To treat or not to treat?

[GoGiants89]

I know this question has been discussed before, but lets bring it up again. Interview season has already begun.

A patient comes to the ER with a potentially life-threatening injury and has no insurance. What do you do as a physician?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[capn jazz]

I'm pretty sure you're required to treat emergencies regardless of insurance.

 

[Charles English]

I'm pretty sure you're required to treat emergencies regardless of insurance.

ditto.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

that would be an easy interview question.

 

[hopefuldoc87]

Emtala

 

[Caesar]

I'm pretty sure you're required to treat emergencies regardless of insurance.

yep, it's the law.

 

[Lukkie]

i'd treat him but i wouldn't really put my mind into it

 

[Live4Life]

yep, it's the law.

Well technically, the patient can refuse treatment if they so desire. But assuming the patient wants treatment, since it is a life threatening condition you are required to stabalize them even if they have no insurance under EMTALA (Note: EMTALA only applies if the hospital accepts Medicare funding, but in reality this is essentially every hospital in America). After stabalizing the person, the hospital (or ED doctors) are free to transfer the patient to a state supported hospital if you can find one willing to accept the patient.