Question

Some policymakers view EMTALA as a sufficient guarantee of access to health care, making more stringent insurance regulation such as the creation of the ACA insurance marketplaces, subsidies, and tax credits unnecessary. Can EMTALA act as a substitute for a more comprehensive insurance system, and what are the costs and benefits of EMTALA acting as an "insurer" of last resort? ​

Answer 1

EMTALA( emergency medical treatment and active labor act) is an act of the united state Congress which was in the year of 1986 with a view to provide an appropriate medical screening examination to anyone seeking treatment for the medical conditions without any discrimination. Therefore this EMTALA act would be more benefiting the population.

According to me EMTALA act can be best substituted to provide the best comprehensive care as it has the characteristics in itself like:

# It's originally referrence is of "anti dumping", which aimed at fostering best treatment to patients from emergency instead of refusing or transferring them.

# hospitals and physicians violating EMTALA act would be sued to monetary penalties.

# if a personnel is approaching the hospital for any emergency treatment must be provided until it is resolved or stabilised. If not possible based on EMTALA provision patient to be shifted immediately.

The costs are high and includes :

#the federal costs with the collaboration with EMTALA rules.

# EMTALA serves as an unfunded mandate, any incremental costs can be viewed as a transfer cost.

The benefits are as follows:

# EMTALA is intended to extent and expand access to all the individuals who otherwise would lack access to emergency care.

# cost reducing if on the balance more speedily-delivered emergency care would be less expensive than the costs of delayed care.

Thus EMTALA acts as last resort in order to provide best holistic and comprehensive care to patients who are in need of emergency and to extend their care globally.