Emergency Medical Services: Navigating The Complex Legal Landscape

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are not governed by a single US Federal Department. Instead, different federal agencies regulate various aspects of EMS, particularly federal funding and interstate commerce under the Department of Transportation (DOT). While there are a few federal regulations, EMS laws are highly dependent on the state and county. This means that the legislative process for EMS laws varies across the US, with state legislatures and the US Congress playing a role in creating and enforcing them.

In terms of funding, EMS is primarily funded by local governments, with some states adopting a more centralized infrastructure and others allowing local jurisdictions greater authority. This has led to a wide variation in the cost and quality of services, with communities of lower average household incomes relying more heavily on EMS care.

EMS providers have a duty to respond to calls, perform assessments, provide treatment, and transport patients to appropriate facilities when necessary. This duty is legally enforceable and is interpreted by courts, with any breaches potentially resulting in legal consequences.

Tort law and civil liability

For a negligence claim to succeed, all four elements must be present, and the breach must be the proximate (most direct) cause of damage. EMS professionals can be held liable for their actions or inactions, even if superseding or intervening factors contribute to the harm. Negligence can result in financial and legal consequences, aiming to compensate the affected individual and deter future negligence.

To establish wrongdoing, a patient must prove that the EMS provider had a duty of care and that this duty was breached. The standard of care expected from an EMS provider is that of a "reasonable, prudent provider of similar education and experience." If a breach of duty is established, the EMS provider and their medical directors may be named in a lawsuit.

Informed consent is crucial in EMS. Touching or treating a patient without their consent can lead to a claim of battery. While express consent is preferred, implied consent may be considered in emergency situations where verbal or definitive consent cannot be obtained. Minors, except in specific circumstances, cannot provide consent, and their legal guardians or authorised adults must do so. All individuals, including adults and emancipated minors, have the right to refuse medical treatment, provided they can understand the risks and consequences.

Informed consent and patient rights

Informed consent is a critical aspect of patient rights and a key consideration for EMS providers. Obtaining informed consent is essential before physically touching or treating a patient. Without consent, any physical contact or treatment is considered unlawful and can lead to claims of battery, which is the unlawful touching of an individual without their consent.

Consent can be obtained in various ways, including verbal, written, or implied. Verbal consent is explicit consent given orally by the patient. Written consent is obtained through a signed document. Implied consent, on the other hand, is assumed when the patient is unable to provide consent due to unconsciousness, non-verbal circumstances, severe injury, or severe medical illness. In such cases, it is assumed that the patient would normally consent to emergency treatment if they were able to convey their wishes.

Minors, or individuals under 18 years of age, generally cannot provide consent for treatment. Legal guardians, typically the parents, must provide consent. If the minor's parent is unavailable, another responsible adult, such as a school principal or camp counselor, can provide temporary consent until the legal guardian arrives. However, there are exceptions for emancipated minors, such as those who are married, in the military, have a history of pregnancy, or are legally emancipated. These individuals are considered capable of providing self-consent.

It is important to note that all individuals, including adults and emancipated minors, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if it may be detrimental to their health. To refuse treatment, individuals must demonstrate that they understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives. EMS providers must document that the patient has the capacity to refuse treatment and understands the potential consequences of their decision.

In certain situations, such as when a patient is unconscious or restrained, obtaining consent may not be possible. In these cases, EMS providers must act in the best interest of the patient and provide necessary treatment. Additionally, mandatory reporting may supersede the need for consent in cases of child abuse, elder abuse, sexual assault, stabbings, and gunshots.

While informed consent is crucial, there are also situations where express or implied consent may not be feasible due to the variability of pre-hospital medicine, including location, safety, and the level of the provider. In such cases, EMS providers may treat the patient based on implied consent, assuming that the patient would normally consent to emergency treatment.

Patient abandonment and duty of care

Patient abandonment is a form of medical negligence based on the unilateral withdrawal of care by a provider without proper notice to the patient or without giving the patient the opportunity to obtain substitute care when there is a continued need for medical attention.

For a patient to claim negligence by an EMS provider, they must prove that the provider had a duty of care towards them. This can be written, verbal, or implied. The patient must then prove that the provider breached this duty of care, which is defined as acting in a way that a "reasonable, prudent provider of similar education and experience would have acted".

However, patient abandonment is not the same as "handing off care to a provider of lower training". If a patient is stable and does not require ALS interventions, an ALS practitioner can release care to BLS providers without committing patient abandonment.

In addition, patient abandonment is not a clinically appropriate decision to terminate healthcare for an individual who does not require any healthcare. EMS providers are not obligated to provide care to a person who does not need it.

Furthermore, patient abandonment does not refer to leaving an ED before hospital staff physically accept a patient. Federal law imposes a legal duty of care on the hospital upon a patient's arrival on hospital property. Therefore, if an EMS provider brings a patient to the hospital and leaves them in the ED, the legal duty of care rests with the hospital, not the EMS provider.

While patient abandonment is a rare type of EMS liability, negligence is a more common legal issue that affects all emergency responders. Negligence arises when there is a duty to act, a breach of that duty, the breach causes an effect, and damage has been inflicted on another. EMS professionals owe a duty of care to the community, both on and off the job, and must act as a "prudent, reasonable EMS provider with the same level of training, in the same community, and under similar circumstances".

Federal funding and state-run EMS systems

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are regulated by different federal agencies, particularly in the areas of federal funding and interstate commerce, which fall under the Department of Transportation (DOT). The federal government has issued a range of regulations and programs to encourage state-run and governed EMS systems, resulting in a diverse group of stakeholders who contribute to EMS.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a division of the DOT, has traditionally been the primary source of federal funding and oversight for EMS. This structure was established in response to the 1960s "white paper" entitled "Accidental Death and Disability," which addressed traumatic injuries as a national healthcare issue. The Highway Safety Act established EMS within the DOT, and the NHTSA played a key role in developing the National Education Standards Curricula, creating model EMS state legislation, and providing funding for states to establish their own EMS offices.

In addition to the NHTSA, other federal agencies play a significant role in EMS funding and regulation. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, determine reimbursement rates and services covered by Medicare and Medicaid, influencing both EMS patients and private insurers. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the primary federal agency regulating controlled substances, and EMS agencies must register with both the DEA and state authorities to comply with controlled substances regulations.

The federal government has also passed legislation to support EMS systems. The Public Law 93-154 EMS Systems Act (EMSSA), enacted in 1973, established a grant program to facilitate the development of regional emergency and trauma systems. This act also introduced the first 70-hour EMT training course. However, it failed to stimulate local-level financing for EMS growth. Subsequently, in 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act shifted primary funding responsibility from the federal government to the states, leading to a decline in EMS funding in many areas.

To address funding challenges, EMS agencies have explored alternative funding sources, including insurance reimbursement, grants, charitable contributions, and membership programs. These diverse revenue streams help ensure the fiscal sustainability of EMS agencies.

Local government autonomy and EMS funding

In the United States, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are primarily funded by local governments, which can lead to significant variation in the cost and quality of services. Local autonomy may play a crucial role in giving local governments the flexibility to create and fund EMS. However, states can limit local autonomy or impose restrictions on local taxation that impede this flexibility.

EMS are not typically classified as "essential services", and they are often severely underfunded. In many states, EMS are not considered essential services at all. This means that state governments, which often hold significant regulatory power over EMS, may struggle to enforce compliance with their EMS regulations due to limited funding.

The funding sources for EMS are diverse and vary across different states and localities. While EMS are primarily funded at the local level, some funding also comes from state and federal sources. At the local level, EMS are funded through local taxes, user fees, grants/donations, and contracts. States provide limited funding through general or dedicated funds, and there are also federal grants available from agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The local government's autonomy to establish and fund EMS agencies can vary across states. Four out of five states analysed in a study by the CDC (Alabama, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Ohio) granted statewide local government autonomy. This means that all local governments in these states can enact ordinances to regulate EMS. However, it is important to note that the laws analysed in this study may not represent the entirety of state laws addressing local government autonomy.

Local EMS systems can differ greatly, and the management, organisation, and delivery of EMS vary across states and localities. EMS systems may be run by public health departments, county health service agencies, or other government entities, often with collaboration across multiple sectors. Some states have governing bodies, such as EMS advisory committees or commissions, that provide oversight. Most states also require oversight from a designated medical director.

In conclusion, local government autonomy plays a crucial role in the funding and creation of EMS, which are often underfunded and not classified as essential services. The diversity of funding sources and the variation in local EMS systems highlight the importance of understanding the legal authority of local governments to self-govern and establish EMS agencies to improve health disparities in access to pre-hospital care.

Frequently asked questions