Hospitals Are Refusing to Do Surgeries Unless You Pay in Full First

I wonder sometimes if the reason the US doesn't have universal healthcare is the 1987 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide life-saving emergency care regardless of a patient's ability to pay.

I doubt we'd would be able to handle seeing poor people die in the waiting room because of a ruptured appendix or something, but you don't actually see people go bankrupt so its almost like it never happened.

This sounds great to me, I would love to know how much a procedure costs before I have it instead of having bills for arbitrary amounts of money show up one at a time over the course of six months.

>Heather Miconi has seven weeks to come up with $2,000 to pay for surgery her daughter needs to breathe more easily.

The hospital in question is in FL, others are in TN and AK (University of Arkansas). The one in FL is owned by Doctors and United Health.

So much for the Hippocratic Oath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

archive.is looks like it's 401 against this article for some reason.

Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/hospitals-pay-before-t...

I cannot get to the article, but are these for-profit hospitals in "red" states ? Or are these elective surgeries (+ who decides if elective) ?

I wonder because I thought it was a US Federal Law that hospitals must provide care no matter what the financial situation of the patient is.

Just like the Wall Street Journal refuses to show text unless you pay in full first.

Seems like the right way to do things, honestly. Everyone should know the cost of their health care up front. Pay the $2k and then get reimbursed by your insurance.