So if you have a right to health care, and you have no money, do you still have that right?
You are confusing a right with a guarantee. They are not synonymous.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Fat Bastard
New Orleans Saints Fan
Paradise
Member since Mar 2009
16578 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Womski









Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23247 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

You don't want to buy auto insurance, then fine, don't drive. Nobody's forcing you to. I get it.

Now, if everyone could say they're not planning on getting sick, then fine. However, everyone reading this post is going to need healthcare at some point in their life.
You've butchered your own example. Just like driving a car, one can not see healthcare they cannot afford to pay for. No one forces you to seek treatment you cannot afford.






Back to top
Womski
Army Fan
Squire Creek
Member since Aug 2011
1435 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Just like driving a car, one can not see healthcare they cannot afford to pay for. No one forces you to seek treatment you cannot afford.

Well, we can't just let them die.




















But seriously, you may be semi-right. But people are going to seek it, regardless, and we are not going to turn them away. This is part of the reason PPACA was implemented in the first place.



This post was edited on 11/29 at 7:46 pm


Back to top
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1677 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

in the long run it will be seen as revolutionary, even for the progressive nature of our country, just as eliminating slavery, women's suffrage, eliminating the draft, etc.

Maybe I'm quibbling here, but the draft has not been eliminated.

The peacetime draft is no longer in effect, but males must still register for a potential wartime draft via the Selective Service.






Back to top
Womski
Army Fan
Squire Creek
Member since Aug 2011
1435 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


That's what I meant.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
stat19
Alabama Fan
Member since Feb 2011
12049 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

that everyone is entitled to healthcare as human beings








Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23247 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

But people are going to seek it, regardless, and we are not going to turn them away.
Congratulations. You've described the cause of the problem. Now work reverse the causality. Not make it worse, as the ACA does.






Back to top
Womski
Army Fan
Squire Creek
Member since Aug 2011
1435 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


How does everybody procuring insurance make it worse? Now, these people have alternatives rather than going to the ER and stepping out on their bills, which drives up the cost of our healthcare.

Not to mention the humanitarian aspect of PPACA, which is the reason I started the thread in the first place. This is what's so groundbreaking, for a country of our size to actually modernize our healthcare system.



This post was edited on 11/29 at 7:54 pm


Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
53628 posts
 Online 

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

that hospitals could potentially win a suit brought by the John Edwards types.

How many times would you bet $23,000,000,.00 on that kind of potential?
quote:

The post to which I was replying implied that all conditions are considered emergent BY LAW 100 percent of the time and that hospitals have no chance to beat it in a courtroom, and I disputed that.
You're either FOS or a lawyer. Which is it?






Back to top
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1677 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


Let me simplify things for you.

By law, EMTALA DOES NOT force hospitals to treat all conditions regardless of emergent status.

However, in practice, EMTALA has forced most (if not all) hospitals to treat all conditions regardless of emergent status.

Here is an example of a hospital that beat an EMTALA suit:

Houston Hospital Prevails in Federal EMTALA Suit






Back to top
Elcid96
LSU Fan
Member since May 2010
5414 posts
 Online 

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


Who says everyone is going to have insurance?





Back to top
  Replies (0)
McChowder
LSU Fan
Hammond
Member since Dec 2006
2856 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

The post to which I was replying implied that all conditions are considered emergent BY LAW 100 percent of the time and that hospitals have no chance to beat it in a courtroom, and I disputed that.

No where in my post did I make such an assertion. I said they were treated as such because the word "IF" you are throwing around could cost millions.

quote:

The fact that hospitals tend to roll over and treat all conditions anyway to cover their arse from the John Edwards types does not change the fact that hospitals could potentially win a suit brought by the John Edwards types.

They "could" win a suit. Well that's a relief. Glad we cleared that up. Nevermind the tens of thousands spend on legal defense and the chance of actually losing, they can both legally and in theory turn patients away. I guess that is your point? Mmmmk.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
McChowder
LSU Fan
Hammond
Member since Dec 2006
2856 posts

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Sounds like if the patient refuses the transfer, then the EMTALA requirement is met, and the hospital owes the patient nothing past this point.

Maybe you should read the subsection (c) they keep referring to. The "medical" benefits (not financial) of transferring said patient must outweigh the increased risk associated with transfer.

Keep in mind what stabilized means (a requirement for transfer) as well because a discharge is considered a transfer. If it is possible that the so called emergency medical condition will get worse as a result of said transfer (or discharge), it aint going to happen unless there is a medical benefit for doing so. So no, you can't just wipe your hands clean of them and shoo them out the door if they refuse to be sent somewhere else.



This post was edited on 11/30 at 3:26 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
53628 posts
 Online 

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA


quote:

Let me simplify things for you.

By law, EMTALA DOES NOT force hospitals to treat all conditions regardless of emergent status.
Here's the problem with your "simplification," lawsuits cost defendants money. Lawsuits cost defendants a lot of money whether they win or lose. Those significant costs are expanded further when the impact of time, stress and resources is factored in. Whether those costs are mitigated thru insurance or borne fully by the institution, they are expenses that increasingly cannot be passed on due to capped reimbursements at the business end.

So for example, if a hospital has a patient slated for transfer, identifies the patient as having a urinary tract infection, initiates antibiotic treatment, then transfers the patient to an LTAC Hospital they may not be violating EMTALA. However, establishing its action as appropriate within the construct of EMTALA may also be so expensive as to create an effective future barrier to those actions. In the case of Roberts v. Galen of Virginia, appeals had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before the hospital received a favorable ruling.

Let me simplify things for you.
From a lawyer's point of view, Roberts v. Galen constitutes a win for the hospital.
From a Hospital Administrator's stance Roberts v. Galen constitutes a loss.

The result is future patients are not transferred to more economical, more appropriate facilities in this country. Costs escalate, and people continue wonder why US Healthcare is so expensive.









This post was edited on 11/30 at 6:23 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top