Two hospitals, one statute: the sending hospital's screening, stabilization and transfer duties, and the receiving center's duty to accept, are both tested in HA550's Unit 5 emergency access case. Searches like "ha 550 unit 5 assignment example", "ha550 unit 5 sample" and "ha550 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished HA550 Unit 5 emergency access duty case looks like
About six pages in two halves, one per hospital. The facts come from a composite transfer log with times: arrival, a CT read at [22:40], the first call to the regional center at [22:55], the refusal, and a second center's acceptance at [00:10]. The sending hospital's half applies the three duties in order: an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment within its capability, and an appropriate transfer with a physician's certification that benefits outweigh risks, records sent, a receiving facility's agreement and suitable transport. The receiving hospital's half applies the statute's provision requiring a participating hospital with specialized capabilities and capacity to accept an appropriate transfer, and explains why asking about insurance before accepting is a red flag. A short section covers enforcement: civil monetary penalties, termination of the Medicare agreement, and a civil action against a hospital.
How a HA550 Unit 5 example is structured
The case is argued hospital by hospital, because the statute assigns the two institutions different duties and a merged analysis would obscure which one failed. Each half opens with the text of the duty, then applies it to the log. The sending hospital's analysis concludes that its screening and certification look sound, but it flags the [seventy] minutes between refusal and acceptance as a stabilization question, whether everything within its capability was done while it waited. The receiving hospital's analysis concentrates on capacity and specialized capability, both established by the open bed and the on-call neurosurgeon, and treats the insurance question as evidence rather than as the violation itself. Roberts v. Galen of Virginia is cited for the point that a stabilization claim does not require an improper motive. What each hospital's compliance officer would review first closes the paper.
The transfer log, with times
Arrival, the CT read, two calls, a refusal and an acceptance, bracketed and timed so each duty can be tested against the minutes it took.
Screen, then stabilize or transfer
The sending hospital's screening examination, treatment within its capability while waiting, and the certification, records and transport an appropriate transfer requires.
A duty to accept
The receiving center's obligation, with specialized capability and capacity both present, to accept an appropriate transfer regardless of the patient's coverage.
Insurance as evidence
The coverage question asked before refusing, treated as evidence of the refusal's basis rather than as a separate violation, with the statute's limits noted.
Motive is not required
Roberts v. Galen of Virginia cited for its narrow holding that a stabilization claim needs no proof of improper motive.
What each compliance officer pulls
The transfer center's call recordings and on-call roster at one hospital, the certification form and nursing notes at the other.
Where marks go in HA550 Unit 5
The weakest analyses treat EMTALA as a single duty to treat everyone and apply it loosely to both hospitals at once. Graders look for the statute's actual structure: screening, stabilization or appropriate transfer for the hospital where the patient arrived, and the separate duty of a hospital with specialized capabilities to accept. Missing that second duty entirely is common, and in this case it is the central issue. Treating EMTALA as a malpractice standard is another error; the screening duty is about uniform treatment of patients with similar symptoms, not about whether the diagnosis was correct. Claiming the statute requires free care overstates it, since it governs screening, stabilization and transfer, not billing afterward. Recommendations should reach the transfer center's policy and log, not just the individual clinicians.
Get a HA550 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Unit 5 access cases often involve a transfer, a walk-in outside the emergency department, or a psychiatric hold. Share the scenario and rubric; each hospital's duties will be analyzed separately against the statute's text, with a timed record where the facts allow and enforcement routes kept apart. The first sample is free; it comes back in 24-48h.
HA550 Unit 5 questions, answered
Does EMTALA apply to the hospital that refused the transfer?
It can. The statute requires a participating hospital with specialized capabilities or facilities to accept an appropriate transfer of a patient who needs them, if it has the capacity to treat that patient. The sample applies that provision to the composite regional center, where an open bed and an on-call neurosurgeon establish capacity, and explains what the center would need to show to defend its refusal.
Can a hospital ask about insurance during an emergency?
Registration can proceed, but a hospital may not delay the screening examination or necessary stabilizing treatment to ask about payment or insurance. For a receiving hospital, the question is whether the refusal rested on capacity or on coverage. The sample treats the insurance inquiry as evidence bearing on that question and notes that CMS guidance addresses registration practices in more detail.
Can the patient sue the physicians under EMTALA?
The statute's private right of action runs against the hospital, not individual physicians, although physicians can face civil monetary penalties from the federal government and ordinary malpractice claims under state law. The sample keeps those routes separate: the federal civil action against each hospital, federal penalties, and any state-law negligence claim, which is a different question from the EMTALA analysis.