Health occupations: emergency medical services personnel; licensure of medical first responders and emergency medical technicians; allow at 17 years of age. Amends sec. 20950 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.20950). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5489'26
HB 5488 amends Michigan’s Public Health Code provisions governing licensure of emergency medical services personnel, including medical first responders, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), EMT specialists, paramedics, and EMS instructor-coordinators. The bill’s central change is to lower the minimum age for licensure by replacing the current 18-year-old requirement with a requirement that an applicant meet one of the criteria in section 20950a; the bill title and context indicate that this change is intended to allow licensure at 17 years of age. The bill otherwise retains the existing framework for education, testing, licensure, renewal, and fees for EMS occupations.
The bill continues to require applicants to complete approved education, pass the applicable written and practical examinations, and meet other statutory requirements. It preserves the special pathway for certain military health care specialists applying for EMT licensure, the licensure rules for EMS instructor-coordinators, the three-year license term, fee schedule, volunteer fee waiver, and fee waiver for honorably discharged veterans applying for an initial license. It also keeps the department’s authority to prescribe or develop examinations and to charge certain exam fees. The bill is tie-barred to HB 5489, meaning it would not take effect unless that companion bill also becomes law.
In terms of legal impact, HB 5488 would amend section 20950 of the Public Health Code and change who may qualify for EMS licensure in Michigan, expanding the pool of eligible applicants by allowing younger entrants into the profession under the companion bill’s framework. This would affect the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ licensing administration, EMS education programs, life support agencies, and individuals seeking entry-level EMS credentials. It would not broadly rewrite the licensing system, but it would alter one of the threshold eligibility requirements for medical first responders and EMTs.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is neutral to supportive, though the record provided does not include committee testimony or recorded votes. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to address workforce pipeline issues in EMS by creating an earlier pathway into licensure while keeping training and examination standards in place. Because no transcripts or vote tallies are available, there is no documented opposition in the provided materials.
The main point of contention implied by the bill is the age requirement itself: lowering the licensure age may raise questions about maturity, supervision, and readiness, while supporters would likely view it as a way to strengthen recruitment and address staffing shortages in emergency medical services. The tie-bar to HB 5489 indicates the age change is part of a paired legislative package rather than a standalone policy shift.
HB 5488 would amend MCL 333.20950 in the Public Health Code to revise licensure eligibility for EMS personnel, most notably by replacing the current age-18 requirement with a new eligibility standard tied to section 20950a, which the bill context indicates is intended to permit licensure at age 17. The bill leaves intact the existing licensing, testing, fee, volunteer waiver, veteran waiver, and instructor-coordinator provisions, but it would expand the class of individuals eligible to enter the EMS licensure system and would require the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to administer the revised standard. The bill is tie-barred to HB 5489, so it would only take effect if the companion bill is enacted.
The available record suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, but there are no committee transcripts or vote totals to show formal debate or partisan division. Based on the bill’s design, the policy appears aimed at workforce development in emergency medical services, which typically draws support from agencies and advocates seeking to expand recruitment. No explicit opposition is documented in the materials provided.
The likely point of contention is whether lowering the licensure age for medical first responders and EMTs is appropriate from a public safety and professional readiness standpoint. Supporters would likely emphasize workforce shortages, career pathway development, and early entry into EMS training, while critics could question whether younger applicants have sufficient maturity or experience. Because the bill preserves testing and education requirements, the dispute is less about standards generally and more about whether age alone should remain a barrier to licensure.