HB406 revises Kentucky law governing emergency medical services, with two main changes: the emergency medical services grant program and the disciplinary process for EMS-related complaints. For the grant program, the bill keeps the county-based funding structure but changes how money is distributed and used. Each county fiscal court may apply annually, and if funding is sufficient, each county may receive a $10,000 grant; if not, the available funds are divided equally among counties. Any remaining funds may be awarded competitively. The bill also requires counties to spend grant money within the fiscal year, document expenditures with receipts, and repay unauthorized spending with 20% annual interest, with possible civil and criminal enforcement by the Attorney General.
The bill also updates the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services complaint and discipline process. It removes the prior requirement that investigations and hearings for licensed ambulance services be handled by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and repeals KRS 216B.106, which had governed those procedures. Instead, the board’s internal disciplinary process is expanded and clarified, including complaint filing, notice requirements, preliminary inquiry boards, hearing panels, confidentiality rules, and appeal rights under KRS Chapter 13B. The bill also specifies that the board may impose only limited discipline on emergency medical services medical directors and adds explicit authority for revocation or suspension in cases involving sexual contact with a patient, along with possible reimbursement for patient mental health services.
HB406 would affect county fiscal courts, public ambulance services, EMS providers, medical directors, and the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services. It changes the statutory framework for EMS grant administration in KRS 311A.155 and shifts disciplinary authority away from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services by repealing KRS 216B.106 and revising KRS 311A.055. Counties would face tighter reporting and repayment requirements for grant funds, while the board would gain a more centralized role in investigating and adjudicating complaints involving EMS personnel and related entities.
Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, the bill’s general sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate or roll-call history. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be aimed at strengthening oversight and standardizing EMS funding and discipline procedures, which suggests a policy focus on accountability and administrative clarity. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means no clear partisan or stakeholder sentiment can be inferred.
The most likely points of contention are the stricter grant-use rules, the requirement to spend funds within the fiscal year, and the enhanced reimbursement/enforcement provisions for unauthorized expenditures. Another possible issue is the shift of ambulance-service complaint handling away from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and into the EMS board’s disciplinary system, which could raise concerns about agency authority, due process, or administrative burden. The sexual-contact discipline provisions may also draw attention because they create explicit sanctions and patient-related restitution authority.
HB406 amends KRS 311A.155 and KRS 311A.055 and repeals KRS 216B.106, thereby restructuring both EMS grant administration and disciplinary procedures in Kentucky law. It would require counties to use EMS grant funds within the fiscal year, document spending, and repay unauthorized expenditures with interest, while also changing how complaints against EMS personnel and related licensees are investigated and heard. The bill centralizes disciplinary authority within the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services and removes the separate ambulance-service investigation/hearing process previously assigned to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
No committee discussion or voting history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative record in the materials supplied. On the face of the bill, the measure appears administrative and oversight-oriented, with provisions that could appeal to supporters of accountability and standardized EMS regulation. At the same time, the tighter grant controls and transfer of disciplinary authority could prompt concerns from counties, providers, or agencies affected by the changes.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s stricter fiscal controls on EMS grant money, especially the requirement that funds be spent within the fiscal year and repaid with 20% annual interest if used improperly. Stakeholders may also disagree over the repeal of KRS 216B.106 and the removal of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from ambulance-service investigations and hearings, since that shifts authority to the EMS board. Additional concern may arise over the bill’s expanded disciplinary framework, confidentiality rules, and the specific sanctions tied to sexual contact with a patient.