Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Nevada bill would restore "emergency medical responder" classification to state law

2344516 · February 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 24 would reinsert the "emergency medical responder" provider type into Nevada statute to align state law with national standards and expand certification options for rural first responders.

Senate Bill 24, introduced in a hearing before the Nevada Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, would add “emergency medical responder” as a recognized pre-hospital provider in state law to match current national nomenclature and provide consistent statewide certification.

The change is intended to restore a provider category that was omitted after earlier renaming of emergency medical personnel to align with national standards, proponents said. Kyle Devine, deputy administrator with the Division of Public Behavioral Health, told the committee the state currently recognizes the emergency medical responder role and that SB24 would provide statewide consistency that "greatly supports... our rural communities." Devine and Bobby Sullivan, manager of the Division’s EMS office, answered committee questions and closed the presentation.

Ryan Beaman, representing Professional Firefighters in Nevada, said the change would help rural departments. "It actually will help out our rural division," Beaman said, adding that Clark County Firefighters support measures that expand certification options for departments that face long response distances.

Committee members asked for clarification that the bill restores a previously recognized provider category and aligns state law with federal/national standards; Devine confirmed that was the intent. No members of the public registered opposition or neutral testimony during the hearing; no committee vote was recorded on SB24 during the session.

The bill hearing record shows proponents emphasize rural operational benefits and statewide consistency; the committee took no formal action beyond taking testimony and closing the hearing. Future committee meetings will determine whether the bill advances to a work session or floor consideration.