2 ms·
Hospitals are required by EMTALA[1] to treat all emergencu patients to the point of stabilization. So it only makes sense to charge whatever insurance is availa
by arcbyte 3y ago
Hospitals are required by EMTALA[1] to treat all emergencu patients to the point of stabilization. So it only makes sense to charge whatever insurance is available because there is no turning them away. Im not sure if there are regulations applicable to hospitals that prevent them from refusing to accept medicaid patients for elective procedures. Certaibly there are lots of surgery centers that do refuse medicaid. Also lots of doctors dont take medicaid/medicare. Its within their right to do so.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_...
- bumby 3y agoYou're right with regard to emergency treatment; so in the case of the withdrawal patient that holds. But hospitals are not required to accept any insurance, including medicare/aide (they are termed "non-participating"). So I don't think the premise holds in the knee-replacement scenario. So, to be generous, maybe there's a case that if a hospital gets a bulk of its revenue from the ER, it's a better business case to accept Medicare. But I don't believe that's the case for most hospitals, so it still leads me to question the premise that medicare is a net negative (or else we'd see a lot more 'non-participating' hospitals).