Well define accredited? Subjective or objective determination. Don't think you are talking to a new guy, I have been in public safety since 1985. It does not serve the job market. Medic skills are not that hard. It's just like being a pilot. Kids can come over here from India and train for 600 hours and go home and fly 737 for a living. American kids need 3 times that. We are in recession and agency and students don't have money. It is nothing more than the College mafia of educators funding there jobs. In Germany it is an apprentice program OJT. We have a shortage of money to put rigs on the road, that is why EMT-Ps are working as basics. MONEY is the issue, and we are headed in the wrong direction. NREMT is in OHIO and they are not on the streets of southern California and should have no influence on what happens here. Once again our trade is making it something it is not, there is a million ways to put water on a fire, and I can hire better firefighters out of Tijuana for less, you don't need a 2 year degree to be a medic. Law enforcement is 100 times harder than EMS and they train officers is 6 months. Bullets and crazy people are allot harder to deal with than sick or torn in half. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I HOPE MOST STATES OPT OUT OF THE NREMT PROGRAM.
A living wage you will never get paid. Attorneys are waiting tables. Quit being brainwashed and do the research, recession. Allot of departments are going back to volunteers. Doctor mob and nurse mob will never let you get paid more than them. Go be a Doctor. This is street EMS.
Accreditation by CAAHEP is an objective set of requirements that is not that hard to obtain. The new rules do NOT require a 2 year education, they require that you have attended an accredited program.
As far as it serving the job market - It is not the goal of any EMS service I know of (Private, public, or third) to
serve the job market. These services do not exist to give people jobs. They exist to provide a service, make a profit, or both.
"Medic skills are not that hard." - This would depend on your service. I don't find the National Registery paramedic curriculum difficult, but I found the curriculum for my particular service to be very challenging. You won't have to worry about EMT-Ps working as Basics. Raising the education standards will lessen the supply of certified paramedics. You may however have to worry about a heavy abundance of basics.
When comparing education/pay ratios, it quickly becomes a "chicken or egg" discussion. Which comes first? higher pay? or higher education?
Money is an issue. The only way to improve on this is to provide more value and demand higher reimbursement. How do agencies provide more value? Expand services, raise standards, raise efficiency, etc. The easiest way is to raise standards and increase the barrier to entry of services - thereby reducing supply.
How do individuals provide more value? A higher education is a pretty easy way to do it.
Doctors and Nurses against the pay rates? Irrelevant (with a few exceptions) and not in my observation. They don't decide what you get paid (unless you're hospital based). I've discussed education and pay with many doctors and nurses, the common complaint isn't regarding our pay. The major gripe is that EMS tends to have little in the way of education.
I can only think of one Law Enforcement agency in my area that does not require a two year education
before going to the academy, unless done with a prior military waiver.
At my service, folks get paid a wage based on the value they bring to the service. Which is very livable. Again, EMS agencies don't exist to give people a job.
I agree that we're in a recession, which makes it an ideal time to raise the standards. Those who are committed to the job and want to excel will meet those standards. Those who aren't, will have to go elsewhere. Raising the standards will reduce the pool of applicants - and as the economy recovers, compensation can rise (and it will have to, due to the decrease in qualified personnel).
