Summary#
B26-0833, the Health Occupations and Emergency Medical Services Amendment Act of 2026, would amend the District of Columbia Health Occupations Revision Act of 1985 and other health-care laws, and repeal and replace the Emergency Medical Services Act of 2008. Its stated goal is to modernize health-profession licensing and emergency medical services; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result.
- It would create a nine-member Board of Emergency Medical Services to regulate EMS clinicians and instructors. The Mayor would appoint the board and its District-employee executive director, and would set many licensing rules and requirements.
- It would require licenses for EMS agencies, stretcher-van agencies, training facilities, and emergency response vehicles, with separate licenses for mobile integrated health and special-event EMS services. The bill sets requirements including medical oversight, data submission, and, for many applicants, insurance and fees.
- It would restrict who may own or control a dental office, with listed exceptions. It would also create a specialty license for oral and maxillofacial surgeons and set conditions for dentists’ use of immunizations and neurotoxins.
- It would establish certification for community health workers through the Board of Social Work, with requirements to be set by the Mayor.
- It would change background-check handling so results go directly to the Mayor or the relevant licensing board, and remove DC Health’s role in collecting background-check fees.
The bill is introduced and is not law. The supplied text is incomplete, so it does not show all proposed changes.
What it means for you#
- EMS agencies, vehicle operators, stretcher-van services and training facilities: They would generally need the relevant District license. The Mayor could inspect, demand records, investigate and issue subpoenas. District-operated services are exempt from some license fees and insurance requirements. Existing EMS licenses would generally carry forward, subject to new renewal requirements.
- Mobile integrated health and special-event providers: They would need extra licenses and approved plans. Mobile integrated health providers must already hold an EMS agency license; special-event providers must also hold one. Both would need qualified staff under a medical director’s supervision and must transfer or refer care when clinically indicated.
- EMS clinicians and instructors: The new board would regulate them. An EMS clinician could not work without clinical oversight from an EMS agency or facility medical director. A facility medical director could authorize clinicians to provide other emergency or non-emergency care within that facility.
- Dentists and dental organizations: A person who is not a District-licensed dentist generally could not own or control a dental office, its equipment or patient records, or employ or contract with dental professionals. The bill lists exceptions, including government agencies, hospitals, and federally qualified health centers. Dentists could give immunizations only if certified; use of neurotoxins to treat dental conditions would require authorization by rule and certification. Certain cosmetic procedures by oral and maxillofacial surgeons would require separate certification.
- Community health workers: They could use the title “certified community health worker” only if certified. People aged 16 or 17 could qualify for this certification if they meet the stated education condition; the Mayor could set further requirements.
- Health professionals licensed elsewhere: The Mayor’s letter describes a temporary waiver process for foreign-licensed professionals supporting commercial events. The bill excerpt changes an existing temporary-practice provision, including a 60-days-in-a-calendar-year limit and Mayor approval or notification in some circumstances. The exact coverage is unclear from the excerpt.
- Patients and the public: The bill does not promise new services or require every mobile integrated health program to operate. It would require certain agencies and facilities to submit data, but the excerpt does not specify the data or how the public would use it.
Money#
No cost estimate is provided; no publicly available information on the bill’s total cost appears in the supplied material.
- The bill would require a District employee to serve as the EMS board’s executive director, but gives no staffing or cost estimate.
- The Mayor would set fees by rule for several licenses, applications and inspections. District-operated agencies and training facilities are exempt from some license fees; the bill does not state fee amounts.
- The Mayor’s letter says DC Health would no longer collect background-check fees. The supplied material does not say whether applicants would still pay those fees or what they would be.
What is unclear#
- The supplied bill text ends during the EMS license-renewal section. Later provisions, including any further duties, penalties, appeals, effective date or transition rules, cannot be verified.
- The bill gives the Mayor authority to set many requirements by rule, but the supplied material does not include those rules or their planned contents.
- It is unclear how the new EMS board’s regulation of clinicians would work alongside the Mayor’s licensing and rulemaking powers.
- The bill does not explain how EMS data would be used, published or protected.
- The parent laws are not supplied in full, so the bill’s changes could not be checked against current law. The supplied letter identifies the EMS Act of 2008 as the law to be replaced.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to replace an older EMS law with a system that covers agencies, vehicles, training, clinicians and newer services such as mobile integrated health.
- Requiring medical oversight, insurance in many cases, inspections and data submission could give the District more tools to set safety standards and identify service problems.
- A dedicated EMS board would include clinicians, an instructor, a dispatcher and a consumer representative.
- Certification could set common standards for people using the title “certified community health worker.”
Case against#
- Many practical requirements and fees would be set later by the Mayor. The bill itself does not show their full scope or cost.
- Requiring separate licenses, plans, inspections and fees could add burdens for providers, especially smaller organizations; the bill does not estimate those costs.
- The Mayor would hold broad licensing, rulemaking and inspection powers, while the bill does not provide all the procedures or safeguards in the supplied text.
- The supplied material does not explain how the new EMS system would coordinate with existing services or how its required data would be used.