Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ambulance reimbursement bill with amendment that creates study commission; members warn funding depends on separate measure
Summary
Committee approved an amendment to House Bill 316 that retains the study commission and removes immediate reimbursement-rate changes; members said a separate bill (HB725) would be necessary to realize higher payment rates.
The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee voted to advance House Bill 316 with amendment 1056, a change that retains a study commission on ambulance reimbursement and removes language that would have set default reimbursement rates. Representative Miles presented the amendment; the committee then voted to move HB 316 as amended.
Representative Miles, introducing the amendment, said it maintains the original study commission language while removing the sections that would adjust rates immediately, and left the door open for a companion bill (HB 725) to set rates. “This amendment maintains the original study commission that is in the original 3 16 bill,” Miles said. She argued the amendment lets the commission study all payers and that it creates a vehicle for more immediate relief only if a second bill is enacted.
Committee members debated tradeoffs. Several members expressed concern that deleting the reimbursement-rate language from HB 316 would leave ambulance providers without immediate rate increases unless HB 725 passes. Representative Terraza warned that voting for the amendment means members must “be hoping that 7 25 passes,” because the reimbursement baseline language removed by the amendment exists in HB 725.
Representative Gibbs said he favored immediate action and would prefer HB 725 (which contains reimbursement-rate language) but noted the Senate appeared more likely to pass HB 725 than the original HB 316. Representative Miles said the amendment was offered because members lacked time for full subcommittee revision and because it provides a path forward given timing constraints.
On the amendment vote the committee recorded a roll call showing 15 in favor and 1 opposed (one member temporarily out of the room), and the committee later voted 16–1 on the bill’s subsequent motion to advance HB 316 as amended. Members opposing the amendment said the change delays money ambulance providers seek; backers said the amendment creates a study to resolve rate-setting questions and avoids prematurely enacting conflicting rate language.
