It's not a solution. The problem is that emergency services aren't always available to those who need them; if you attach the possibility of a fee to the service then you have ensured that problem exists forever.
The problem of availability already exists because emergency services are abused on non-emergencies this stops those abuses freeing it up for real emergencies, no person no-matter how poor is going to balk at using an emergency service on an actual emergency cuz maybe they get charged 5 bucks if its not "emergency enough"
If it's 5 bucks then it's not going to stop care homes calling them either. If you look at the numbers being thrown around in these discussions we're talking about maybe 5k or more, which can definitely be a life-changing amount for a poor person.
Then don't fine poor people. Fine private care homes only as was suggested elsewhere in this thread. In the article it explains that they're only considering a fee for facilities, not for individuals.
Means-testing for public services? Please no. Means testing introduces bureaucratic hurdles, and the cost of determining and enforcing means limits can be up to 10x the actual amounts paid out. https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/jan/14/...
I dislike means testing as much as anyone (because of administrative overhead, bureaucratic overhead, welfare traps, complexity, you name it), but a simple test of "are you a private business/facility with more than 1 employee" in this case is one that I could get behind due to its inherently low overhead.
