Quote from: Janes Groove on January 24, 2018, 08:15:17 PM
Does this mean that if I'm bleeding out in an emergency room a health care provider can deny me care because they don't like transexuals?
Unlikely. In accordance with EMTALA law (1986) we must post the following on the wall:
IT'S THE LAW
IF YOU HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY OR ARE IN LABOR, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE, WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF THIS HOSPITAL'S STAFF AND FACILITIES
AN APPROPRIATE MEDICAL SCREENING EXAMINATION
NECESSARY STABILIZING TREATMENT
(INCLUDING TREATMENT FOR AN UNBORN CHILD) AND, IF NECESSARY
AN APPOPRIATE TRANSFER TO ANOTHER FACILITY EVEN IF YOU CANNOT PAY OR DO NOT HAVE MEDICAL INSURANCE
OR YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICARE OR MEDICAID
This signage must be written in the languages of those served by the facility. In my department, we have an identical "ES LA LEY" sign affixed despite a fairly non-diverse patient population. Facilities can be fined if the signage is not prominently displayed according to law. It gets worse if one violates the words on the sign. Physicians and facilities can be held liable for up to $50K penalty
per case (imagine an audit finding that you had 100 such violations; you do the math) for each non-compliant denial or transfer. These penalties are not covered by malpractice insurance. EMTALA law is a really, really big deal. Whatever this new HHS division puts on paper will essentially be either regulation (subject to court review) or memorandum. I have a hard time believing that facilities or providers will see anything coming out of this division as superseding their responsibilities under EMTALA law. I am cautiously optimistic that this effort, which is red meat for the President's base, will collapse like a bad soufflé (two food metaphors in one sentence; you're welcome) after the first lawsuit.
On the brighter side, if you're bleeding out in my ER, you have the right to be seen by a transsexual, schedule permitting.
