AN ACT Relating to transport of patients by ambulance to facilities other than emergency departments;
Summary
HB 1864 would expand and clarify when ambulance services may transport patients to destinations other than hospital emergency departments, including urgent care clinics, mental health facilities, and chemical dependency or substance use disorder programs. It also directs regional emergency medical services and trauma care councils to develop regional plans that address these alternative transport pathways, patient care protocols, triage, facility coordination, and interfacility transfer procedures.
The bill further requires health plans and health carriers to cover ground ambulance transportation to these non-ED facilities under specified circumstances, including transport for behavioral health emergency services providers and for medical assistance enrollees. It also requires the state authority to develop a reimbursement methodology for ambulance transports to these alternative facilities, and it adds definitions and planning standards related to trauma care, prehospital care, rehabilitation services, pediatric trauma, and emergency medical services system organization.
Impact
The bill would amend multiple sections of Washington law governing emergency medical services, trauma care, ambulance transport, and health insurance coverage. It would create a new statutory requirement for health plans to cover certain ground ambulance transports to non-emergency-department facilities, and it would require the state to establish reimbursement rules for ambulance services transporting medical assistance enrollees to those facilities. It also would formalize regional planning duties for EMS and trauma councils and add liability protections for certain EMS personnel and entities acting in good faith during emergency care and alternative-facility transports.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of expanding patient transport options and improving coordination between EMS, trauma systems, behavioral health, and alternative care facilities. Based on the bill text alone, the policy direction is to reduce unnecessary emergency department use while ensuring patients can be routed to the most appropriate setting. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment or legislative opposition in the supplied materials.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are cost, coverage mandates, and operational complexity. Health carriers and state purchasers may object to the new insurance coverage requirement and reimbursement methodology, while ambulance providers and regional councils may raise concerns about implementation, coordination, and whether adequate facility capacity exists outside emergency departments. Another possible issue is liability and scope-of-practice concerns for EMS personnel transporting patients to nontraditional destinations, though the bill attempts to address this by extending good-faith immunity and requiring standardized protocols.