When someone dials 911 in a life-threatening emergency, there is no moment of choice. No comparison of networks. No review of benefits. No open-enrollment decision tree. There is only a call for help, and a statutory obligation on the part of a locality to respond. Emergency medical services exist precisely because emergencies do not wait for consent, contracts or convenience. The system is designed to show up every time, for everyone.
| MORE: Ground Ambulance Billing Reform: A Roadmap for Congress
Local governments do not provide or contract EMS as a market option. They provide it as a public duty. Readiness is planned around coverage, response times, staffing, training, fleet, clinical governance, and surge capacity not insurance products. A locality cannot tailor its ambulance deployment to the hundreds of plans offered by an array of carriers, nor should it try. The expectation is simple and absolute: when someone is in crisis, help arrives.
That is why the concept of being “in plan” collapses the moment a 911 call is placed. There is no plan to choose from, because choice is not part of emergency response. The plan, in effect, is that there is no plan — only a guaranteed public service that functions regardless of who you are, where you live or what card happens to be in your wallet.
And yet this is where the contradiction emerges.
A patient experiencing a cardiac arrest, stroke, traumatic injury or respiratory failure receives lifesaving care from a system legally required to act. The patient survives. Only later does a second reality arrive: the insurance company may decline responsibility because the service was not “in network.” A network that never existed. A plan that could never have been selected.
This is not a failure of EMS. It is not a failure of local government. It is the failure of an insurance construct being retroactively applied to a moment where it has no relevance. Consumer-choice rules are imposed after the fact on a situation where choice was impossible at the outset.
Insurance was never intended to function this way. Its purpose is to protect individuals from financial catastrophe arising from unpredictable events. Emergencies are the definition of unpredictable. Yet time and again, insurers acknowledge that care was medically necessary, acknowledge that an emergency occurred — and still shift financial responsibility toward the patient because the response did not align with a pre-existing network agreement.
That is not cost control. It is abandonment.
Universal, unconditional care
Here is the distinction that matters. On the front end, the plan is response: universal, unconditional and immediate. On the back end, the plan must be protection: protection of the patient from financial harm created by a system they had no ability to navigate in the moment of crisis.
There is a real cost to readiness. Ambulances do not appear out of thin air. Crews are paid to wait, to train, to be available long before the call comes in. There is a cost for the time spent ready, a cost for the response itself and a cost for the clinical care delivered. That cost must be covered. And that responsibility sits squarely with insurers — and with government payers — not with patients who had no agency in how or by whom they were treated.
This is why recent state-level balance-billing protections are not only welcome, they are essential. By removing the patient from the middle of a payment dispute and directing payment responsibility to the insurer, these laws restore the proper relationship. EMS responds. The insurer pays. Any disagreement about rates or reimbursement occurs between provider and payer — not on the backs of patients and families already dealing with trauma.
This is what serving and protecting the patient actually looks like. EMS serves by responding without hesitation or discrimination. Insurers protect by absorbing the financial risk they were created to manage. When those roles are honored, the patient is spared the stress, confusion and pressure of a bill that never should have been theirs to begin with.
You cannot demand universal emergency response and then deny universal financial responsibility. You cannot require readiness 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and then pretend that the absence of a network contract absolves insurers of obligation. Emergencies do not operate within plans. They never have. They never will.
“ The plan, on the front end, is simple: we respond. The plan, on the back end, must be just as clear: we protect. ”
And until payment systems fully reflect that truth, we will continue to ask patients to shoulder the consequences of a plan that never existed — in a moment where there was never any choice at all.
| MORE: Insider analysis: The hidden impact of New York’s balance billing law on EMS costs
