logo
Oklahoma lawmakers to consider reducing ambulance reimbursement rates

Oklahoma lawmakers to consider reducing ambulance reimbursement rates

Yahoo14-04-2025

Robin Robinson, director of McClain-Grady County EMS, demonstrates removing a gurney from an ambulance outside the Oklahoma Capitol on Monday. (Photo by Emma Murphy/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — A bill set to be considered Tuesday could force rural emergency service providers to shut down by reducing a needed source of funding, a leader of the state's Ambulance Association said Monday.
But a Senate lawmaker said the proposed reimbursement rate cut to Oklahoma's ambulance providers could save Oklahomans on their health insurance plan costs.
Senate Bill 1067, which is scheduled to be heard in the House Rules Committee, would authorize local government entities or ambulance service providers to submit ambulance service rates to the Oklahoma Insurance Department to create a public database. It would also cut the minimum amount that out-of-network ambulance providers can be reimbursed.
Robin Robinson, vice president of the Oklahoma Ambulance Association and director of McClain-Grady County EMS, said she was at the Oklahoma Capitol Monday to encourage lawmakers to vote 'no' on the bill.
She said it strips local control from municipalities and county governments and would limit the amount her agency collects. She said it comes just months after a state law took effect that allowed ambulance providers to charge more. Robinson said if the new bill became law, the financial difference could equate to the salary of a full time paramedic.
'With the bill that was passed last year, I was hoping that we could add another paramedic to staff full time,' she said. 'My call volume is increasing, and that's not going to change, but the money to be able to staff isn't there. And so if this bill passes, I'm not going to be able to add that full time, permanent position.'
The average salary for a paramedic in Oklahoma is $48,640, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Robinson said salaries vary around the state depending on location and demand.
Instead of letting local governments set reimbursement rates based on what's needed to keep EMS providers in business, the bill creates a 'cap all the way across the board,' Robinson said.
'If I can't staff the extra ambulances during the times that I need, we have to call in mutual aid ambulances, and that's going to be anywhere from 15, 20, 25 minutes to get there,' she said. 'This could hurt Oklahomans. You know, we have ambulance services that are further out than I am, more rural. It could hurt them worse, they may have to shut down.'
Rep. Preston Stinson, R-Edmond, the House author, was not available for comment Monday.
But Sen. Paul Rosino, R-Oklahoma City, the Senate author of the bill, said the new law, which took effect in January, could increase the cost of Oklahomans' health plans by $3 to $5 per month.
He said it does not prevent local governments from setting ambulance service rates and only affects out-of-network providers. He said the measure drops reimbursement rates by 50%, from 325% of the Medicare or Medicaid rate to 275%, to help alleviate strains on health care plan costs
'That's a massive, massive thing on the people of Oklahoma and their health plans,' he said. 'We do know that ambulance people need a bump, so we just dropped it. The insurance people didn't want it to be up more than 150%. Ambulance people, of course, want it to stay at 325% because if it stays the same, they keep getting paid. All I'm saying is, 'Hey, let's drop it 50 percentage points, and then you still get a raise and the people of Oklahoma's health plan doesn't come up.' '
He said the public database would let insurance companies know what local reimbursement rates are set at.
The bill, which has already cleared the state Senate, would be eligible to be heard on the House floor if it passes committee Tuesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing
Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing

On Tuesday, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon tested before the Senate on behalf of Trump's 2026 budget. During this hearing, McMahon and Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy were discussing federal spending for grant programs for disadvantaged students when the pair made a significant mathematical error. The math error occurred when the two spoke on how much the government has spent in the duration of ten years on TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). After McMahon confirmed to Kennedy that the government spends approximately $1.58 billion a year on TRIO and has been funding this program for over ten years, Kennedy said, "So that's over a trillion dollars that we've spent on this program..." "We give this money, as I appreciate it, to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college,' said Kennedy before he went on to imply that colleges have been stealing this grant money from the government for their own purposes, The New Republic reported. McMahon failed to catch and correct Kennedy's math error, however, Sen. John Reed spoke up and corrected the counting mistake. 'I'm not a great mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion dollars? I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion, and that's a little bit off from a trillion dollars,' said Reed. McMahon said in response that the budget cuts $1.2 billion, to which Reed then replied, "Well that would be $12 billion, not a trillion dollars." Presley Bo Tyler is a reporter for the Louisiana Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Find her on X @PresleyTyler02 and email at PTyler@ This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Sen. John Kennedy math error. What he said education costs

Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law
Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law

RALEIGH, N.C.(WNCN) — Before heading into the weekend, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein put his support behind six bills. House Bill 506 creates the North Carolina Investment Authority, which is tasked with overseeing state investments, taking some responsibility away from the state treasurer. The authority would be responsible for managing investments for retirement systems and the General Fund. 'We're changing the degrees that we're headed by a slight amount, but it will have profound differences for our state over long periods of time,' said State Treasurer Brad Briner. 'If we can deliver 1% more, we will able we will be able to deliver $2 billion a year more to our state budget, and that is why we're doing this.' The governor also signed Senate Bill 231, which is designed to lower barriers for social workers to practice in or out of the state. North Carolina now joins an agreement with 29 other states allowing licensed social workers to practice in any state included in the agreement. Social workers say that Hurricane Helene showed the need for change after the storm displaced patients out of state. 'Licensed clinical social workers couldn't legally continue therapy with their clients unless they were licensed in each of those states, disrupting care at a time when it was most needed,' said Valerie Arendt, executive director for the National Association of Social Workers NC. 'The compact helps ensure continuity of care no matter where life takes rural residents.' House Bill 50, also signed by the governor, aims to retain some of the state's most experienced law enforcement officers. Before this new law, after 30 years of service, an officer had the choice to retire or stay on the job and lose out on retirement fund dollars. The new law gives officers more options to stay on the job. 'If we make it hard to retain our most experienced law enforcement officers, we're doing ourselves a grave disservice,' said Stein. 'If we want to keep the best, we have to support them, and that's exactly what this legislation does.' Most notably the governor did not sign or address three controversial bills on this desk. Two are related to cracking down on illegal immigration, and the third would allow concealed carry without a permit for adults over 18. Governor Stein also signed the following bills into law: House Bill 477: Retirement Death Benefits Rewrite Senate Bill 248: Birth Certificates for Persons Adopted Senate Bill 477: DNCR Agency Bill Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy
Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy

Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground. 'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.' Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, 'Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.' Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference. What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla? What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem's security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it's safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way. This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn't identify himself at the briefing, even though, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla' were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared. What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch? Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident. Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they're complying with laws that Congress has passed. As a Senate member from California, it's perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations. This is completely in line with Congress' oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents. Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution's speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress' oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here. Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he's focused on. But it's not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy. What other factors led to this moment? Something I've written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that 'we don't just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.' This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle. More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right. We have seen violence during Trump's campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump's encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump's subsequent pardons of those rioters. Does Padilla's removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically? We can't ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn't create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there's no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics. For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are 'sick' or 'nasty,' that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn't have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago. All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla. What will you be watching for as this situation plays out? My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for 'ambition to counteract ambition,' as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn't get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction. As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it's given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive. As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government. Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla's treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she's pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charlie Hunt, Boise State University Read more: Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store