Trauma patients need federal policies that support effective emergency response

Everyday, emergency rooms and trauma center physicians and nurses across America work tirelessly to save the lives of patients who come to them in grave conditions. Whether they’re suffering from a severe injury in a car accident, experiencing a heart attack or stroke, a third degree burn, or some other terrible circumstance, these patients’ lives end up in the hands of the trauma physicians like me who receive them upon entering an emergency facility.

But often before then, these patients’ lives are in the hands of the ground and air responders who arrive on scene and who transport them to the ER or trauma center. I see first-hand on a daily basis how much this element of patient care matters: the seconds and minutes leading up to their arrival at an emergency facility can have life-or-death implications. In other words, the speed in which a patient is transported to us can literally determine their life or death.

{mosads}I urge Washington policymakers to take this reality into serious consideration as they craft any legislation that would impact the ability of emergency response services, including emergency air medical transport by helicopter, to carry out their critical missions.

If you live in Washington, D.C. and get in a serious car accident, chances are you can reach any number of emergency facilities relatively quickly and over a short distance. But for many other parts of America, that is not the case. In some remote parts of my state of Texas, it might take a ground ambulance more than 45 minutes to transport a patient from the scene of an accident to definitive care, when a medical helicopter can deliver the patient in one third of that time.

Rural Texans, and all rural communities across the country, need access to emergency air medical helicopter services. Without them, it is a guarantee that our ERs and trauma centers will receive patients in worse conditions than they have to be in.

There is significant debate happening in Congress around how to address some of the financial aspects of emergency helicopter transport. I can say without a doubt that any efforts that would restrict or hinder emergency helicopter transport across state lines (by leaving it up to the states to regulate) or arbitrarily cap charges without any recognition of true costs or understanding of how emergency air medical services works will result in direct harm to patients.

Let’s say a patient has been in a car wreck in Louisiana, but the closest available helicopter is currently across the state border in Texas — the last thing that patient needs is for that helicopter to be restricted from deploying. And as an emergency physician, I need to be able to make those critical in-the-moment health care decisions for my patients without having to worry about where I can or cannot send them.

But these would be the unfortunate realities if Congress tries to solve billing issues by giving regulatory authority to individual states for a service that flies across state lines frequently in order to respond as quickly and effectively as possible to patients in need.

A better solution, and one that would ensure patients don’t lose access to air medical transport, is one that addresses the Medicare reimbursement shortfall for this service. Right now, government insurance and many private insurance companies don’t recognize the value or true cost of emergency air response.

People are counting on Congress to find solutions in the right places, and this is the one that makes sense.

A severe injury or trauma can happen to anyone, at any time. While it’s my job as an emergency physician to administer the best possible health care treatment to my patients, it’s Congress’ responsibility to enact policies that allow patients to have access to effective emergency health care response, including air medical transport.

Dr. Dar Kavouspour is a trauma surgeon and assistant director of trauma at Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth in Beaumont, Texas.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.