Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Insurance Alternative Transport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill allowing EMS personnel to ask patients about insurance for limited alternative transports
Summary
The committee approved Bill 1-25, which amends county code to let fire and rescue personnel ask patients about insurance coverage in limited cases so they can provide alternative destination transport or treatment-in-place, while preserving current practice for true emergencies.
The Public Safety Committee on March 17 voted to approve Bill 1-25, an amendment to county code that allows fire and rescue personnel to ask about a patient’s insurance coverage in a narrow set of low-acuity cases so the patient can be transported to an alternative destination or treated in place.
The bill, introduced Jan. 21 at the request of the county executive, removes a prohibition that had prevented personnel from requesting insurance information. Council staff said the change is limited to a "very small subset" of calls involving low-acuity patients who might be eligible for alternative transport protocols. "This amendment just changes a couple things and it allows our personnel to ask the patient about their insurance information only in the context of providing some alternative service," said Ben Kaufman, chief of EMS. Kaufman gave an example: an EMS crew could transport a Kaiser patient to a Kaiser Advanced Urgent Care rather than to an emergency department. "I can only take Kaiser patients there," he said.
Fire Chief Corey Smedley emphasized the protection for emergencies: "The we don't ask about the transportation fee" in life-threatening cases, he said, clarifying that standard emergency transports are unchanged. Council staff reported the fiscal impact as de minimis, and the Office of Legislative Oversight rated equity/social-justice and economic impacts as de minimis.
Committee members asked how the change would be implemented in the field and were told the policy applies only when providers judge a call low-acuity and an alternative destination is available. The committee moved and seconded approval during the work session and recorded the motion; the transcript shows the committee approved the bill by voice vote. The bill had a public hearing Feb. 11 with no significant public testimony related to the measure.
