When Your Compliance Plan Hits a Sour Note
David M. Glaser, Esq.
January 15, 2026
Monitor Mondays listeners know that I end each segment with a song. Normally the topic drives the song, but to start the new year, the
In the current political debate, we hit the issue of whether states can supersede federal rules on the requirement to provide certain emergency care. Specifically, what if states outlaw access to reproductive or gender affirming care and a patient presents at a hospital that will be critically injured or could die from care blocked by state law?
In the mid-1980s, the American healthcare landscape faced a critical problem: patients in need of emergency care were being turned away from hospitals if they lacked insurance or the ability to pay. This dire situation led to the enactment of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986, a pivotal law designed to ensure that no one needing emergency care would be denied treatment due to financial constraints.
Before EMTALA, the practice of “patient dumping” was an alarmingly common practice. Hospitals, particularly private ones, would refuse to treat uninsured patients or transfer them to public hospitals without stabilizing their conditions.
The consequences were often devastating, with patients suffering severe health complications or even death due to delayed or denied treatment. The public outcry and mounting pressure on legislators to address this unethical practice culminated in the creation of EMTALA, a federal law embedded within the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985.
EMTALA mandates that any patient presenting at an emergency department must receive a medical screening examination to determine if an emergency medical condition exists. If such a condition is found, the hospital is required to either stabilize the patient or transfer them to a facility that can provide the necessary care. Importantly, this must be done regardless of the patient’s insurance status or ability to pay.
EMTALA operates on three key provisions: medical screening, stabilization, and appropriate transfer.
Medical Screening Examination (MSE): Every patient arriving at an emergency department must be given an appropriate MSE to ascertain if an emergency medical condition (EMC) is present.
Stabilization: If an EMC is identified, the hospital is required to provide treatment to stabilize the patient. Stabilization involves addressing the acute symptoms to prevent the patient’s condition from worsening during transfer or discharge.
Appropriate Transfer: If a hospital cannot provide the necessary treatment to stabilize the patient, they must arrange an appropriate transfer to a facility capable of providing the required care. This includes ensuring that the receiving facility has agreed to accept the patient and that the transfer is carried out in a manner that minimizes risk to the patient’s health.
One deep question is whether state laws can block an appropriate transfer to a hospital in a neighboring state that allows care blocked by state law in which that the patient currently resides?
Since its enactment, EMTALA has become a cornerstone of patient rights in the United States, fundamentally transforming emergency medical care. By compelling hospitals to provide care regardless of financial considerations, EMTALA has saved countless lives and prevented the exacerbation of medical conditions that might have otherwise been left untreated.
Despite challenges, EMTALA remains a critical safeguard in the American healthcare system. It underscores the ethical obligation of healthcare providers to treat patients in need and serves as a reminder that access to emergency medical care is a fundamental human right.
My personal concern would be if we allow states to block EMTALA on some issues, where does that end? Can a state block an appropriate transfer to a hospital in a neighboring state that allows care blocked by state law that the patient is currently in?
What would stop the states from simply superseding EMTALA or any other Federal law entirely?
Listen to Timothy Powell’s live reporting each Tuesday, 10 Eastern on Talk Ten Tuesdays with Chuck Buck and Dr. Erica Remer.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of MedLearn Media. We provide a platform for diverse perspectives, but the content and opinions expressed herein are the author’s own. MedLearn Media does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information presented. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate the content and conduct their own research. Any actions taken based on this article are at the reader’s own discretion.
Monitor Mondays listeners know that I end each segment with a song. Normally the topic drives the song, but to start the new year, the
EDITOR’S NOTE: The author of this article used AI-assisted tools in its composition, but all content, analysis, and conclusions were based on the author’s professional
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
