Bill Overview
Title: Supporting Our First Responders Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants on a competitive basis to nongovernmental or governmental entities that provide medical transport and emergency medical services (EMS). Grant recipients may use funds to, for example, support the EMS workforce (e.g., by providing salaries and stipends or covering certification costs) and purchasing vehicles, personal protective equipment, and other resources.
Sponsors: Rep. Kim, Andy [D-NJ-3]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on emergency medical services
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill impacts entities providing medical transportation and emergency medical services.
- EMS providers often rely on governmental support, and this bill aims to supply additional resources through grants.
- EMS workers are a key group as their salaries and certifications could be funded under this bill.
- Purchasing vehicles and PPE for EMS operations directly supports EMS personnel and patients they serve.
Reasoning
- The policy targets those involved in EMS, which includes both the providers (like paramedics, EMTs) and the recipients (general public using EMS).
- The general public, especially those in rural or underserved areas, might see an indirect benefit through improved and more timely EMS services.
- EMS personnel might experience direct benefits including job security, better equipment, and overall improved working conditions.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy may primarily impact larger, more resource-hungry EMS services initially, with smaller rural agencies seeing benefits later as the program expands.
- The wellbeing of these individuals might improve due to better job conditions for EMS providers and improved service for recipients.
- The policy's long-term effects will likely manifest as improved emergency response times and potentially better health outcomes for populations relying on EMS services.
Simulated Interviews
Paramedic (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe any boost to EMS funding is necessary as we often lack the resources to provide optimal patient care.
- This policy seems promising if grants are distributed fairly among large and small EMS services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
EMS Director (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding would help us upgrade our equipment, directly enhancing the safety and efficiency of our operations.
- I hope the distribution of funds considers the unique needs of different community sizes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
EMT (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Salaries in EMS are not very competitive, so funding for wages would be a big relief.
- I worry that funding might be disproportionately allocated to larger cities like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In emergencies, time is crucial. Any policy enhancing EMS would be life-saving for people in my area.
- I'm hopeful that rural areas receive more attention under this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Nursing Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My experience showed me how under-resourced EMS can be, despite their critical role.
- This policy could greatly influence my career decisions if it substantiates EMS as a stable career path.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening EMS aligns with public health priorities.
- Funding should be equitably distributed to ensure comprehensive citywide coverage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Emergency Room Doctor (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- EMS serves as the frontline in emergency care, and I'm eager to see infrastructural investments.
- There’s always a concern of red tape that limits the effective use of funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
High School Student (New York, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- EMS deserves all the support it can get.
- I wish programs like this existed nationwide, so more students can volunteer in meaningful ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
EMS Trainer (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can encourage more people to join EMS fields by easing certification costs.
- I believe extensive training programs are essential and should be a focus of the grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Firefighter/EMT (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grants could help us during the fire seasons to provide better immediate care.
- I just hope the funds don't get stuck in bureaucratic processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)
Year 5: $580000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $680000000)
Year 10: $640000000 (Low: $540000000, High: $740000000)
Year 100: $1400000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1600000000)
Key Considerations
- The total cost could vary significantly depending on the number and size of grants awarded.
- Future federal budgets may need to incorporate increased EMS funding if the grants stimulate additional service capacity and demand.
- Distribution of funds among urban versus rural areas to ensure equitable enhancement of EMS capabilities.