1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CMS Issues EMTALA Interim Guidance to State Survey Agency Directors Concerning Hospital Compliance

CMS Issues EMTALA Interim Guidance to State Survey Agency Directors Concerning Hospital Compliance

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.15.03

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") recently issued interim guidance to regional office and state survey agency personnel concerning conducting an investigation and assessing a hospital's compliance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA").

EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services, regardless of ability to pay. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd; Soc. Sec. Act § 1867. The Act requires Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide medical screening and either stabilizing treatment or an appropriate transfer to any individuals seeking emergency care. Id. CMS published an EMTALA final rule in September 2003, which became effective on November 10, 2003, to implement the Act and clarify hospitals' responsibilities when treating individuals with emergency conditions. See 68 Fed. Reg. 53221. Revised Interpretive Guidelines for EMTALA are currently being developed for surveyors' use in enforcing EMTALA. However, in the meantime, CMS has issued this interim guidance to provide surveyors with assistance in assessing a hospital's compliance with EMTALA.

The interim guidance summarizes and clarifies some of the provisions of the EMTALA final rule. For example,

  • The interim guidance states that the final rule codifies existing policy prohibiting a hospital from seeking authorization from an individual's insurance company until a medical screening exam has been provided and any necessary stabilizing treatment has been initiated.
  • The interim guidance states that the final rule clarifies when a person is considered to have "'come to the emergency department'; such presentment triggers a hospital's obligation under EMTALA to provide a medical screening examination (MSE)."
  • The interim guidance clarifies the final rule's definition of "dedicated emergency department" and the obligations of a hospital when a person presents him or herself at a hospital department either on or off-campus that is not the emergency department. The interim guidance makes clear that if a request is made for emergency care in a hospital department off the hospital's main campus, other than a dedicated emergency department, EMTALA does not apply. If, however, a person presents him or herself at an area of the hospital on the main campus, other than the dedicated emergency department, the interim guidance states that the person must receive a medical screening exam only if he or she requests, or has a request made on his or her behalf, for examination or treatment for what may be an emergency medical condition. The interim guidance further explains that even if no verbal request is made, a request for emergency care will nonetheless be considered to exist if a prudent layperson would conclude based on the person's appearance or behavior that he or she needs emergency examination or treatment.
  • The interim guidance explains a change in policy that is reflected in the final rule from the April 2000 hospital outpatient prospective payment system ("PPS") final regulation. The EMTALA final rule eliminates EMTALA's application to off-campus outpatient clinics that do not routinely provide emergency services, whereas the hospital outpatient PPS final regulation called for the application of EMTALA to all off-campus departments that were considered part of the hospital.
  • The interim guidance clarifies CMS's policy regarding when a patient is considered "stabilized" and a hospital's EMTALA obligation to "inpatients."

The interim guidance provides that the enforcement of EMTALA remains a "complaint-driven process" and that the "investigation of a hospital's policies and processes, and any subsequent sanctions, are initiated only by a complaint." CMS states that its interim guidance provides regional office and state survey agency personnel with the necessary tools to determine if a hospital has violated EMTALA and that the forthcoming interpretive guidelines will clarify CMS enforcement policies in more detail.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights