WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 219

Summary — HB 219 (Counties/Franchise Ambulance Service) — North Carolina (2025)

Note: This summary is based on the House Bill 219 text and committee substitute (2025 session) titled “Counties/Franchise Ambulance Service.” There are multiple drafts; the committee substitute broadened some provisions. This summary focuses on the operative provisions in the committee substitute version.

Purpose / Intent

The bill seeks to remove statutory authority for counties (and, in the committee substitute, for cities and counties) to franchise or operate ambulance services and to limit the ability of county officials to be required to approve changes in the “level of care” provided by private EMS providers that are not city- or county-owned.

Key provisions

  • Repeal of franchise authority:

    • Repeals G.S. 153A-250 (the statutory authorization for counties to franchise ambulance services).
    • Under the committee substitute, the repeal is framed to remove the authority for counties and cities to franchise or operate ambulance services going forward.
    • New limitations on renewals: a city or county with an existing franchise/contract in effect on the bill’s effective date shall not renew that agreement (applies to agreements initiated or renewed on or after enactment).

  • Limits on local approval of level-of-care changes:

    • Adds a new section (proposed §153A‑251) providing that a county manager or EMS administrator acting on behalf of the county is not required to sign or otherwise approve a modification (increase or decrease) in the level of care provided by a provider within the county’s emergency management system.
    • Exception: the provision does not apply when the EMS provider is a city located within the county or the county itself (i.e., city- or county‑owned/operated providers remain under local control).

  • Effective timing:

    • The act is effective upon becoming law.
    • Section removing renewals applies to franchise agreements or contracts initiated or renewed on or after the effective date.
    • The restriction on required approvals for level-of-care modifications applies to modifications occurring on or after the effective date.

Who is affected

  • Counties and cities (local governments) that franchise, operate, or contract for ambulance services.
  • Private and nonprofit EMS providers operating under existing or future franchise/contract arrangements.
  • County managers, EMS administrators and the local emergency management systems that coordinate EMS levels of care.
  • Residents relying on local emergency medical services (potentially affected by changes in provider arrangements or levels of care).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Local control and oversight: The bill reduces one form of local regulatory authority over ambulance franchising and limits a county’s ability to require local approval for changes in provider scope/level of care, shifting decision-making away from county executives.
  • Market and contracting effects: Prohibiting renewal of franchise agreements and restricting local approvals could create uncertainty for existing franchisees and for counties planning future procurement or service restructures.
  • EMS system coordination and patient care: Restricting county approval of level-of-care changes may complicate local EMS system planning, medical oversight, interoperability and may affect response capacity or standards if providers change scope without county sign‑off.
  • Legal and regulatory interplay: The bill interacts with other state statutes and EMS regulatory frameworks (state EMS oversight, medical protocols). Localities and providers may need to clarify which state or professional approvals remain required.
  • Fiscal/administrative: Effects will vary by county — potentially lower administrative burdens in some areas but transitional costs, contract terminations or market disruption in others.

Procedural status (selected)

  • Introduced and assigned in the 2025 session (sponsor: Rep. Pless).
  • Committee substitute reported favorable (4/9/2025) in the House.
  • Effective date provisions tied to enactment; section-by-section applicability described above.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison of the original and committee‑substitute text.
- Identify specific localities or current franchise contracts that would be directly affected.
- Draft talking points or an impact checklist for county EMS administrators.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.