Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3910

Bill Overview

Title: EMS Staffing and Support Act

Description: This bill provides funding for FY2023 and each fiscal year thereafter to support organizations that provide medical transport and emergency medical services (i.e., EMS organizations). It also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to report on reimbursement and other challenges faced by EMS organizations, including in rural areas. Specifically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) must establish a competitive grant program for state, territorial, tribal, and local governments; nonprofit EMS organizations; and nonprofits that represent the interests of EMS organizations. Grant funds may be used for training and other personnel costs, purchasing necessary equipment and supplies, and related purposes. The bill further requires HRSA to allocate funding through compacts or contracts to Indian tribes for such purposes.

Sponsors: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals who rely on emergency medical services globally

Estimated Size: 331000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Ranch Owner (Rural Montana)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's reassuring to know that EMS services will get more funds, especially for remote areas like mine where getting timely help is crucial.
  • The program sounds promising, but I hope the improvements also cover maintenance of back roads which EMS often uses.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 4

Paramedic (New York City)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Better funding means improved equipment and more staff, which is desperately needed in urban settings too.
  • I hope this makes our jobs more manageable and improves the quality of the emergency services we provide.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired Teacher (Los Angeles)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having reliable EMS is a matter of life and death. Knowing improvements are coming gives some peace of mind.
  • I've noticed they're stretched too thin; any improvement is crucial for people like me.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

College Student (Chicago)

Age: 22 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's frustrating when EMS services are delayed. I hope the new funding can address these issues.
  • Lives could be on the line because of the time it takes to get help, especially in busy areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

EMS Training Officer (Houston)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Investment in training is crucial; we constantly struggle with keeping up-to-date resources.
  • This could help us improve the skills of new recruits significantly.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Tribal Community Leader (Navajo Nation)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Integrating better EMS resources on tribal land is long overdue.
  • My community would greatly benefit from quicker EMS response times and better resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 8 4

Non-Profit EMS Organization Volunteer (Seattle)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It is heartening to see more funds directed towards nonprofits as well, as we do significant groundwork.
  • This policy could allow us to support more community programs and outreach.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Farmer (Marion County, Iowa)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Faster EMS services could make a big difference out here in the field.
  • I just hope the funds reach us and don't get snagged in administrative processes.

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 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 3

Hospital Administrator (Miami)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved EMS operations could alleviate pressure on our emergency department.
  • This could foster better cooperation and patient outcomes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Charter Bus Driver (Birmingham, Alabama)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhanced EMS functions could prevent long traffic stalls during emergencies.
  • I hope they coordinate better with city planning to improve all-around traffic flow and response times.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $840000000, High: $1260000000)

Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1320000000)

Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $960000000, High: $1440000000)

Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1120000000, High: $1680000000)

Year 100: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

Key Considerations