Relative to the designation of emergency medical services performed by ambulance service providers as essential services.
Summary
SB 133 designates emergency medical services performed by ambulance service providers as essential services for purposes of emergency management at the state and local level. The bill amends the state’s homeland security and emergency management statutes to expressly include ambulance service providers in the definitions of both “local organization for emergency management” and “first responders.” It also states that first responders are essential service providers.
In practical terms, the bill clarifies that local emergency management organizations may direct the use of ambulance service providers when carrying out emergency management functions. It does not create a new standalone ambulance licensing scheme or broadly rewrite EMS law, but it does change how ambulance services are categorized within emergency planning and response authority under RSA 21-P.
Impact
The bill amends RSA 21-P:35, VI and IX to include ambulance service providers in emergency management definitions, thereby affecting state and local emergency planning, response coordination, and the legal status of EMS providers during emergencies. By labeling first responders as essential service providers, it may support or justify prioritization, activation, and coordination of ambulance services in emergencies. The fiscal note indicates no immediate county or local revenue impact, but potentially indeterminable county and local expenditures if governments are required to activate or provide ambulance services.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest generally supportive sentiment toward the bill, with bipartisan sponsorship and no recorded committee vote opposition or transcript-based criticism provided. The bill appears framed as a public safety and emergency preparedness measure, which typically draws favorable consideration. The fiscal note, however, signals that implementation could have cost implications for counties and municipalities, which may temper support among local government stakeholders.
Contention
The main point of contention is fiscal and operational: whether the bill merely recognizes ambulance service providers as essential participants in emergency management or whether it effectively requires counties and municipalities to provide or activate ambulance services. The Department of Safety warned that the bill could increase costs to county and local governments during required ambulance activation, while the New Hampshire Association of Counties noted that if the bill is interpreted as mandating county ambulance services, expenditures could rise, especially since only Cheshire County currently provides such services. Local government groups therefore appear most likely to raise concerns about mandate scope and funding.