Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

RE: Another Interesting Bill

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 11

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue. What

we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the best

way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas and

delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally off

the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus would

not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid program

thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national requirements.

The medics completing the program are very competent and have done very well in

the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply themselves. Also

the competition for a class seat is very high.

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

Joanna

Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

Dave,

The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

GG

Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue. What

we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the best

way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas and

delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally off

the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus would

not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid program

thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national requirements.

The medics completing the program are very competent and have done very well in

the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply themselves. Also

the competition for a class seat is very high.

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

Joanna

Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

Dave,

The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

GG

Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

I like to side with the Patient who needs a quality Provider St the time in

their life when they need it the most.

Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET

FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI

Training Program Manager

Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.

Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.

Please excuse any typos.

(Cell)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

LNMolino@...

Lou@...

> I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue.

What we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the

best way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas

and delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally

off the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus

would not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid

program thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national

requirements. The medics completing the program are very competent and have done

very well in the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply

themselves. Also the competition for a class seat is very high.

>

> I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without

the politics

>

> Joanna

>

>

>

> Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

> On Mar 8, 2011 11:40 AM, wegandy1938@...

wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

>

>

> The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

>

>

>

> GG

>

>

>

> Another interesting bill

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

>

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

>

> > > until 2018.

>

> > >

>

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>

> > > legislation regardless.

>

> > >

>

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

>

> > >

>

> > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

I like to side with the Patient who needs a quality Provider St the time in

their life when they need it the most.

Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET

FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI

Training Program Manager

Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.

Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.

Please excuse any typos.

(Cell)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

LNMolino@...

Lou@...

> I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue.

What we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the

best way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas

and delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally

off the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus

would not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid

program thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national

requirements. The medics completing the program are very competent and have done

very well in the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply

themselves. Also the competition for a class seat is very high.

>

> I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without

the politics

>

> Joanna

>

>

>

> Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

> On Mar 8, 2011 11:40 AM, wegandy1938@...

wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

>

>

> The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

>

>

>

> GG

>

>

>

> Another interesting bill

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

>

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

>

> > > until 2018.

>

> > >

>

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>

> > > legislation regardless.

>

> > >

>

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

>

> > >

>

> > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I agree the patient needs the best provider available, but we all know of great

programs that have graduated outstanding students who are lousy providers. It

still comes down to the emt/medic being dedicated to their profession and

providing the best care for the patient, regardless of the situation

Joanna

Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

I like to side with the Patient who needs a quality Provider St the time in

their life when they need it the most.

Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET

FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI

Training Program Manager

Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.

Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.

Please excuse any typos.

(Cell)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

LNMolino@...

Lou@...

> I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue.

What we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the

best way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas

and delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally

off the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus

would not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid

program thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national

requirements. The medics completing the program are very competent and have done

very well in the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply

themselves. Also the competition for a class seat is very high.

>

> I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without

the politics

>

> Joanna

>

>

>

> Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

> On Mar 8, 2011 11:40 AM, wegandy1938@...

& lt;wegandy1938@... & gt; wrote:

>

>

> & nbsp;

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

>

>

> The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

>

>

>

> GG

>

>

>

> Another interesting bill

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of

Representatives. This bill

>

> & gt; & gt; will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation

requirement in Texas

>

> & gt; & gt; until 2018.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to

read the

>

> & gt; & gt; legislation regardless.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; -Wes Ogilvie

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I agree the patient needs the best provider available, but we all know of great

programs that have graduated outstanding students who are lousy providers. It

still comes down to the emt/medic being dedicated to their profession and

providing the best care for the patient, regardless of the situation

Joanna

Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

I like to side with the Patient who needs a quality Provider St the time in

their life when they need it the most.

Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET

FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI

Training Program Manager

Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.

Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.

Please excuse any typos.

(Cell)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

LNMolino@...

Lou@...

> I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue.

What we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the

best way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas

and delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally

off the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus

would not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid

program thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national

requirements. The medics completing the program are very competent and have done

very well in the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply

themselves. Also the competition for a class seat is very high.

>

> I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without

the politics

>

> Joanna

>

>

>

> Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

> On Mar 8, 2011 11:40 AM, wegandy1938@...

& lt;wegandy1938@... & gt; wrote:

>

>

> & nbsp;

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

>

>

> The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

>

>

>

> GG

>

>

>

> Another interesting bill

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of

Representatives. This bill

>

> & gt; & gt; will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation

requirement in Texas

>

> & gt; & gt; until 2018.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to

read the

>

> & gt; & gt; legislation regardless.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; -Wes Ogilvie

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I agree the patient needs the best provider available, but we all know of great

programs that have graduated outstanding students who are lousy providers. It

still comes down to the emt/medic being dedicated to their profession and

providing the best care for the patient, regardless of the situation

Joanna

Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without the

politics

I like to side with the Patient who needs a quality Provider St the time in

their life when they need it the most.

Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET

FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI

Training Program Manager

Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.

Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.

Please excuse any typos.

(Cell)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

LNMolino@...

Lou@...

> I have been following all the comments and can see both sides of the issue.

What we need to focus on is providing the best education for each student the

best way possible at a reasonable cost and easy access. Having living in texas

and delivering classes to outlying areas, the student sometimes came literally

off the ranch/field. Requiring these students to attend a class on a campus

would not have worked. I live in arizona now and have been part of a hybrid

program thst is very successful and the standards are higher than national

requirements. The medics completing the program are very competent and have done

very well in the prehospital environment. Of course each student must apply

themselves. Also the competition for a class seat is very high.

>

> I guess I side with the student who needs a good, quality education without

the politics

>

> Joanna

>

>

>

> Sent from my Palm Pixi on the Now Network from Sprint

> On Mar 8, 2011 11:40 AM, wegandy1938@...

& lt;wegandy1938@... & gt; wrote:

>

>

> & nbsp;

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

>

>

> The answer is that students from the rural and frontier areas that are

underserved or not served by colleges will not get those students because they

will not travel to the college to enroll. Either one takes the program to the

students or they will not progress. This is where distance learning comes in.

>

>

>

> GG

>

>

>

> Another interesting bill

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of

Representatives. This bill

>

> & gt; & gt; will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation

requirement in Texas

>

> & gt; & gt; until 2018.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to

read the

>

> & gt; & gt; legislation regardless.

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt; -Wes Ogilvie

>

> & gt; & gt;

>

> & gt; & gt;

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

medic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

for national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

opinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more

or less. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal

with protection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

medic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

for national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

opinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more

or less. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal

with protection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Alan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

up at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

will be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: ajl442@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

medic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

for national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

opinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

less. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

protection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Alan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

up at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

will be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: ajl442@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

medic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

for national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

opinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

less. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

protection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I will be happy to fill in on this one. Way back in 2008 or so, in accordance

with the EMS Education Agenda for the Future (developed off of the EMS Agenda

for the Future both of which are available on the NHTSA website and make very

interesting reading), in cooperation with the National Association of State EMS

Officials, the National Registry of EMT's (NR) stated that after January 1,

2013, anyone seeking National Registry must have graduated from a Nationally

Accredited Paramedic Education Program. This is the latest step in implementing

the Agenda for the Future and other steps include new National Education

Standards and a National Scope of Practice and developing nationally standard

names for the certification levels (like EMT-I becoming EMT-Advanced, etc).

In Texas, there was some cursory discussions about this and the GETAC Education

sub-committee got busy in making sure their programs were moving towards

accreditation and then doing yeoman work in getting information distributed to

many programs across the state. Then, as is common in our field, we had a

" re-freak " moment as many in the state started realizing that 2013 was only 3

years or so away and that there was a huge potential that many programs

currently teaching paramedic, many of them in rather rural or even frontier

areas, would not be able to become accredited either because of a lack of

resources or because of their business structure. Discussion was begun and the

GETAC Stakeholder process was kicked into gear at the November GETAC meeting

where a task force was initiated with 2 charges from the GETAC Board: 1. Is

accreditation of paramedic education programs something that Texas should do?

Yes or No. And 2. IF YES, then on what time line. This group is getting ready

to begin meeting on these two charges very shortly.

Then, in January, the legislative session started. Since Texas only has a

legislative session once every two years, the next legislative session will be

after the accreditation deadline. At the November GETAC meeting, there was a

gentleman from Ohio that explained that Ohio had sought and obtained an

extension on the 2013 deadline until 2018. In Ohio after 2013, those who

graduate from a non-accredited paramedic program will be allowed to take the NR

assessment exam, but will NOT become nationally registered, only Ohio certified

(which evidently they work similar to the way we do in Texas)...and Ohio is

making a rule that students have to be informed of this by any program after

2013. So, since the stakeholder process wasn't moving forward yet and a lot of

folks are very concerned about the impact of the accreditation on the rural and

frontier areas, worked to get a delay in making it mandatory for all programs.

That is where this legislation came from and in response to some concerns that

NR might not give Texas an extension, the second paragraph of the legislation

basically says that if NR doesn't play, Texas will seek another vendor for

testing at no cost to DSHS to avoid DSHS having an unfunded mandate to develop

their own test (which they are not equipped or prepared to do and will not be

after this budget finally gets done).

To the comments about legislation addressing something that isn't in rule, rules

come from legislation that give state departments the authority to write a rule.

DSHS cannot just write a rule if they have not been given the authorization to

regulate that specific area. DSHS doesn't have a rule regarding

accreditation...only one dictating having National Registry to get your Texas

Certification.

So, I happen to think that accreditation is a good thing for our industry as a

whole. I do, however have significant concern that this process, if not

properly handled, could create even more difficulty for many areas of our state

if plans are not in place prior to a mandate to have accredited programs, of how

these areas will continue to graduate paramedics to care for citizens, and most

of these areas are served by volunteer organizations and depend upon neighbors

helping neighbors.

Another point, the original requirement of the NR was that all paramedic

programs had to be accredited by January 1, 2013...now the requirement is

" pursuing " accreditation (or having your self-study and fees and application

turned in) by January 1, 2013...in my opinion, because the sole organization

doing accreditation of EMS programs is in no way going to be able to get all the

education programs in the country accredited by 2013 (in 2010, they received

applications from like 90 programs and go 20 accredited....so at that pace, they

won't have all the 2010 applicants done by 2013, let alone the 2011 and 2012

applicants). So, if NR, who set this mandate which many states are blindly

following disregarding their own regulatory or stakeholder processes thought

2013 was such a critical date then why did they so easily change that

requirement...and if they can change it without EMS as we know it ceasing to

exist, what is so bad about Texas or Ohio or any other state taking a little bit

more time to make sure as many programs as possible qualify and are included.

Two more things I want to make sure everyone understands:

1. NOTHING in the stakeholder process or this House or Senate Bill STOPS the

accreditation process. Programs who can do it should be doing it. In my

opinion, we will only know where the problems are once everyone who can do it,

gets it done.

2. WE (Texas) have to do this right. The next step in National Registry's plan

(with the oversight of the State EMS Directors) is that ALL EMT's will have to

graduate from a nationally accredited EMT program. If we do not take the time

to figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs

will be horribly detrimental to Texas.

This isn't about not doing it, this is ALL about doing it RIGHT and making sure

the tent is big enough for as many as possible.

Dudley

--a---Original Message-----

To: texasems-l texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 9:18 pm

Subject: RE: Another interesting bill

lan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

p at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

ill be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

ane Dinsmore

o: texasems-l

rom: ajl442@...

ate: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

ubject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

edic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

or national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

pinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

ess. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

rotection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

ovember where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

he NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

egister through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

n rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

eems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

ule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

aramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

hey haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

sked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

rganization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

ll our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

ttempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

egardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I will be happy to fill in on this one. Way back in 2008 or so, in accordance

with the EMS Education Agenda for the Future (developed off of the EMS Agenda

for the Future both of which are available on the NHTSA website and make very

interesting reading), in cooperation with the National Association of State EMS

Officials, the National Registry of EMT's (NR) stated that after January 1,

2013, anyone seeking National Registry must have graduated from a Nationally

Accredited Paramedic Education Program. This is the latest step in implementing

the Agenda for the Future and other steps include new National Education

Standards and a National Scope of Practice and developing nationally standard

names for the certification levels (like EMT-I becoming EMT-Advanced, etc).

In Texas, there was some cursory discussions about this and the GETAC Education

sub-committee got busy in making sure their programs were moving towards

accreditation and then doing yeoman work in getting information distributed to

many programs across the state. Then, as is common in our field, we had a

" re-freak " moment as many in the state started realizing that 2013 was only 3

years or so away and that there was a huge potential that many programs

currently teaching paramedic, many of them in rather rural or even frontier

areas, would not be able to become accredited either because of a lack of

resources or because of their business structure. Discussion was begun and the

GETAC Stakeholder process was kicked into gear at the November GETAC meeting

where a task force was initiated with 2 charges from the GETAC Board: 1. Is

accreditation of paramedic education programs something that Texas should do?

Yes or No. And 2. IF YES, then on what time line. This group is getting ready

to begin meeting on these two charges very shortly.

Then, in January, the legislative session started. Since Texas only has a

legislative session once every two years, the next legislative session will be

after the accreditation deadline. At the November GETAC meeting, there was a

gentleman from Ohio that explained that Ohio had sought and obtained an

extension on the 2013 deadline until 2018. In Ohio after 2013, those who

graduate from a non-accredited paramedic program will be allowed to take the NR

assessment exam, but will NOT become nationally registered, only Ohio certified

(which evidently they work similar to the way we do in Texas)...and Ohio is

making a rule that students have to be informed of this by any program after

2013. So, since the stakeholder process wasn't moving forward yet and a lot of

folks are very concerned about the impact of the accreditation on the rural and

frontier areas, worked to get a delay in making it mandatory for all programs.

That is where this legislation came from and in response to some concerns that

NR might not give Texas an extension, the second paragraph of the legislation

basically says that if NR doesn't play, Texas will seek another vendor for

testing at no cost to DSHS to avoid DSHS having an unfunded mandate to develop

their own test (which they are not equipped or prepared to do and will not be

after this budget finally gets done).

To the comments about legislation addressing something that isn't in rule, rules

come from legislation that give state departments the authority to write a rule.

DSHS cannot just write a rule if they have not been given the authorization to

regulate that specific area. DSHS doesn't have a rule regarding

accreditation...only one dictating having National Registry to get your Texas

Certification.

So, I happen to think that accreditation is a good thing for our industry as a

whole. I do, however have significant concern that this process, if not

properly handled, could create even more difficulty for many areas of our state

if plans are not in place prior to a mandate to have accredited programs, of how

these areas will continue to graduate paramedics to care for citizens, and most

of these areas are served by volunteer organizations and depend upon neighbors

helping neighbors.

Another point, the original requirement of the NR was that all paramedic

programs had to be accredited by January 1, 2013...now the requirement is

" pursuing " accreditation (or having your self-study and fees and application

turned in) by January 1, 2013...in my opinion, because the sole organization

doing accreditation of EMS programs is in no way going to be able to get all the

education programs in the country accredited by 2013 (in 2010, they received

applications from like 90 programs and go 20 accredited....so at that pace, they

won't have all the 2010 applicants done by 2013, let alone the 2011 and 2012

applicants). So, if NR, who set this mandate which many states are blindly

following disregarding their own regulatory or stakeholder processes thought

2013 was such a critical date then why did they so easily change that

requirement...and if they can change it without EMS as we know it ceasing to

exist, what is so bad about Texas or Ohio or any other state taking a little bit

more time to make sure as many programs as possible qualify and are included.

Two more things I want to make sure everyone understands:

1. NOTHING in the stakeholder process or this House or Senate Bill STOPS the

accreditation process. Programs who can do it should be doing it. In my

opinion, we will only know where the problems are once everyone who can do it,

gets it done.

2. WE (Texas) have to do this right. The next step in National Registry's plan

(with the oversight of the State EMS Directors) is that ALL EMT's will have to

graduate from a nationally accredited EMT program. If we do not take the time

to figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs

will be horribly detrimental to Texas.

This isn't about not doing it, this is ALL about doing it RIGHT and making sure

the tent is big enough for as many as possible.

Dudley

--a---Original Message-----

To: texasems-l texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 9:18 pm

Subject: RE: Another interesting bill

lan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

p at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

ill be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

ane Dinsmore

o: texasems-l

rom: ajl442@...

ate: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

ubject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

edic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

or national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

pinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

ess. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

rotection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

>

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

ovember where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

he NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

egister through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

n rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

eems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

ule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

aramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

hey haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

sked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

rganization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

ll our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

ttempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

egardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Dudley,

As a former member of the GETAC Education Committee, I have to agree with you.

This is not a IF than but a MUST do. The process does take some time to

complete, but it is really not about telling you how to teach but it is allowing

you to look at your own program to find your strengths and weaknesses. It also

allows you to see that your own requirements and goals are being met.

Tim

________________________________

From: texasems-l [texasems-l ] On Behalf Of

THEDUDMAN@... [THEDUDMAN@...]

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:58 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

I will be happy to fill in on this one. Way back in 2008 or so, in accordance

with the EMS Education Agenda for the Future (developed off of the EMS Agenda

for the Future both of which are available on the NHTSA website and make very

interesting reading), in cooperation with the National Association of State EMS

Officials, the National Registry of EMT's (NR) stated that after January 1,

2013, anyone seeking National Registry must have graduated from a Nationally

Accredited Paramedic Education Program. This is the latest step in implementing

the Agenda for the Future and other steps include new National Education

Standards and a National Scope of Practice and developing nationally standard

names for the certification levels (like EMT-I becoming EMT-Advanced, etc).

In Texas, there was some cursory discussions about this and the GETAC Education

sub-committee got busy in making sure their programs were moving towards

accreditation and then doing yeoman work in getting information distributed to

many programs across the state. Then, as is common in our field, we had a

" re-freak " moment as many in the state started realizing that 2013 was only 3

years or so away and that there was a huge potential that many programs

currently teaching paramedic, many of them in rather rural or even frontier

areas, would not be able to become accredited either because of a lack of

resources or because of their business structure. Discussion was begun and the

GETAC Stakeholder process was kicked into gear at the November GETAC meeting

where a task force was initiated with 2 charges from the GETAC Board: 1. Is

accreditation of paramedic education programs something that Texas should do?

Yes or No. And 2. IF YES, then on what time line. This group is getting ready to

begin meeting on these two charges very shortly.

Then, in January, the legislative session started. Since Texas only has a

legislative session once every two years, the next legislative session will be

after the accreditation deadline. At the November GETAC meeting, there was a

gentleman from Ohio that explained that Ohio had sought and obtained an

extension on the 2013 deadline until 2018. In Ohio after 2013, those who

graduate from a non-accredited paramedic program will be allowed to take the NR

assessment exam, but will NOT become nationally registered, only Ohio certified

(which evidently they work similar to the way we do in Texas)...and Ohio is

making a rule that students have to be informed of this by any program after

2013. So, since the stakeholder process wasn't moving forward yet and a lot of

folks are very concerned about the impact of the accreditation on the rural and

frontier areas, worked to get a delay in making it mandatory for all programs.

That is where this legislation came from and in response to some concerns that

NR might not give Texas an extension, the second paragraph of the legislation

basically says that if NR doesn't play, Texas will seek another vendor for

testing at no cost to DSHS to avoid DSHS having an unfunded mandate to develop

their own test (which they are not equipped or prepared to do and will not be

after this budget finally gets done).

To the comments about legislation addressing something that isn't in rule, rules

come from legislation that give state departments the authority to write a rule.

DSHS cannot just write a rule if they have not been given the authorization to

regulate that specific area. DSHS doesn't have a rule regarding

accreditation...only one dictating having National Registry to get your Texas

Certification.

So, I happen to think that accreditation is a good thing for our industry as a

whole. I do, however have significant concern that this process, if not properly

handled, could create even more difficulty for many areas of our state if plans

are not in place prior to a mandate to have accredited programs, of how these

areas will continue to graduate paramedics to care for citizens, and most of

these areas are served by volunteer organizations and depend upon neighbors

helping neighbors.

Another point, the original requirement of the NR was that all paramedic

programs had to be accredited by January 1, 2013...now the requirement is

" pursuing " accreditation (or having your self-study and fees and application

turned in) by January 1, 2013...in my opinion, because the sole organization

doing accreditation of EMS programs is in no way going to be able to get all the

education programs in the country accredited by 2013 (in 2010, they received

applications from like 90 programs and go 20 accredited....so at that pace, they

won't have all the 2010 applicants done by 2013, let alone the 2011 and 2012

applicants). So, if NR, who set this mandate which many states are blindly

following disregarding their own regulatory or stakeholder processes thought

2013 was such a critical date then why did they so easily change that

requirement...and if they can change it without EMS as we know it ceasing to

exist, what is so bad about Texas or Ohio or any other state taking a little bit

more time to make sure as many programs as possible qualify and are included.

Two more things I want to make sure everyone understands:

1. NOTHING in the stakeholder process or this House or Senate Bill STOPS the

accreditation process. Programs who can do it should be doing it. In my opinion,

we will only know where the problems are once everyone who can do it, gets it

done.

2. WE (Texas) have to do this right. The next step in National Registry's plan

(with the oversight of the State EMS Directors) is that ALL EMT's will have to

graduate from a nationally accredited EMT program. If we do not take the time to

figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs will

be horribly detrimental to Texas.

This isn't about not doing it, this is ALL about doing it RIGHT and making sure

the tent is big enough for as many as possible.

Dudley

--a---Original Message-----

From: Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...>

To: texasems-l texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 9:18 pm

Subject: RE: Another interesting bill

lan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

p at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

ill be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

ane Dinsmore

o: texasems-l

rom: ajl442@...

ate: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

ubject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

edic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

or national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

pinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

ess. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

rotection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...> wrote:

>

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

ovember where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

he NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

egister through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

n rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

eems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

ule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

aramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

hey haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

sked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

rganization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

ll our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

ttempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

egardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Dudley,

As a former member of the GETAC Education Committee, I have to agree with you.

This is not a IF than but a MUST do. The process does take some time to

complete, but it is really not about telling you how to teach but it is allowing

you to look at your own program to find your strengths and weaknesses. It also

allows you to see that your own requirements and goals are being met.

Tim

________________________________

From: texasems-l [texasems-l ] On Behalf Of

THEDUDMAN@... [THEDUDMAN@...]

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:58 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

I will be happy to fill in on this one. Way back in 2008 or so, in accordance

with the EMS Education Agenda for the Future (developed off of the EMS Agenda

for the Future both of which are available on the NHTSA website and make very

interesting reading), in cooperation with the National Association of State EMS

Officials, the National Registry of EMT's (NR) stated that after January 1,

2013, anyone seeking National Registry must have graduated from a Nationally

Accredited Paramedic Education Program. This is the latest step in implementing

the Agenda for the Future and other steps include new National Education

Standards and a National Scope of Practice and developing nationally standard

names for the certification levels (like EMT-I becoming EMT-Advanced, etc).

In Texas, there was some cursory discussions about this and the GETAC Education

sub-committee got busy in making sure their programs were moving towards

accreditation and then doing yeoman work in getting information distributed to

many programs across the state. Then, as is common in our field, we had a

" re-freak " moment as many in the state started realizing that 2013 was only 3

years or so away and that there was a huge potential that many programs

currently teaching paramedic, many of them in rather rural or even frontier

areas, would not be able to become accredited either because of a lack of

resources or because of their business structure. Discussion was begun and the

GETAC Stakeholder process was kicked into gear at the November GETAC meeting

where a task force was initiated with 2 charges from the GETAC Board: 1. Is

accreditation of paramedic education programs something that Texas should do?

Yes or No. And 2. IF YES, then on what time line. This group is getting ready to

begin meeting on these two charges very shortly.

Then, in January, the legislative session started. Since Texas only has a

legislative session once every two years, the next legislative session will be

after the accreditation deadline. At the November GETAC meeting, there was a

gentleman from Ohio that explained that Ohio had sought and obtained an

extension on the 2013 deadline until 2018. In Ohio after 2013, those who

graduate from a non-accredited paramedic program will be allowed to take the NR

assessment exam, but will NOT become nationally registered, only Ohio certified

(which evidently they work similar to the way we do in Texas)...and Ohio is

making a rule that students have to be informed of this by any program after

2013. So, since the stakeholder process wasn't moving forward yet and a lot of

folks are very concerned about the impact of the accreditation on the rural and

frontier areas, worked to get a delay in making it mandatory for all programs.

That is where this legislation came from and in response to some concerns that

NR might not give Texas an extension, the second paragraph of the legislation

basically says that if NR doesn't play, Texas will seek another vendor for

testing at no cost to DSHS to avoid DSHS having an unfunded mandate to develop

their own test (which they are not equipped or prepared to do and will not be

after this budget finally gets done).

To the comments about legislation addressing something that isn't in rule, rules

come from legislation that give state departments the authority to write a rule.

DSHS cannot just write a rule if they have not been given the authorization to

regulate that specific area. DSHS doesn't have a rule regarding

accreditation...only one dictating having National Registry to get your Texas

Certification.

So, I happen to think that accreditation is a good thing for our industry as a

whole. I do, however have significant concern that this process, if not properly

handled, could create even more difficulty for many areas of our state if plans

are not in place prior to a mandate to have accredited programs, of how these

areas will continue to graduate paramedics to care for citizens, and most of

these areas are served by volunteer organizations and depend upon neighbors

helping neighbors.

Another point, the original requirement of the NR was that all paramedic

programs had to be accredited by January 1, 2013...now the requirement is

" pursuing " accreditation (or having your self-study and fees and application

turned in) by January 1, 2013...in my opinion, because the sole organization

doing accreditation of EMS programs is in no way going to be able to get all the

education programs in the country accredited by 2013 (in 2010, they received

applications from like 90 programs and go 20 accredited....so at that pace, they

won't have all the 2010 applicants done by 2013, let alone the 2011 and 2012

applicants). So, if NR, who set this mandate which many states are blindly

following disregarding their own regulatory or stakeholder processes thought

2013 was such a critical date then why did they so easily change that

requirement...and if they can change it without EMS as we know it ceasing to

exist, what is so bad about Texas or Ohio or any other state taking a little bit

more time to make sure as many programs as possible qualify and are included.

Two more things I want to make sure everyone understands:

1. NOTHING in the stakeholder process or this House or Senate Bill STOPS the

accreditation process. Programs who can do it should be doing it. In my opinion,

we will only know where the problems are once everyone who can do it, gets it

done.

2. WE (Texas) have to do this right. The next step in National Registry's plan

(with the oversight of the State EMS Directors) is that ALL EMT's will have to

graduate from a nationally accredited EMT program. If we do not take the time to

figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs will

be horribly detrimental to Texas.

This isn't about not doing it, this is ALL about doing it RIGHT and making sure

the tent is big enough for as many as possible.

Dudley

--a---Original Message-----

From: Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...>

To: texasems-l texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 9:18 pm

Subject: RE: Another interesting bill

lan, I am not certain but according to what I was told, the gentleman who stood

p at the GETAC meeting and discussed this stated that wasn't true - that they

ill be eligible for NR. Can someone else who was there relate what happened?

ane Dinsmore

o: texasems-l

rom: ajl442@...

ate: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:07:59 -0600

ubject: Re: Another interesting bill

You may want to do a little more research on the Ohio issue. After 2013 Ohio

edic students will be able to take the NR exam but they will not be eligible

or national registration.

I think they made a mistake when they made this decision but that is just my

pinion.

The real issue is what does accreditation do.

Improve standardized exam scores - no

Produce better medics - no

Improve school performance - no

National accreditation was implemented to protect the students. Not much more or

ess. Look at the standards on their website, most of the standards deal with

rotection of students.

AJL

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...> wrote:

>

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

ovember where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

he NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

egister through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

n rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

eems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

ule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

aramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

hey haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

sked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

rganization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

ll our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

ttempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

egardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

On Wednesday, March 9, 2011 21:58, THEDUDMAN@... said:

> If we do not take the time to

> figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs will

be

> horribly detrimental to Texas.

Can you go into specifics regarding the horrible detriment you anticipate?

We're already churning out many times more EMTs than EMS needs. I'm not sure I

can agree that cutting that number back would produce any significant negative

results for EMS.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

On Wednesday, March 9, 2011 21:58, THEDUDMAN@... said:

> If we do not take the time to

> figure this out on the paramedic side, a substantial loss of EMT programs will

be

> horribly detrimental to Texas.

Can you go into specifics regarding the horrible detriment you anticipate?

We're already churning out many times more EMTs than EMS needs. I'm not sure I

can agree that cutting that number back would produce any significant negative

results for EMS.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with Rob on this one. In Houston you have San Jacinto, HCC,

Mainland, Montgomery CC, BrazoriaCC, AMR, and a few others who are EMS

factories. and there are several ghetto EMS companies they can work for. But who

needs them and who wants them. No there needs to be fewer schools. Much fewer

schools.

________________________________

Can you go into specifics regarding the horrible detriment you anticipate? We're

already churning out many times more EMTs than EMS needs. I'm not sure I can

agree that cutting that number back would produce any significant negative

results for EMS.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I was thinking about this on my way home from shift this morning, and

something didn't quite sit right from what I read below. You are asking why

Texas doesn't have a STATE test for EMS and are comparing our testing to Law

and Fire. However, in my opinion, we are more closely aligned with

Physicians and Nurses which, both, have a national testing process.

Shouldn't we follow suit with the medical community to be more respected by

that same group?

Toni Crippen, LP

Pflugerville

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of cfdc1

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:16 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Another Interesting Bill

As I read all of these posts about this accreditation issue I can't help but

wonder, to be in Texas law enforcement you pass an approved course

consisting of an approved curriculum and pass a STATE TEST. To be in the

fire service in Texas you pass a course consisting of an ACCREDITED

CURRICULUM and pass a STATE TEST. Why then to be in the EMS profession in

Texas do you pass a course consisting of a national standard curriculum and

then have to take a test given by a bunch of outsiders? You can't tell me

that the DSHS can't develop and implement an evaluation process to test our

own students. We did it for years and it seemed to work fine. I received my

certification in 1988 and the course was harder than the exam. TECLOSE and

the TCFP have their own curriculums and evaluation processes for years and

they work just fine. They have never been asked to " outsource " their

evaluation process to save money. Maybe the DSHS should pay them a visit and

see how they do it.

Years ago when the legislature decided some cuts needed to be made who in

the DSHS thought that " outsourcing " our EMS testing was a good idea. It

doesn't seem to be such a good idea now does it? Especially when we have a

bunch of " outsiders " dictating to us what we are going to teach, how we will

teach it, and where they are going to allow us to teach it. The way I see it

is we have only two choices here. Either find a way to fund and take our

program back, provide oversight, and test our students ourselves or quit

whinning and move forward with the NR Accreditation process and just deal

with it. We placed ourselves in this position by relinquishing control of

the evaluation process in the first place.

In closing I just want to say that at the last Medical Director Committee

meeting Maxie Bishop hit the nail on the head when he stated " We are the

State of Texas. We should be leading not following " . We must ask ourselves

the question, " How's that outsourcing thing working out for us and are we

leading or being led? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I was thinking about this on my way home from shift this morning, and

something didn't quite sit right from what I read below. You are asking why

Texas doesn't have a STATE test for EMS and are comparing our testing to Law

and Fire. However, in my opinion, we are more closely aligned with

Physicians and Nurses which, both, have a national testing process.

Shouldn't we follow suit with the medical community to be more respected by

that same group?

Toni Crippen, LP

Pflugerville

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of cfdc1

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:16 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Another Interesting Bill

As I read all of these posts about this accreditation issue I can't help but

wonder, to be in Texas law enforcement you pass an approved course

consisting of an approved curriculum and pass a STATE TEST. To be in the

fire service in Texas you pass a course consisting of an ACCREDITED

CURRICULUM and pass a STATE TEST. Why then to be in the EMS profession in

Texas do you pass a course consisting of a national standard curriculum and

then have to take a test given by a bunch of outsiders? You can't tell me

that the DSHS can't develop and implement an evaluation process to test our

own students. We did it for years and it seemed to work fine. I received my

certification in 1988 and the course was harder than the exam. TECLOSE and

the TCFP have their own curriculums and evaluation processes for years and

they work just fine. They have never been asked to " outsource " their

evaluation process to save money. Maybe the DSHS should pay them a visit and

see how they do it.

Years ago when the legislature decided some cuts needed to be made who in

the DSHS thought that " outsourcing " our EMS testing was a good idea. It

doesn't seem to be such a good idea now does it? Especially when we have a

bunch of " outsiders " dictating to us what we are going to teach, how we will

teach it, and where they are going to allow us to teach it. The way I see it

is we have only two choices here. Either find a way to fund and take our

program back, provide oversight, and test our students ourselves or quit

whinning and move forward with the NR Accreditation process and just deal

with it. We placed ourselves in this position by relinquishing control of

the evaluation process in the first place.

In closing I just want to say that at the last Medical Director Committee

meeting Maxie Bishop hit the nail on the head when he stated " We are the

State of Texas. We should be leading not following " . We must ask ourselves

the question, " How's that outsourcing thing working out for us and are we

leading or being led? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Respect is earned by your performance in the field and the working relationship

you develop with your peers, not by a test you take to enter the profession. I

took a state test in 1988 to become an EMT and did not receive any respect just

because I had a patch. I worked hard to be the best EMT I could and over the

years have worked beside and had an excellent relationship with many Physicians

and Nurses. I proved myself in the field and earned their respect. As far as

following suit and going through a national testing process, I took the national

Registry exam and passed it on the first attempt just to see if I could. Did

that make me a better EMT and respected more by my peers? No. In all my years of

serving in the field of EMS, I have never had a Physician or Nurse ever ask to

see my card or say " Gee, your good. You must hold national registry

certification. "

To: texasems-l

From: toni_crippen@...

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:25:44 -0600

Subject: RE: Another Interesting Bill

I was thinking about this on my way home from shift this morning, and

something didn't quite sit right from what I read below. You are asking why

Texas doesn't have a STATE test for EMS and are comparing our testing to Law

and Fire. However, in my opinion, we are more closely aligned with

Physicians and Nurses which, both, have a national testing process.

Shouldn't we follow suit with the medical community to be more respected by

that same group?

Toni Crippen, LP

Pflugerville

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of cfdc1

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:16 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Another Interesting Bill

As I read all of these posts about this accreditation issue I can't help but

wonder, to be in Texas law enforcement you pass an approved course

consisting of an approved curriculum and pass a STATE TEST. To be in the

fire service in Texas you pass a course consisting of an ACCREDITED

CURRICULUM and pass a STATE TEST. Why then to be in the EMS profession in

Texas do you pass a course consisting of a national standard curriculum and

then have to take a test given by a bunch of outsiders? You can't tell me

that the DSHS can't develop and implement an evaluation process to test our

own students. We did it for years and it seemed to work fine. I received my

certification in 1988 and the course was harder than the exam. TECLOSE and

the TCFP have their own curriculums and evaluation processes for years and

they work just fine. They have never been asked to " outsource " their

evaluation process to save money. Maybe the DSHS should pay them a visit and

see how they do it.

Years ago when the legislature decided some cuts needed to be made who in

the DSHS thought that " outsourcing " our EMS testing was a good idea. It

doesn't seem to be such a good idea now does it? Especially when we have a

bunch of " outsiders " dictating to us what we are going to teach, how we will

teach it, and where they are going to allow us to teach it. The way I see it

is we have only two choices here. Either find a way to fund and take our

program back, provide oversight, and test our students ourselves or quit

whinning and move forward with the NR Accreditation process and just deal

with it. We placed ourselves in this position by relinquishing control of

the evaluation process in the first place.

In closing I just want to say that at the last Medical Director Committee

meeting Maxie Bishop hit the nail on the head when he stated " We are the

State of Texas. We should be leading not following " . We must ask ourselves

the question, " How's that outsourcing thing working out for us and are we

leading or being led? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Respect is earned by your performance in the field and the working relationship

you develop with your peers, not by a test you take to enter the profession. I

took a state test in 1988 to become an EMT and did not receive any respect just

because I had a patch. I worked hard to be the best EMT I could and over the

years have worked beside and had an excellent relationship with many Physicians

and Nurses. I proved myself in the field and earned their respect. As far as

following suit and going through a national testing process, I took the national

Registry exam and passed it on the first attempt just to see if I could. Did

that make me a better EMT and respected more by my peers? No. In all my years of

serving in the field of EMS, I have never had a Physician or Nurse ever ask to

see my card or say " Gee, your good. You must hold national registry

certification. "

To: texasems-l

From: toni_crippen@...

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:25:44 -0600

Subject: RE: Another Interesting Bill

I was thinking about this on my way home from shift this morning, and

something didn't quite sit right from what I read below. You are asking why

Texas doesn't have a STATE test for EMS and are comparing our testing to Law

and Fire. However, in my opinion, we are more closely aligned with

Physicians and Nurses which, both, have a national testing process.

Shouldn't we follow suit with the medical community to be more respected by

that same group?

Toni Crippen, LP

Pflugerville

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of cfdc1

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:16 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Another Interesting Bill

As I read all of these posts about this accreditation issue I can't help but

wonder, to be in Texas law enforcement you pass an approved course

consisting of an approved curriculum and pass a STATE TEST. To be in the

fire service in Texas you pass a course consisting of an ACCREDITED

CURRICULUM and pass a STATE TEST. Why then to be in the EMS profession in

Texas do you pass a course consisting of a national standard curriculum and

then have to take a test given by a bunch of outsiders? You can't tell me

that the DSHS can't develop and implement an evaluation process to test our

own students. We did it for years and it seemed to work fine. I received my

certification in 1988 and the course was harder than the exam. TECLOSE and

the TCFP have their own curriculums and evaluation processes for years and

they work just fine. They have never been asked to " outsource " their

evaluation process to save money. Maybe the DSHS should pay them a visit and

see how they do it.

Years ago when the legislature decided some cuts needed to be made who in

the DSHS thought that " outsourcing " our EMS testing was a good idea. It

doesn't seem to be such a good idea now does it? Especially when we have a

bunch of " outsiders " dictating to us what we are going to teach, how we will

teach it, and where they are going to allow us to teach it. The way I see it

is we have only two choices here. Either find a way to fund and take our

program back, provide oversight, and test our students ourselves or quit

whinning and move forward with the NR Accreditation process and just deal

with it. We placed ourselves in this position by relinquishing control of

the evaluation process in the first place.

In closing I just want to say that at the last Medical Director Committee

meeting Maxie Bishop hit the nail on the head when he stated " We are the

State of Texas. We should be leading not following " . We must ask ourselves

the question, " How's that outsourcing thing working out for us and are we

leading or being led? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You think some of those colleges are factories???

I've seen several high quality medics graduate from several of those programs,

especially San Jac and Lone Star.

Wes Ogilvie

On the move from my iPhone

> I have to agree with Rob on this one. In Houston you have San Jacinto, HCC,

> Mainland, Montgomery CC, BrazoriaCC, AMR, and a few others who are EMS

> factories. and there are several ghetto EMS companies they can work for. But

who

> needs them and who wants them. No there needs to be fewer schools. Much fewer

> schools.

>

> ________________________________

> Can you go into specifics regarding the horrible detriment you anticipate?

We're

> already churning out many times more EMTs than EMS needs. I'm not sure I can

> agree that cutting that number back would produce any significant negative

> results for EMS.

>

> Rob

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hmm. Guess I phrased that last question incorrectly. You are right, it's

not about respect.

So, I retract and resubmit.

Shouldn't our testing be more in-line with the medical community who are

tested nationally.since we are medical?

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of McNevin

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 12:26 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: RE: Another Interesting Bill

Respect is earned by your performance in the field and the working

relationship you develop with your peers, not by a test you take to enter

the profession. I took a state test in 1988 to become an EMT and did not

receive any respect just because I had a patch. I worked hard to be the best

EMT I could and over the years have worked beside and had an excellent

relationship with many Physicians and Nurses. I proved myself in the field

and earned their respect. As far as following suit and going through a

national testing process, I took the national Registry exam and passed it on

the first attempt just to see if I could. Did that make me a better EMT and

respected more by my peers? No. In all my years of serving in the field of

EMS, I have never had a Physician or Nurse ever ask to see my card or say "

Gee, your good. You must hold national registry certification. "

To: texasems-l

From: toni_crippen@...

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:25:44 -0600

Subject: RE: Another Interesting Bill

I was thinking about this on my way home from shift this morning, and

something didn't quite sit right from what I read below. You are asking why

Texas doesn't have a STATE test for EMS and are comparing our testing to Law

and Fire. However, in my opinion, we are more closely aligned with

Physicians and Nurses which, both, have a national testing process.

Shouldn't we follow suit with the medical community to be more respected by

that same group?

Toni Crippen, LP

Pflugerville

From: texasems-l

[mailto:texasems-l ]

On

Behalf Of cfdc1

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:16 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Another Interesting Bill

As I read all of these posts about this accreditation issue I can't help but

wonder, to be in Texas law enforcement you pass an approved course

consisting of an approved curriculum and pass a STATE TEST. To be in the

fire service in Texas you pass a course consisting of an ACCREDITED

CURRICULUM and pass a STATE TEST. Why then to be in the EMS profession in

Texas do you pass a course consisting of a national standard curriculum and

then have to take a test given by a bunch of outsiders? You can't tell me

that the DSHS can't develop and implement an evaluation process to test our

own students. We did it for years and it seemed to work fine. I received my

certification in 1988 and the course was harder than the exam. TECLOSE and

the TCFP have their own curriculums and evaluation processes for years and

they work just fine. They have never been asked to " outsource " their

evaluation process to save money. Maybe the DSHS should pay them a visit and

see how they do it.

Years ago when the legislature decided some cuts needed to be made who in

the DSHS thought that " outsourcing " our EMS testing was a good idea. It

doesn't seem to be such a good idea now does it? Especially when we have a

bunch of " outsiders " dictating to us what we are going to teach, how we will

teach it, and where they are going to allow us to teach it. The way I see it

is we have only two choices here. Either find a way to fund and take our

program back, provide oversight, and test our students ourselves or quit

whinning and move forward with the NR Accreditation process and just deal

with it. We placed ourselves in this position by relinquishing control of

the evaluation process in the first place.

In closing I just want to say that at the last Medical Director Committee

meeting Maxie Bishop hit the nail on the head when he stated " We are the

State of Texas. We should be leading not following " . We must ask ourselves

the question, " How's that outsourcing thing working out for us and are we

leading or being led? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

In a message dated 3/11/2011 3:52:32 P.M. Central Standard Time,

lgverrett@... writes:

In Houston you have San Jacinto, HCC, Mainland, Montgomery CC, Brazoria

CC, AMR,

Since half those are CC as in Community Colleges do you think they won't

get accreditation?

Academia is rife with folks whose sole job is to play the accreditation

game.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant

LNMolino@...

(Cell Phone)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

" Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds

discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and

the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only

for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential

materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public

domain by the original author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...