So, according to Emergency Medicine News, there is a new push (we’ll see how far it goes) in congress to make physicians (primarily ER docs obviously) who provide “EMTALA – related”, federally mandated, uncompensated care in the ER “federal employees” for liability purposes. Since we are mandated to provide such care we would be covered by federal liability (malpractise) insurance for such work. I did not know this but apparently federal employees cannot be sued for punitive damages in civil court – thus our malpractise coverage should become cheaper (in theory) since it would only be used for defence in compensated cases (I wonder how it would work with medicare and medicaid). This sounds wonderful and there is some support for it in congress – I think the main reason for the support is that it would help us (the countries Emergency Rooms) get more specialist coverage as well (since one big reason they don’t want to take call is EMTALA related care that puts them at legal risk). Now, if we could just also deduct our uncompensated, mandated work from our taxes…..
and the malpractice insurance carriers would sit idly by and allow such a big hit on their income? i’m not holding my breath.
I bet the only way something like this will happen is through the courts. Now we just need some folks willing to stick the battle out.
Actually, federal employees can’t be sued in the course of performing their job — period.
If such a suit happens, the defendant is changed to the USA, and the case moved to federal district court, where it is defended by the US Attorney, and ANY damages (not just punitive) would be eventually paid by the US Government.
I’m not positive this is how the coverage for ED docs would work; however, it IS how coverage works for 330 grantees who get the benefit of this (Community Health Centers, etc.).
Cool, does that mean you’ll get that “Cadillac Plan” health coverage? Go for it. My mom had surgery for diverticulitis and the military doctor put a staple through her ureter causing her untold pain and suffering and causing her to eventually lose her kidney when they tried to transplant it back to herself to reach her shortened ureter, which still causes problems for her 20 years later. No recourse — couldn’t sue the doctor. She definitely deserved some type of compensation.
The answer must be obvious, but I cannot figure it out.
You wrote: “I think the main reason for the support is that it would help us (the countries Emergency Rooms) get more specialist coverage as well (since one big reason they don’t want to take call is EMTALA related care that puts them at legal risk).”
How does caring for an EMTALA patient put them at any more legal risk than caring for anyone?