Westy:
It appears to me that the solution is quite clear - keep the versions in synchrony - the German hospital problem has been dealt with by the Authors of JAR-OPS 3; if you as a Nation wish to ignore the solution - so be it.
If the translation of (the amendments to) JAR-OPS 3 into German costs more than the building of a single Annex 14 heliport, I would be astonished.
How you can advise the heliport owners on the building, or re-building, of their sites when you do not even know what the current regulation contains beats me. You (Germany) might wish to conduct a discussion with the Authors of JAR-OPS 3 - it would appear that they have a comprehensive understanding of the hospital problem and have already provided appropriate solutions.
Maybe a temporary solution is for the MOT/LBA/Lande to permit (pro tem.) operators to use the latest version of JAR-OPS 3 whilst the regulations are being updated. Any other State would have already permitted this by using JAR-OPS 3.010 - Exemptions as the basis for amendment of the Operations Specification for each HEMS Operator.
This discussion was first conducted at AIRMED 2000 in Stavanger and led to substantial guidance being put into JAR-OPS 3 at the next amendment cycle. You might wish to obtain the latest copy of JAR-OPS 3 and read Section 1 and, in particular, Section 2 of Subpart B - you will find them revealing.
EASA is not the answer to this, you will merely pay for the translation in another way.