Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 24 adds "emergency medical responder" to Nevada statute to match national standards, sponsors say
Summary
Senate Bill 24 would update Nevada statutes to recognize "emergency medical responder" as a pre-hospital provider (term replaced earlier nationally for "first responder"); sponsors and veterans, firefighters and rural stakeholders testified in support, saying the change clarifies statutes and helps rural emergency coverage.
Senate Bill 24 would amend Nevada statutes to include the certification category "emergency medical responder" (EMR) as a recognized pre-hospital provider, aligning state law with national standards and clarifying statutory language changed by earlier legislation.
Bobbie Sullivan, program manager for the State Emergency Medical Services Program, described SB 24 as a cleanup bill: "This is a clean up bill. It adds emergency medical responder as a recognized pre hospital provider into statutes which was previously called a first responder." Sullivan told the committee the state already recognizes EMR certification in regulation, but the statutory language had not been updated in all places; the bill would create statewide consistency and better support rural communities.
Supporters testified the change would help rural response capacity and veteran applicants. Andrew Lee Pilbitt of the United Veterans Legislative Council said the bill addressed impacts to NRS 417 (Department of Veterans Services) and expressed organizational support. Ryan Beeman, representing professional firefighters in Nevada, said the amended language helps rural volunteer recruitment and retention by permitting EMR certification pathways with reduced training hours compared with higher-level EMT certification. Fred Wagner, Southern Nevada chair for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, supported the bill and noted provisions requiring collection and reporting of data about veterans seeking EMR certification.
The hearing on SB 24 was brief; presenters and multiple organizations testified in support. There was no recorded opposition at the hearing and no committee vote during the session. The sponsor closed with a request that the committee consider the efficiency and statewide standardization gains from the statute update.
If enacted, SB 24 would align statutory language with current certification nomenclature and is intended to remove regulatory inconsistency that can complicate rural emergency staffing and training.
