In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to address the problem of "patient dumping" in hospital emergency departments. Hospitals and physicians that fail to comply with these requirements may be fined $50,000 and/or excluded from participation in Medicare, and hospitals may also be held civilly liable to persons who suffer personal injury. Stabilization and Inpatient Status

When an emergency medical condition is detected, a hospital may decide to admit the individual as an inpatient for further treatment. The Sixth Circuit held that EMTALA still required stabilization before discharge, despite her inpatient status. In 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a notice of a proposed rule extending EMTALA protections to inpatients. Many comments noted the Bryant v. Adventist decision holding otherwise, and in 2003, CMS reversed its position, stating that if, after performing a screening exam, a hospital admits an individual for treatment of an emergency medical condition, then the hospital has satisfied its duties under EMTALA. In Moses v. Providence Hospital , the court found CMS's regulations to be contrary to the plain language of the statute. In December of 2010, CMS issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and solicited comments regarding whether it should revisit its regulations which provide that a hospital's EMTALA obligations end once a patient has been admitted. It is not a violation of EMTALA to transfer an individual who has not been stabilized when it is medically necessary to do so. The first of these could be brought by the individual patient who suffers harm as a direct result of [a] hospital's failure to appropriately screen, stabilize, or properly transfer that patient. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, noting that 
where a House committee's explanation of the meaning of a statute seems to differ from the statute's actual wording, this Court should not rely on that committee's statement as the exclusive explanation for the meaning of the statute.... We recognize that our interpretation of the civil enforcement provision may have consequences for hospitals that Congress may or may not have considered or intended.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures universal access to emergency medical care at all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments. Under EMTALA, any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or any other characteristic, is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge. Failure to abide by these requirements can subject hospitals or physicians to civil monetary sanctions or exclusion from Medicare. Hospitals, but not physicians, may also be sued by private individuals who suffer personal injuries as a result of a violation of EMTALA.
A dispute over the interpretation of the statute has recently arisen in the context of the application of EMTALA to individuals who come to a hospital emergency room and are subsequently admitted to the hospital as inpatients. Regulations promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have taken the position that a hospital's EMTALA obligations end once an individual is admitted as an inpatient. However, in Moses v. Providence Hospital, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, despite these regulations, transferring or discharging an inpatient without stabilizing an emergency medical condition could still constitute a violation of EMTALA. Consequently, a hospital's obligations to inpatients under EMTALA may be modulated by the Moses decision if the hospital happens to be located in the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee).
In December of 2010, CMS solicited comments on whether CMS's inpatient regulations should be revisited. The solicited comments may provide specific examples of individuals' treatment after being admitted from the emergency room, which may be of interest to both agency officials and legislators.