The Emergency Medical Services Reimbursement for On‑Scene Care and Support Act amends the Social Security Act to make ambulance services that do not include patient transport payable by Medicare. The change inserts a new subsection into 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(7) so that, beginning January 1, 2027, Medicare will cover qualifying ambulance care provided on scene even when the ambulance does not transport the patient, and requires reimbursement at levels comparable to transported ambulance trips.
This is significant for EMS systems, rural providers, and Medicare beneficiaries: it recognizes non‑transport encounters as billable, potentially supporting treat‑and‑release, community paramedicine, and alternative destination programs. At the same time it raises budget and implementation questions because the bill leaves key definitional and payment‑policy details to Medicare implementation rather than spelling them out in statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subparagraph to 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(7) so ambulance services furnished without transporting the patient are covered by Medicare as of January 1, 2027. It requires payment 'comparable to the transport reimbursement' for those on‑scene services.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Medicare (fee‑for‑service) beneficiaries, ambulance providers and suppliers that deliver on‑scene care without transport, and CMS which must implement payment and coding changes. Indirectly affects hospitals, emergency departments, and state EMS regulatory authorities.
Why It Matters
This creates a statutory hook for reimbursing non‑transport EMS activity that many providers already perform but cannot reliably bill Medicare for today, altering the financial incentives for treat‑and‑release models and for community paramedicine programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a narrow but consequential change to the Medicare definition of 'ambulance service' in the Social Security Act. It inserts a new subparagraph that explicitly includes ambulance services furnished without transporting the individual, and it sets an effective date of January 1, 2027.
The statutory language also directs that reimbursement for those non‑transport services be comparable to the payments Medicare makes when an ambulance transports a beneficiary.
Practically, the amendment removes the statutory barrier that has prevented Medicare from routinely paying for certain on‑scene EMS interventions when paramedics render care and do not convey the patient to a hospital. The text is brief: it does not define which clinical encounters qualify, how 'comparable' reimbursement is calculated, or how billing, coding, and prior‑authorization (if any) will work.
Those operational details will fall to CMS guidance, regulation, and Medicare Claims Processing rules.For providers, the change creates the legal basis to seek Medicare payment for treat‑and‑release encounters, home‑based urgent care visits by EMS clinicians, and field referrals to alternate destinations. For CMS and Medicare administrators, the bill creates new implementation tasks: establish codes or modifiers, set payment rates comparable to transport levels, issue medical necessity criteria, and design audit controls to prevent improper billing.
States retain their existing authority over EMS scope‑of‑practice and licensing, so providers will still need to conform to state rules even once Medicare pays for non‑transport services.Because the bill requires only that reimbursement be 'comparable' rather than identical, CMS will have discretion in constructing rates and bundling rules. That discretion creates room for payment designs that either roughly mirror the existing ambulance fee schedule or carve out narrower payments tied to specific on‑scene interventions.
The real‑world impact will depend on how CMS defines covered non‑transport encounters, what documentation it requires, and whether payment levels make providing on‑scene care financially sustainable for small and rural EMS agencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(7) to add a new subparagraph (B) expressly covering ambulance services furnished without patient transport.
Coverage and payment for qualifying on‑scene, non‑transport ambulance services take effect January 1, 2027.
Medicare must reimburse on‑scene non‑transport ambulance services 'at a reimbursement comparable to the transport reimbursement'—the statute uses 'comparable' rather than a specific percentage or fee.
The change applies to services furnished 'by a provider or supplier of ambulance services regardless of whether the provider or supplier provides the transport'—so a billing entity need not be the transporting party.
The statutory text is brief and leaves key elements—eligibility criteria, coding, documentation, and exact payment methodology—to CMS implementation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the 'Emergency Medical Services Reimbursement for On‑Scene Care and Support Act.' This is purely titular but signals Congress's intent to focus on on‑scene EMS reimbursement and support models that avoid unnecessary transport.
Add coverage for non‑transport ambulance services
This is the operative provision. It adds subparagraph (B) to the statutory definition of 'ambulance service' so that, as of January 1, 2027, ambulance care furnished on scene without transporting the patient is a covered Medicare service. The language expressly covers services provided by ambulance providers or suppliers even if they are not the ones who would have transported the patient. Importantly, it instructs payment at a level 'comparable to the transport reimbursement,' creating a statutory payment objective but not specifying mechanics (e.g., fee schedule codes, modifiers, or payment percentages).
CMS rulemaking, coding, and payment decisions
Although not a formal section of the bill text, the amendment's brevity transfers substantial discretion to HHS/CMS to implement coverage and payment. CMS will need to decide which on‑scene encounters meet medical‑necessity standards, how to document and audit claims, whether to create new HCPCS codes or modifiers, and how to align 'comparable' reimbursement with existing ambulance fee schedules. Because these choices determine provider economics and compliance risk, they are the practical pivot point of the statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Medicare beneficiaries who receive effective on‑scene care: Beneficiaries who are treated and released or referred to outpatient alternatives will gain insured coverage for that EMS encounter, reducing out‑of‑pocket costs tied to ambulance care that previously lacked a billing pathway.
- Ambulance providers and community paramedicine programs: EMS agencies that provide treat‑and‑release, mobile integrated health, or alternative‑destination services gain a statutory basis to bill Medicare, supporting revenue for non‑transport care models.
- Rural and small EMS services: Providers in rural areas that face high transport costs and long distances may find on‑scene reimbursement makes community‑based responses more sustainable and reduces unnecessary long ambulance runs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medicare Trust Funds and taxpayers: Expanding coverage increases Medicare spending exposure unless CMS offsets payments through rate design or offsets elsewhere in the fee schedule.
- CMS and Medicare administrative operations: CMS will need to develop rules, payment systems, coding, and audit protocols, creating administrative costs and compliance burdens during rollout.
- Hospitals and emergency departments: Facilities may see lower ambulance transports (and associated revenue tied to admission or ED throughput) while still receiving some downstream care costs, shifting where costs land in the system.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—improving access to on‑scene, non‑hospital care and controlling Medicare spending—by creating a statutory path for payment while leaving the payment level and eligibility undefined; the central dilemma is whether to pay enough to sustain EMS alternatives to transport without creating perverse incentives or unsustainable cost growth for Medicare.
The bill solves a specific legal obstacle—statutory exclusion of non‑transport ambulance encounters—but leaves crucial operational choices unspecified. The phrase 'comparable to the transport reimbursement' sets an objective but not a metric: CMS can interpret comparable narrowly (e.g., a reduced flat fee) or broadly (payments closely aligned with transport level, including mileage and level of service).
That interpretive flexibility affects provider behavior: generous rates could encourage appropriate field care and diversion from EDs, while tight rates could leave providers financially worse off when they avoid transports.
The amendment also creates potential moral hazard and audit risk. Expanding billable events to include non‑transport encounters may encourage upcoding or inappropriate classification of dispatch outcomes if CMS does not adopt clear clinical criteria and documentation standards.
State EMS scope‑of‑practice differences complicate implementation: a non‑transport model that works in one state may be illegal or require different supervision in another. Finally, the bill does not address interaction with private insurers or Medicare Advantage plans, which have their own contractual rules and may or may not align their payments, creating uneven incentives across payers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.