Wisconsin Senate Bill SB183

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/14/25
• Refer: 4/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/5/25

Caption

Reimbursement of emergency services under the Medical Assistance program when a patient is not transported, reporting on changes to the scope of practice of emergency medical responders and emergency medical services practitioners, and eligibility for the expenditure restraint incentive program. (FE)

Impact

The legislation aims to alleviate financial burdens on emergency medical services (EMS) practitioners who often face financial disparities due to the current reimbursement framework. By adjusting the reimbursement rates, Senate Bill 183 is expected to improve service sustainability and encourage high-quality emergency responses in Wisconsin. Moreover, it mandates an annual reporting requirement for the Emergency Medical Services Board in concert with the Department of Health Services to monitor and evaluate changes in the scope of practice for various emergency responders, keeping the legislature informed.

Summary

Senate Bill 183 focuses on updating the reimbursement rates for non-transport ambulance services under Wisconsin's Medical Assistance program. Specifically, the bill proposes to raise the maximum allowable reimbursement for ambulance response and treatment without transport to align with the rates for basic life support emergency transport services, thereby ensuring better financial support for emergency services providers. The adjustments are set to take effect beginning January 1, 2027, allowing stakeholders time to prepare for the new reimbursement structure.

Contention

Discussions surrounding the bill may involve concern over its financial implications for local municipalities, particularly regarding their budgetary capabilities to manage increased reimbursements without affecting operational funding for other services. The bill proposes changes to the unnecessary consideration of certain expenditures in determining the eligibility for expenditure restraint incentive program payments, which could be contentious among fiscal conservatives who prioritize strict budget limits. This aspect highlights the ongoing debate between the need for adequate funding for public safety services versus fiscal responsibility and local government control.