Burn center hit with largest-ever patient dumping fine
Compliance Monitor, March 10, 2004
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
A south Florida hospital system last month became a ready-made agenda item for a new, Washington, DC-based advisory group on emergency treatment regulations. In February, the system paid the largest fine to date for violating the federal patient anti-dumping law.
Miami-based Jackson Memorial Hospital, which has a burn center and other facilities in south Florida, paid $50,000 to settle its third violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
The fine stemmed from an incident in February 2001. Jackson's emergency department decided not to treat a 30-year-old woman who had burns on 15.5% of her body. "Her burn percentage didn't meet our criteria," according to a statement from a physician.
The woman was airlifted to Tampa General Hospital's burn center, where doctors diagnosed her with burns on 23% of her body. The rise in burn percentage played a part in the case. "They didn't deal with the heat, and experts determined they should have," says Judy Holtz, a representative in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) public affairs office.
The woman's burns to her body and feet met American Burn Association criteria for referral to a burn unit.
Jackson told the OIG that it did not want to accept financial responsibility for treating the patient when she did not meet the burn center's criteria.
The $50,000 will go directly to the Medicare Trust Fund.
The violation falls under the patient dumping section of the Social Security Act (Section 1867). At the time of the settlement, the hospital was under an OIG corporate integrity agreement.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to establish an advisory group to address EMTALA regulatory issues.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
