NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Griego
|
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Emergency Medical Services Funding |
SB |
856 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$6,000.0 |
|
See Narrative |
Recurring |
OSF/Countie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to HB
653cs, SB 481, HB 642
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
($6,000.0) |
|
Recurring |
GF |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses
Received From
Department
of Health (DOH)
Health
Policy Commission (HPC)
Public
Regulations Commission (PRC)
Department
of Finance and Administration (DFA)
Attorney
Generals Office (AGO)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate
Bill 856 provides for a distribution of certain insurance premium revenue to
the emergency medical services fund for distribution to certain counties for
emergency medical service operational purposes and makes an appropriation.
Section 1
would amend the Emergency Medical Services Fund Act, Section 24-10A-3 NMSA 1978
to add a new Subsection F to create a separate account in the Fund. Subsection F would appropriate the
distribution to counties that are the sole providers of ambulance and emergency
medical system operations in the county to defray the costs of operating
expenses. Money would be distributed to
eligible counties based on the relative geographic size and population of each
county, and the relative number of ambulance runs in each county, and would not
revert at the end of the fiscal year. SB
856 would require the Injury Prevention and EMS (IPEMS) Bureau to coordinate
with the counties in adopting rules necessary to determine eligibility and
implement the distribution formula. SB
856 further states that the distribution would be considered separate from the
local emergency medical services funding program.
Section
2 proposes to amend the Fire Protection Fund, Section 59A-53-15 NMSA 1978. SB
856 would amend Subsection A to remove the deadline for crediting the general
fund of any balance. Further, SB 856
would add a new Subsection B that states that on or before June 30 each year
from the balance remaining in the fund after the money deposited in the fund
has been disbursed and appropriated as provided in Subsection A, the State
Treasurer would distribute an amount equal to twenty-five percent of that
balance to the emergency medical services fund and the remainder to the general
fund.
Significant
Issues
The
Fire Protection Fund, Section 59A-53-1 et seq., NMSA 1978, provides funding
through a distribution formula to Fire Services statewide. Money is appropriated to the fund based on certain
insurance premiums. A sizeable balance
of dollars is returned to the general fund each year after the Fire Fund
distributions have been made. SB 856
would redirect 25% of these remaining dollars for counties that are sole providers
of
The
major problem with SB 856 is the new language in Section F. of the EMS Fund
Act, which directs the new appropriation “to counties that are the sole
providers of ambulance and emergency medical system operations in the county…”
DOH states that there are very few county-managed ambulance operations that are
the “sole providers” in their counties.
Examples of such are Mora,
The
EMS Fund Act provides vital safety-net pre-hospital response, treatment and
transport. These funds also provide for
EMS Special Projects, Statewide EMS System Improvement Projects, Vehicle
Purchase Projects and Local System Improvement Projects. Currently, the EMS Fund Act is capable of
providing approximately 45% of requested amounts from
Operational
costs of delivering
DOH
states that the intent of SB 856 is good, but the design of to how the funds
should be distributed is problematic.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The bill
reduces revenue to the State General Fund by the approximately $6 million
annually that would be diverted to the EMS fund and be distributed to counties
to pay for ambulance and EMS services where the counties are the only providers
of such services.
The
Department of Health would gain approximately $6 million dollars annually
through an addition to the EMS Fund as specified in SB 856. This would raise the EMS Fund from $3.25 million
to about $9.25 million. However, the $6
million dollar increase would be restricted to use for eligible counties that
are sole providers of
formula developed by DOH that accounts for geographic size,
population, and number of
ambulance
runs.
At the end FY2002, the
balance in the fund (about $25 million) would be returned to the State General
Fund. SB 856 would appropriate 25
percent of the remaining balance of about $25 million, or about $6.25 million
to the EMS Fund to pay for operational expenses in rural counties.
The bill
would affect the amount of revenue available for appropriation for State
programs for future fiscal years.
The Fire Protection
Fund, Section 59A-53-1 et seq., NMSA 1978, receives appropriated funds from the
State Treasury based on insurance premiums.
In FY2002, the State Fire Marshal Office received about $45 million in
revenue and approximately $20 million was distributed to fire services based on
a funding formula
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
As
drafted, SB 856 would not increase the administrative dollars the IPEMS Bureau
receives annually to accomplish the administration and oversight of the
program. This would be problematic in
terms of administrative services since it would substantially increase the
administrative workload for the IPEMS Bureau.
It is estimated that about 1.5% of the new fund would need to be
authorized to allow the DOH to hire additional staff and to pay for fiscal
management activities. The existing DOH
Regulation 7 NMAC 27.5, EMS Fund Act, would need to be amended to comply with
the revised EMS Act and the new funding program. The increased appropriation would require at
least one additional full time equivalent position and funding to support
fiscal management of the program.
RELATIONSHIP
Related
to:
HB 653CS, transfers the regulation of
ambulance services to DOH.
SB
481 and HB 642, provides additional funding for
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
DOH
suggests the following amendments:
Under
Section 1, in the amendment to the EMS Fund Act, add at the end of the new Subsection
F: “The Department is authorized to use one and one-half percent of the
appropriated funds under Section F for administrative costs, including hiring
staff to manage the funds.”
Remove
or revise the “sole provider” clause to include other needy counties that would
not meet the stringent criteria set forth in SB 856.
BD/sb