By: Dave Davidson
In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) into law. Since then, the application of the law has been expanded and refined. It was one of the first laws giving the government the authority to dictate certain operations of a hospital. While other laws and regulations such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law have become more of a focus for health care providers, EMTALA remains an area of active enforcement. All providers with hospital privileges should therefore be aware of its application.
The policy behind the law is fairly straightforward. Hospitals with emergency departments should not be able to turn away patients needing care because of their inability to pay (no more “wallet biopsies” as part of triage). Likewise, hospitals should not be able to “dump” patients on other facilities for reasons other than for advanced care.
The requirements of the law are also very basic. If a patient comes to an emergency department and requests an examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening exam, within its capability, to determine whether or not the patient has an emergency medical condition. The screening provided goes beyond simple triage, and must be performed by a clinical provider such as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant. Continue reading
By: Dave Davidson
There will likely come a time in your practice when you find yourself considering whether you should maintain a relationship with a patient. It may be that the patient is non-cooperative. Or the patient may refuse to pay his or her bill, or to follow a reasonable payment plan. Even more significantly, the patient may have engaged in behavior that is disruptive to your practice. For whatever reason, you are questioning the value of the relationship.
In those situations, the law does allow a physician to terminate a patient from his or her practice. However, careful analysis must be done in these situations, and there are several steps that should be followed. The risk of a claim of abandonment or of professional negligence makes it important to protect yourself, your practice, and the licenses of the providers within your group. You may already have a process spelled out in your policies and procedures, and if you do, that process should be followed. However, make sure your policy at least covers the points below. Continue reading
By: Dave Davidson
It’s that time of year. People are scrambling around, deciding what they want to give and what they want to get. Brand new packages are being wrapped up and filed away. Excitement and tension fill the air. Everyone can’t wait for the big day; but in this season that big day doesn’t happen until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. But it’s never too early to start getting ready, right? In fact, the Florida Legislature is currently in session, drafting and filing bills that the sponsors hope will be considered in March and will become law in 2016. And as usual, health care is on a lot of legislative wish lists. Although all of these bills are subject to significant revision, and some may never make it out of a subcommittee, here’s a sneak peek of some of the proposed health care legislation (without editorial – for now).
Scope of Practice Expansion
Three categories of health care professionals may see significant expansion of the scope of their practice.
Both Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants would gain the right to prescribe controlled substances pursuant to Senate Bill 676. Most of the details about specific medications and dosages is left to an administrative committee, but the bill seems to anticipate broad authority. The bill also adds references to ARNPs and PAs throughout the Florida Statutes, indicating a willingness to accept these professionals into a significant role in the delivery of care. Additionally, SB 572 would add PAs and ARNPs to the list of providers who can certify that an individual meets Baker Act criteria to justify a patient’s involuntarily confinement for mental health reasons. Continue reading
By: Dave Davidson
The last few weeks have seen some significant examples of the federal government’s vigilance in policing the healthcare market. These events serve as a reminder of the highly regulated and scrutinized industry in which we work. They are also a reminder to physicians and other providers to make sure their practices and contractual arrangements can pass this scrutiny.
The most significant recent event is the $115 million settlement between the government and the Adventist Health System. This settlement resolved two whistleblower cases brought against the system by three employees. The lawsuits alleged that the Adventist Health System violated the Stark law, which generally prohibits payments to physicians for making referrals unless an exception to the law is met. The specific allegations against the Adventist Health System were that the compensation paid by the health system to some of its employed physicians exceeded fair market value; that the structure of the practice of the employed physicians did not meet the “group practice” exception; that physician compensation improperly included payment work not performed by the physicians; and that the physicians were paid for making referrals to the system. Continue reading