EMS emergency widens despite millions invested in 2024
Minnesota's EMS emergency has not been resolved and directors are urgently asking the legislature for more money.
They declared an emergency last year and said it would take $120 million to fix, but only received $30 million.
This time around, they're asking for $50 million per year, plus continuing workforce investments, and an adjustment to Medicare-Medicaid reimbursements.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - Lawmakers are getting urgent requests for money to keep Minnesota's EMS system from folding, just a year after getting $30 million to address the issue.
Costly to prepare
The paramedics at Perham EMS cover 400 square miles of Otter Tail County.
It's mostly rural and lake country, so it's not especially busy, but the equipment and personnel always need to be ready to go, which can be costly.
"Because of the large areas we are responsible for, we can't just run fewer trucks or scale back service," said Perham Area EMS director Becca Huebsch. "Because when someone calls 911, they need immediate expert care."
What got funded
Rural emergency medical services announced their own emergency last year and said they needed $120 million to fix it and keep ambulances running in Greater Minnesota.
They got about $30 million.
Perham EMS used its portion to retrofit an old ambulance so it could stay in service. They also worked on a rapid response pilot project to help fill staffing gaps.
But they still need a lot more help.
"These rural services are so underwater that even the little bit of aid they get didn't make a dent," said Sen. Grant Hauschild, (DFL-Hermantown).
New funding request
Instead of asking for the $90 million EMS directors didn't get last year, they're now asking for $50 million every year.
They want the workforce investment to continue, and they want to the state to fix as much of the Medicare-Medicaid reimbursement as they can.
Right now, they only get reimbursed if they drop off a patient at the E.R.
And they say any changes at the federal level could make the situation even worse.
"If there are cuts to the Medicare or Medicaid programs, even by a percentage or two, it's devastating to our ambulance services," said Michael Juntunen, president of the Minnesota Ambulance Association.
What's next
Fitting $50 million into a shrinking budget will be tough, but legislators from both parties are working on this and hoping they can find some room.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Drug Prices for Some Big Medicines Will Remain High for a Longer Time
Thousands of Medicare recipients will have to wait longer to get some price relief on the expensive cancer drugs they depend on for treatment, while others might not get any reprieve at all. Two little-known provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump in July will delay Medicare price negotiations for some of the biggest-selling drugs in the world, including Merck's Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer and had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. Other drugs, such as Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex, will be excluded entirely.
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Care about babies and moms? This Big Beautiful Bill cut should scare you
An unseen provision in the recent congressional overhaul of Medicaid will bankrupt poor families with sick newborns — and raise costs for us all. Hidden within the 940 pages of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a reduction in Medicaid's ability to pay for care retroactively (care that has already been delivered) from 90 to 60 days. Shortening this window of payment targets parents of newborns, and will burden families with thousands of dollars of medical debt. Neonatologists and pediatricians care for critically-ill babies, including those with prematurity or congenital heart or intestinal defects. Many of the premature infants we care for have missed an entire trimester of development. Weighing 1 to 2 pounds at birth, they must overcome underdeveloped lungs, brains and immune systems. Their complex and expensive care begins in the first seconds of life. There is no time to apply for Medicaid. The previous 90-day retroactive period accounted for the practical aspects of applying for health insurance while being a new mother. Parents face obstacles negotiating the Medicaid system, especially in the context of a traumatic birth. A new mom recovering from a complicated delivery or cesarean section, and dealing with postpartum complications while trying to learn how to care for a newborn is not well positioned to immediately submit a Medicaid application. Additionally, it takes states — which control Medicaid enrollment — time to confirm parental income, residency and other requirements to qualify for Medicaid. The process can be cumbersome and is prone to backlogs. Nationally, roughly 15% of Medicaid applications are excessively delayed, meaning even if superhuman mothers applied the day their infant was born, many would be forced to pay for the first two weeks of neonatal intensive care, which costs $10,000 to $20,000 a day — too expensive for all of us. Ironically, this measure comes at a time when the White House is actively trying to increase the U.S. birth rate through baby-friendly policies such as one-time cash incentives of $5,000 per baby and federally subsidized fertility education. The problem is significant. Medicaid remains the largest single insurer of children, and pays for 40% of all newborns. Critically ill babies are overrepresented in Medicaid, as almost half rely on the program for coverage. Now, parents will receive astronomical medical bills when in the past Medicaid covered babies from their birthday. Parents of healthy newborns will be affected too. A healthy newborn spends 2 to 4 days in the hospital and typically has three or more outpatient visits in the first month of life. All these medical services risk being unpaid under the shorter retroactive period. Our fellow pediatricians are already worried the newborn care they provide will be unpaid, and they will have to limit the number of babies they see. The consequences will impact us all. Children's hospitals are tied to Medicaid payments, as the overwhelming majority of hospital care is paid for by Medicaid. This means children's hospitals run on incredibly small margins and will not be able to absorb the expected millions in uncompensated care that will result from this policy. The inevitable consequence will be reduced newborn services, especially in rural and underserved regions. The policy's defenders argue that shortening this period of coverage would reduce state costs and improve efficiency. But this ignores other reforms placed on state Medicaid offices. Not only have states been unable to verify all Medicaid recipients within 60 days, but they now will deal with tens of thousands of re-applications filed by patients every six months as part of new regulations. The increased bureaucracy requires agencies to verify more information about applicants, such as work requirements and immigration status. Our medical colleagues and even state Medicaid officials are concerned about the ability of these offices to handle the increased workload. Cost savings are similarly illusory. Uncompensated care does not disappear — it shifts. Hospitals forced to bear unpaid bills will inevitably raise costs elsewhere, usually from those of us with private insurance. That forces insurance carriers to raise premiums, copays and costs for things such as lab work or CT scans on all of us. Further, private insurance will likely follow Medicaid's lead in shortening retroactive coverage, which would pass along even more expense. This new Medicaid restriction has not received much attention compared to the massive spending cuts and deficit increases created by the new law. Unnoticed by the public, shortening retroactive coverage will impact neonatal intensive care, newborn health and force all of us to pay more over time. For babies, families and those who care for them, this legislative measure proves the devil really is in the details. Neonatologist Shetal Shah and pediatrician Marsha Spitzer are both past presidents of local chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Military News
a day ago
- American Military News
Video/Pic: Trump demands drug companies lower prices
President Donald Trump sent 17 pharmaceutical companies letters on Thursday and demanded that the companies lower prices for Americans. The president warned that the 'unacceptable burden' of prescription drug prices will 'end' with his administration. During a press briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'The president signed an executive order earlier this year to solve the problem of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing.' 'According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay,' Leavitt added. 'The president is determined to solve this problem and took further action today. He has signed 17 letters to pharmaceutical companies' CEOs.' .@PressSec reads one of the letters sent by @POTUS today to the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies: "Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices…" — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025 Leavitt also shared the letter Trump wrote to the CEO of Eli Lilly and Company. In the letter, Trump warned Eli Lilly and 16 other pharmaceutical companies that the 'unacceptable burden' of brand-name drugs costing 'up to three times higher on average' for Americans than for citizens of other countries 'ends with my administration.' Trump told the pharmaceutical companies, 'Most proposals the Trump administration has received to resolve this critical issue promised more of the same shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry.' The president added, 'Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.' READ MORE: Video: Trump order against 'Big Pharma' aims to reduce drug prices While Trump explained that a collaborative effort to reach 'global pricing parity' would be most effective for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. government, and U.S. patients, he warned that his administration will 'deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families' if pharmaceutical companies refuse to take action. In addition to the letter sent to Eli Lilly and Company, Trump sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. In the letters, Trump gave the companies 60 days to extend 'Most-Favored-Nation' pricing to Medicaid and provide 'full portfolios' of drugs for Medicaid patients, guarantee Most-Favored-Nation pricing for new drugs, negotiate with 'foreign freeloading nations' and return 'increased revenues abroad' to patients in the United States, and allow Americans to directly purchase drugs at Most-Favored-Nation prices. Today, @POTUS sent letters to 17 drug manufacturers outlining steps they must take to bring down prescription drug prices. If they refuse to step up, the Administration will use every tool to protect Americans from continued abusive drug pricing practices. Letter to Eli Lilly: — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025
