Committee hears bill to restore COVID-era option letting firefighter drive ambulance when EMT staffing is low

Representative Jennifer Rhodes, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the House Committee on Health and Human Services and Elderly Affairs that the measure grew out of requests from local volunteer fire chiefs struggling to staff emergency medical service (EMS) calls.

“This is not my wheelhouse,” Rhodes said, identifying herself and explaining the bill came from a constituent and local fire chief. She told the committee that an emergency order during the pandemic allowed one provider to care for a patient while another person — often a firefighter — drove the ambulance, and that smaller towns still face staffing shortages that make that flexibility useful.

The bill would reinstate by statute language mirroring the pandemic-era order so that a single certified emergency medical provider could be the only required medical caregiver on an ambulance crew while another person who is a member of the fire department or the transporting agency serves as the driver. Representative Mark Prue, a paramedic and deputy chief who aided in drafting the measure, said the change is aimed at sporadic shortages rather than a permanent shift in practice.

“We were able to use during COVID a firefighter as a driver of our ambulance, which helped us greatly,” Prue said. “It’s not that something that we’re gonna strive to use. We don’t wanna put 1 EMS and 1 firefighter driver unless it’s absolutely necessary. But we want that option so we can continue that care.”

Supporters said the policy is most needed in smaller towns that rely on on-call and volunteer crews and sometimes cannot staff two EMS-certified personnel for every ambulance. They described scenarios in which a single patient call and a simultaneous second call leave departments scraping for personnel and argue the driver role performed by a trained firefighter or other department member can keep ambulances moving to hospitals and protect patient outcomes while advanced life support intercepts arrive.

Opponents raised patient-safety concerns. Claudia Stewart, a Cheshire County commissioner and former EMT, said an ambulance is “more than a taxi” and that modern ambulances are a “rolling ER.” She argued a medically trained EMT who also drives can immediately assist the patient if conditions deteriorate during transport. “If during a transport additional help is needed and the driver is also an EMT, they can pull over, get in the back, and assist with life saving care,” Stewart said.

Committee members pressed for drafting changes and clarifications. Several asked that the bill make explicit that the driver must be a member of the department or otherwise meet minimum training and vehicle qualifications, and asked staff to provide the existing emergency rule language and any agency guidelines that would govern how the policy is implemented. Representative Weber and others asked whether the bill would forbid rulemakers from ever requiring two certified providers; sponsors said the drafting mirrored the pandemic language and they were open to working with the committee to clarify that the intent was to allow flexibility, not to require a single-provider model universally.

No formal action was taken; the committee closed the public hearing after testimony and questions and moved to other items on its calendar.

Why it matters: The debate pits two recurrent priorities — access and timeliness of care in under‑staffed rural and volunteer EMS systems vs. the patient-safety principle of keeping two clinically trained providers physically available for prehospital care. Supporters said the pandemic experience shows the approach can work if limited to specific, lower-acuity calls and if the driver is affiliated with the transporting agency; critics warned against codifying a standard that could reduce on-scene medical capability.