Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Legal
      • Operations
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Compensation Reports
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • By the Numbers
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • mTBI Resource Center
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • Issue Archives
  • Archives
    • Brief19
    • Coding Wizard
    • Images in EM
    • Care Team
    • Quality & Safety
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Opinion: Paramedicine Diversion Programs Pose Patient–Safety Risks

By Thomas J. Sugarman, MD, FACEP | on June 15, 2015 | 1 Comment
Features Opinion
Share:  Print-Friendly Version
Opinion: Mobile Integrated Health Care Practice Can Bridge Gaps in System

Lastly, when comparing the cost of care between EDs and clinics, the comparison must be apples to apples. ED costs generally are bundled per visit (facility, doctor, lab, radiology), but clinic costs usually do not include ancillary testing or consultations, nor do cost-saving estimates include the cost of the CP service or the second visit for those patients referred from alternative destinations to the ED.

You Might Also Like
  • Opinion: Mobile Integrated Health Care Practice Can Bridge Gaps in System
  • Opinion: Encourage Expansion of Medicaid Programs to Help Save Rural Hospitals
  • Ambulance Lights and Sirens Should Only Be Used When the Benefit Outweighs the Risks
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 34 – No 06 – June 2015

Recognizing the patient risks of CP programs, the ACEP Board of Directors wisely included this final bullet in the October 2014 ACEP CP policy:

“Assurances that if a person calls 911 (or similar emergency number) for a patient’s apparent emergency medical condition or medical emergency and requests an ambulance, the patient has a right to a medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment by a qualified medical person in accordance with EMTALA. For the purposes of an EMTALA-mandated medical screening exam, paramedics and community paramedics are not believed to be qualified medical persons.”3


Dr. SugarmanDr. Sugarman is chairman of emergency services at Sutter Delta Medical Center in Antioch, California.

References

  1. Morganti KC, Alpert A, Margolis G, et al. Should payment policy be changed to allow a wider range of EMS transport options? Ann Emerg Med. 2014;63:615-626.
  2. Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development, Community Paramedicine Pilot Project, HWPP #173, Addendum #1. Revised June 6, 2014. Accessed April 23, 2015.
  3. ACEP Clinical Policy. Medical direction of mobile integrated healthcare and community paramedicine programs. Accessed April 23, 2015.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: Critical CareEmergency DepartmentEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency Medical TechnicianEmergency MedicineEMSEMTParamedicinePatient SafetyPractice TrendsTrauma and Injury

Related

  • Phenylephrine and Epinephrine Push-Dose Vasopressors

    February 10, 2026 - 0 Comment
  • The Historic Freedom House and the Roots of Modern EMS Systems

    February 3, 2026 - 0 Comment
  • Top Five Articles of 2025 JACEP Open

    December 10, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: February 2026 (Digital)

Read More

One Response to “Opinion: Paramedicine Diversion Programs Pose Patient–Safety Risks”

  1. June 28, 2015

    David Persse, MD FACEP Reply

    Tom,

    Great to see you in print! I liked your article, and I agree with much of what you said. I also liked Melissa Costello’s counterpoint, and in fact think you are both correct. “Community Paramedicine” is a poorly defined term in my opinion. Its implementation is as varied as the imagination. As it turns out, here in Houston my system has recently (Dec 2014) launched a hybrid version we call Emergency TeleHealth And Navigation (aka ETHAN) for an emergency physician based EMS diversion program. Google “ETHAN EMS Houston” if you are interested. To date we have triaged over 1300 patients with 80% not being transported by ambulance to hospital. About 40% go by cab to a hospital, but the rest are mostly referred to a project member local clinic or given home health instruction.

    Anyway, good to read your thoughts.

    An old friend,

    Dave

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*



Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603