Indeed, several states decided to adopt laws that mandate health care providers to provide emergency care to the residents notwithstanding their financial ability. However, the increasing number of uninsured individuals, the apprehension that for-profit health care providers were being favored and the rising levels of patient dumping forced the government to enact different laws. This is the period where the EMTALA legislation was enacted in 1986. This legislation has had a lot of impact on the health industry some of which are positive and some negative influences. This paper discusses the influence of EMTALA legislation on health care cost, quality, and access while looking at its advantages and disadvantages.

Access to Healthcare Services

Access to emergency medical care is very important to the residents because of the veracity of the consequences of not getting the service. Emergency medical care has been a luxury for those with less financial abilities because several healthcare providers refuse to take in such patients. This is the reason EMTALA was enacted to help poor residents access these emergency medical services. However, law has been interpreted differently in different states and hospitals and hence the complete essence of the law has been disregarded. This confused interpretation has allowed health care services to deny emergency health care services to patients without financial might. This shows how the law has reduced the chances of the poor and those without the financial might of getting emergency medical care.

Secondly, the private hospitals are now more careful in offering medical assistance with most of them preferring to provide medical assistance to their known clients rather than new clients. This fact has limited the chances of people getting emergency medical services notwithstanding their financial might. In summary, EMTALA has limited the access to emergency medical services rather than enhancing it. This implies that the law needs to be reviewed for it to serve it intended purpose.

Cost and Quality of Health Care

EMTALA forces medical institutions to provide emergency services to any patient with an emergency that happens to visit their premises. The Law also mandates that the patient should not b transferred until the emergency has been contained in that particular health care institution. The fact that some of these emergency cases have no medical insurance implies that the hospitals make losses by providing these emergency services. Reports suggest that there are huge uncompensated costs from emergency services. These uncompensated costs have affected the operations because some of these emergency cases are costly. Some hospitals have found ways of compensating these costs by increasing the health care in other departments implying that the cost of health care for other patients has risen due to EMTALA.

However, the most pronounced impact is the quality of health care because of forced and uncompensated services. As much as the quality of health care is important for emergency cases, health care institutions are not motivated to provide quality care because of lack of compensation. Moreover, some institutions have been affected by past emergency cases to an extent that their financial resources are stretched. This implies that their overall services reduce in quality because of financial constraints.

Pros and Cons of EMTALA Legislation

Pros

EMTALA was instituted to bridge the medical gap between the insured Americans and the uninsured Americans. So far, this objective has been attained to some extent although its benefits have not been fully realized. The high number of uninsured people being involved in emergencies implies that this legislation has helped in saving many lives. Another advantage that comes from the legislation is the restriction of patient dumping by pro-profit medical institutions. The codes of ethics in the medical

Cons

The main disadvantage that EMTALA has brought is the closure of several health institutions due to financial constraints caused by uncompensated costs. This implies that the number of health institutions in the country is shrinking as each day passes. This spells doom for an industry that is very important to the welfare of the country.

Conclusion

The debate on the effectiveness of the EMTALA legislation on improving health outcomes in the emergency department is not unfounded mainly because the legislation is not funded. Moreover, incorrect interpretation of the legislation has caused different problems in the industry. Nonetheless, the gains that could be gained from a successful interpretation of this law have been witnessed by the reduced fatalities from emergency cases. The government needs to review this law to mirror the realities in the sector for it to become more successful.