By Naveen Athrappully for The Epoch Times
The Supreme Court of California dismissed a lawsuit arguing that hospitals not showing certain costs in emergency care prior to treatment violate state laws, ruling the institutions are not obligated to disclose such fees.
She alleged that this amounted to an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business” practice as per California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
The case went to a trial court and the appeals court, both of which rejected the plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court of California then took up the case.
According to a Dec. 23 court opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed Capito’s claims on Monday, agreeing with the two courts.
“Hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients,” it said.
“The California Legislature, the United States Congress, and numerous rulemaking bodies have already decided what pricing information to make available in a hospital’s emergency room. Just as importantly, they have decided what not to include in those requirements.”
The reason authorities have avoided mandating the inclusion of certain fees is to prevent patients from getting dissuaded by seeing prices and opting out of potentially life-saving care, the court wrote.
Forcing hospitals to show EMS costs would lead to patients weighing the price against the necessity of such procedures. Insisting that such prices be shown assumes that patients in emergency rooms are capable of diagnosing “whether their ailment is relatively minor.”
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff did not accuse Regional Medical Center of failing to comply with the mandated disclosure requirements. Capito also did not allege that she was charged fees for services not provided or that the fees were excessive.
Burden on Hospitals
The California Hospital Association (CHA) has argued against the push for notifying patients about fees in emergency treatment conditions.
Allowing such a policy would impose “an unreasonable duty” on hospitals, said the association.
“Hospitals cannot determine the costs of patient care prior to treatment, especially emergency care. The treatment necessary for a particular patient depends on the severity of the patient’s condition, which is impossible for either the patient or the hospital to know in advance,” the association said.
“Besides, a patient’s financial responsibility for treatment costs depends on his or her insurance status and coverage. Even assuming a patient has insurance, the hospital cannot foresee whether, and to what extent, the insurer will provide coverage for the services ultimately rendered to the patient.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) is looking into the potential impact of private equity-run emergency care services provided to hospital patients.
According to an April 1 statement, he sent letters to private equity companies and physician staffing companies asking for information on patient care and other matters.
The letters followed multiple interviews conducted by his office with more than 40 emergency medicine physicians across the United States.
“I am concerned that our nation’s largest emergency medicine staffing companies may be engaging in cost-saving measures at the expense of patient safety and care, which could put our nation’s emergency preparedness at risk,” Peters said. “I am pressing these companies and their private equity owners for needed transparency.”
