The classes would be offered through the DMV and as well as with new drivers courses.
In order for the classes to be offered through the DMV, they will have to employ people who are credentialed in some way to teach CPR and first aid.
The other option is to outsource it to already existing instructors. (Which is a far more likely option) The average price for a HCP provider CPR class in my home state is $125 +book a person. Those same instructors are capable of teaching a lower level course, but why on earth would I or any other instructor spend time teaching a lower level class for less money which is not only required, but for the government, during the same time we could be teaching the higher level one for people who actually have to be certified or recertified to continue thier healthcare career?
On the flip side, what happens if the government pays more for teaching driving candidates than healthcare facilities to recert their employees or educational institutions their students?
That means you will need more instructors who will expect to be paid a competative market rate.
The other option is to create a curriculum which would have to be verified and that will come with a considerable up front cost.
Because each state is different, it will be encouraged that all classes be the the same.
Most states can't even agree on the types of drivers licences they offer. I have worked in states where you needed a commercial licence to drive an ambulance. The test had nothing to do with ambulances, but I could tell you when you were permitted to use an engine break (not found on ambulances) and how far behind your vehicle your load is permitted to protrude. There are also states which require a special ambulance licence. Many do not.
If you can't get them to agree on what licences are needed or issued, the only realistic way to get them to agree on a curriculum is to outsource an already established one. Which I must point out there is not one accepted standard for CPR or first aid in the country.
You must also take into account that some states like to disagree simply to demonstrate they have the right to or prove they can.
The government will pay for the added classes to better the health of the nation.
Government spending is not exactly very popular as of late.
As for bettering the health of the nation, I dispute such claim. First aid and CPR do not improve health. They are responsive measures to an emergency that has already occured.
They can lower morbidity and mortality, however, they are only the first step in one of the, if not the most expensive medical endevor in the world.
Lampnyter: It is really not that expensive to get certified,
That depends on where you live, who, and how many instructors are in your area.
The evidence does show this. But I think it may be cheaper to educate and encourage people to healthy lifestyles than to pay for and provide the care required to save a a life from acute presentations of disease processes that are often decades in the making. I also think it will save far more lives.
Another issue the US has to come to terms with is the cost vs benefit of some of the treatments available. The healthcare spending is already unsustainable.
When I renewed my certifications it was about $35.
You should send that instructor/agency a holiday greeting card. That buys about 1 hour of my time as a contract instructor where I supply only myself, certainly not what I expect for a full course, especially if I have to supply equipment.
It is quite affordable, and will cut down on lawsuits.
Not when the government gets involved. Then everything costs more for some reason. I have no idea how it would cut down on lawsuits. In just a simple way of looking at it, more people providing intervention increases the amount of people who will expose themselves to potential lawsuits. More people exposed means more lawsuits. Most Good Samaritan laws provide a limited affirmitive defense, they do not stop you from getting sued. They do not cover the cost of your legal representation, and they do not compensate you for the stress getting sued brings.
Tort reform is a fantasy and has some very wealthy and powerful advocates opposing it. The US cannot even pass medical malpractice reform, which is only a division of tort. What is the plan to make anyone who renders aid completely immune from a suit? There is already case precedent where lay rescuers have been held liable for injury to people in disaster conditions in the US.
At the scene of any emergency there are decisions that need to be made. In all aspects of life, when you make a decision, you are responsible for it. Rendering emergency aid is no different. when you are responsible, you can be sued.
) involved?