Mixed reviews. Final EMTALA rules don't please everybody
Taylor, M.
Modern Healthcare 33(36): 17
2003
ISSN/ISBN: 0160-7480 PMID: 14520830 Document Number: 564311
Document emailed within 1 workday
Related Documents
Tammelleo, A.D. 1997: LA: Pt. denied treatment commits suicide: nursing assessments and EMTALA liability. KS: E.R. nurse triages pt. as non-emergent: procedure followed--no EMTALA liability Regan Report on Nursing Law 38(1): 3Pallarito, K. 1991: Final accounting rules behind schedule Modern Healthcare 21(31): 17
Curry-Galvin, E. 1997: Extra-label rules: the final outcome Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 210(1): 10-12
Conn, J. 2010: Relieved over relaxed rules. Vendors say final regulations are less cumbersome Modern Healthcare 40(29): 7; 14
Wagner, L. 1991: Final tax and donation rules for Medicaid resemble draft proposal Modern Healthcare 21(34): 2
Wagner, L. 1991: Voluntary spending target proposal gets mixed reviews Modern Healthcare 21(22): 4
Wagner, L. 1988: Harvard's RVS (relative value scale) study gets mixed reviews Modern Healthcare 18(41): 24
Tokarski, C. 1988: Nursing home guide draws mixed reviews Modern Healthcare 18(50): 33
Mayne, T. 2010: Dissecting the bundle: the final rules for the prospective payment system for dialysis Nephrology News and Issues 24(10): 14; 16 18-19
Mayne, T. 2010: Dissecting the bundle: the final rules for the prospective payment system for dialysis Nephrology News and Issues 24(10): 14; 16 18-19
Snilstveit, B. 2012: Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(3): 388-408
1988: Statutory prohibition on use of appropriated funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning; standard of compliance for family planning services projects--PHS. Final rules Federal Register 53(21): 2922-2946
1988: Statutory prohibition on use of appropriated funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning; standard of compliance for family planning services projects--PHS. Final rules Federal Register 53(21): 2922-2946
Meyer, H. 2016: Why patients still need EMTALA Modern Healthcare 46(13): 16-19
Assendelft, W.J.; Scholten, R.J.; Hoving, J.L.; Offringa, M.; Bouter, L.M. 2001: Systematic reviews in practice. VIII. Searching and assessing systematic reviews Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 145(34): 1625-1631
Brown, L.C. 2003: EMTALA compliance tips Healthcare Financial Management: Journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association 57(6): 26-28
Chazard, E.; Ficheur, Gégoire.; Merlin, Béatrice.; Serrot, E.; Beuscart, Régis. 2009: Adverse drug events prevention rules: multi-site evaluation of rules from various sources Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 148: 102-111
Sneddon, E. 2009: Legally speaking: EMTALA and pandemics Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society 106(7): 140
Berger, A.J. 1975: Kanaha Pond study (excerpts from final report). Second and final installment Elepaio(4): 35-37
Mercado-Alvarado, J.; Oliveras García, C. 2009: EMTALA: what it is, its origins, and how it functions in Puerto Rico Boletin de la Asociacion Medica de Puerto Rico 101(3): 19-21