There’s been much ado for some time now over the pressures facing volunteer fire companies across Pennsylvania. A dearth of volunteerism and aging communities have forced fire departments to get creative when it comes to both membership and fundraising.

Alongside those pressures come the financial struggles being experienced by many emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, which are grappling with federal reimbursement rates that have not increased in nearly three decades, and a reimbursement system that leaves much to be desired.

Currently, insurance companies and Medicaid are only required to reimburse EMS agencies when a call results in a patient being transported to a hospital — even if crews responded and provided treatment on-scene, but their patient or patients declined to be taken to a hospital or the trip wasn’t necessary.

According to the Ambulance Association of Pennsylvania, the issue creates problems for about 80 percent of EMS services across the state, and many services have responded by curtailing operating hours, employing fewer people, or reducing their coverage areas. Some have gone out of business altogether.

Enter Senate Bill 1003, which is sponsored by state Sen. Don White, R-41st, and passed the chamber last week, by a vote of 49 to 0. White’s bill would allow EMS services to bill insurance companies and Medicaid for the “treat-no-transport” calls that are currently draining their wallets.

The House unanimously approved a similar measure on May 24, and White says he expects both chambers to quickly agree upon legislation to send to Gov. Tom Wolf.

We hope the Wolf Administration puts its full support behind this much-needed update to the state’s EMS reimbursement model.

It will not be a cure-all, as reimbursement rates fall woefully short of the cost of emergency medical services. But EMS agencies that respond and provide medical care at the scene of everything from a vehicle accident to a drug overdose shouldn’t be held hostage by a patient’s decision to forego a hospital visit.

If legislators want to take a bigger swing at this problem, they should tackle the stagnant reimbursement rates that are forcing EMS agencies to go directly to patients for repayment.

Until then, rectifying the treatment-no-transport payment loophole would be a welcome revision to the way EMS services collect the fees that help keep them in business — and patients on the receiving end of medical care that can help save lives.