Disclaimer
This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.
Privacy Policy
View our privacy policy.
CMS Updates EMTALA Signage for Hospitals
/in EMTALABy Jay DeVoy
On August 13, 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its Center for Clinical Standards and Quality / Quality, Safety & Oversight Group issued its memorandum QSO-24-17-EMTALA (the “Memorandum”), providing updated model signage for hospital emergency departments to use to help comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals with emergency departments to screen incoming patients for emergency medical conditions and, if necessary, stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay for treatment.1 Generally, emergency departments must screen patients who present for emergency treatment to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists and, if so, must provide further examination and treatment until the patient’s emergency medical condition is stabilized or until the patient may be transferred to another facility (such as when a higher level of care is required).2 EMTALA has received much attention in recent years, especially as it relates to the use of abortion procedures as a method of stabilizing emergency care and in relation to the laws of certain states that enacted partial or total abortion bans in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Read more
Idaho’s New Crisis Hold Law
/in Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger
Idaho’s new crisis hold statute takes effect October 1, 2024, and allows hospitals to temporarily detain “persons with a neurocognitive disorder who are in acute crisis due to an unidentified underlying medical condition [so they] can get the care they need and return home once the underlying medical condition is resolved.” (I.C. § 56-21011). The new statute was intended to help fill a gap created by recent amendments to Idaho’s mental hold statute. Although the new law does not provide a long-term solution for such patients, it is a step in the right direction.
MENTAL v. CRISIS HOLDS. As a general rule, hospitals must have informed consent from a competent patient or, if the patient lacks capacity to consent, from the patients’ legally authorized surrogate decision-maker2 to detain a patient and/or render necessary care. (I.C. §§ 39-4503 and -4504). If the patient or the patient’s surrogate decision-maker consents to care, there is generally no need for a mental or crisis hold: the hospital may provide care based on the patient’s or personal representative’s consent. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to initiate a mental or crisis hold to detain the patient because the patient objects to needed care, lacks capacity to consent, or consent cannot be obtained from a surrogate decision-maker. Initiating a hold may also help ensure a payer source for the care rendered. Read more
FMV for Provider Contracts: Regulatory Standards
/in Anti-Kickback, StarkBy Kim Stanger
As a general rule, healthcare employers are required to pay employed physicians and other contracted providers fair market value (FMV) for their services, but many employers do not understand relevant regulatory standards. In this health law update, we summarize Stark and Anti-Kickback Statute considerations.
I. STARK (PHYSICIANS AND PHYSICIAN FAMILY MEMBERS).
The federal Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (aka Stark) prohibits physicians1 from referring certain designated health services (DHS)2 payable by Medicare or Medicaid to entities with which the physician or a family member of the physician has a financial relationship unless the arrangement is structured to fit within a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.3 Violations may result in significant penalties.4 Read more
Idaho’s New Parental Consent Law: FAQs
/in Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger
Idaho’s new parental consent law took effect July 1, 2024. Under the new law:
“‘Minor child’ means an individual under eighteen (18) years of age but does not include an individual who is an emancipated minor.”3 Parents may sue healthcare providers and other individuals who violate the law.4 For more information about the law, see our articles at New Limits on Minor Consents in Idaho, Blanket Consents Under Idaho’s New Minor Consent Law, and Idaho’s New Parental Access Law v. HIPAA. In the meantime, here are my answers and, in some cases, my best guesses in response to common questions I receive concerning the law. Read more
Supreme Court Restores the EMTALA Exception to Idaho’s Abortion Ban for Now
/in EMTALA, Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger and Cameron McCue
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court temporarily restored the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) exception to Idaho’s abortion ban. As a result, Idaho hospitals may perform abortions in EMTALA cases when necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant woman.
How We Got Here. In 2022, the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s abortion statute in cases in which EMTALA applies. In August 2022, the federal District Court of Idaho entered a preliminary injunction that prohibited Idaho from enforcing its broad abortion ban in EMTALA cases pending resolution of the DOJ’s lawsuit. (See Order, available here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/822/74681/Winmill-abortion-injunction-decision_(003).pdf). Idaho appealed to the 9th Circuit, which first lifted then restored the preliminary injunction. Idaho then sought immediate relief from the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case and stayed the District Court’s injunction. However, last week, the Supreme Court changed its mind and, in a per curiam decision, concluded that it had improvidently agreed to take the case and sent the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings. In so doing, the Supreme Court vacated its order staying the District Court injunction, thereby restoring the injunction, which effectively, if temporarily, allows Idaho hospitals to perform abortions in EMTALA cases. A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf. Read more