EMTALA and the Free Rider Problem

Filed in Health Law, Health Reform by on April 5, 2012 2 Comments

pasquale_frank_lg1This tragic case may interest those who teach EMTALA:

[Anna Brown] yelled from a wheelchair at St. Mary’s Health Center security personnel and Richmond Heights police officers that her legs hurt so badly she couldn’t stand. She had already been to two other hospitals that week in September, complaining of leg pain after spraining her ankle. This time, she refused to leave.

A police officer arrested Brown for trespassing. He wheeled her out in handcuffs after a doctor said she was healthy enough to be locked up. . . . She told officers she couldn’t get out of the police car, so they dragged her by her arms into the station. They left her lying on the concrete floor of a jail cell, moaning and struggling to breathe. Just 15 minutes later, a jail worker found her cold to the touch.

For some context, here is an excerpt from a column from Steven Pearlstein on a far more notable battle last week:

[T]he solicitor general and several justices tried to make the obvious point that one reason so many Americans lack health insurance is that the market is inherently unlike any other in that we don’t deny medical care to sick people who can’t pay for it. It is from this anomaly that springs the “individual mandate,” a requirement that all citizens buy health insurance, to prevent them from becoming free-riders on a system paid for by others.

Rather than wrestling with this obvious anomaly, however, Scalia and Alito simply [blamed] the government for creating the problem in the first place by obligating hospitals to treat the sick even if they are uninsured and cannot pay for the care.

As the case of Anna Brown shows, there are many ways to “solve” the free rider problem.

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Volvamus says:

    Why should a healthcare provider be forced by law to work for someone who can’t/won’t pay? Shouldn’t charity be voluntary and not confiscatory? The ACA addresses health insurance, not health care. If the mandate stands, even more money will be flowing into the “industry”, providers will be fighting to get their “fair share”, and health care costs will grow ever faster. Most Americans would be far better off without health insurance.
    Scalia and Alito are correct – the “slippery slope” started with “everyone deserves health care”. If that premise can pass constitutional muster, then we should have single payer and get rid of the unproductive health insurance industry – which siphons off billions (?) without providing any health care.
    The ACA is a compromise – leaving us with the worst of all possible worlds.

  2. Blondie62 says:

    I am glad health reform came along, if it were not for that, poor people would have been left to die without any hope for treatment of serious diseases. Republicans have to stop thinking so much about the rich in this country and about not playing favorites with big insurance companies. As for financial assistance, I believe it is good for those in financial distress only and not for freeloaders. I personally like this site: Guide4FreeMoney Hope you like and enjoy it as much as I did!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *