Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Transport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee divided over bill making ambulance default for involuntary mental‑health transports
Summary
Rep. Dennis Banyan's bill would make ambulance transport the default for compulsory mental‑health evaluations unless law enforcement deems it unsafe. Mental‑health advocates called it more humane; sheriffs and ambulance providers warned of safety, staffing and operational problems.
Representative Dennis Banyan introduced House Bill 10‑70 FN to make ambulance transport the default for people brought for a compulsory mental‑health evaluation (involuntary emergency admission), with a law‑enforcement override when EMT safety would be at risk.
Sponsor Dennis Banyan said ambulance transport prioritizes medical expertise, supports de‑escalation and better aligns care with behavioral‑health best practices. "This prioritizes medical expertise during transport, supports better de‑escalation, and aligns best practices for behavioral health emergencies," he said.
Testimony split sharply. Holly Stevens of NAMI New Hampshire urged the committee to require ambulance transport except when unsafe, saying ambulance transport is "the most humane way to transport a person in need of care" and noting trauma associated with shackles and law‑enforcement vehicles. She suggested a narrow amendment to preserve a person’s right to request law‑enforcement transport if they preferred it.
Sheriff Bill Wright (Belknap County) opposed the bill, telling the committee sheriffs and local police often perform involuntary transports as a safety measure and because ambulances may be temporarily unavailable for long trips. "For involuntary matters, people do have the choice to go ... voluntarily they get to go to the hospital in either an ambulance or a police vehicle," he said, and argued officers have appropriate equipment and training to secure a person during an involuntary transport.
The New Hampshire Ambulance Association and frontline paramedics also urged caution. Chris Daywas, a paramedic and AMR board member, said involuntary transports pose elopement and safety risks and that chemical restraint (mentioned as an ambulance option) is a high‑risk intervention outside routine EMS practice; he recommended stakeholder study and broader operational work before a statutory change.
Committee members asked how local variations in practice are driving the change, queried who pays for ambulance transports when involuntary, and raised concerns about rural coverage and secure vehicles. The public hearing closed with no committee action; the committee later discussed the proposal in executive session along with many other items.
