Public Utility Model vs. Fire Based EMS in Indiana

[Dustdevil]

[EMS Billing]

The PUM is a hungry dinosaur, all but extinct in the U.S. Adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and expense is reflected in higher ambulance fees. Ambulance charges in Ft. Wayne are the highest I have seen in Indiana. It is unreasonable to think that the Ft. Wayne Fire Department could not provide a comparable level of service and patient care. Currently operating in a first-responder capacity, FWFD is supporting TRAA/AMR at taxpayer expense. While we live in a global economy, the economic situation in Indiana should be a factor in contracting decisions. In my opinion, sending $6.4 million to an out-of-state corporation is not fiscally-responsible, from an Indiana business perspective.

If TRAA has a $12 million budget, where is the remaining $5.6 million? While profit is not a dirty word, it is

still a factor in operating costs and ambulance fees.

"The city EMS submitted the lowest bid. But Stout claimed the city had an unfair advantage because of bulk purchasing power and other factors and insisted that to attract bidders, the city’s bid had to be “weighted.” The “weighting” raised the city’s bid above that of the winning contractor, Mercy Ambulance. "

TRANSLATION: The City of Ft. Wayne could have provided services in a more cost-effective and efficient manner.

With diligent medical control and oversight, fire departments are fully capable of operating

high-performance EMS systems. In any other sector, a monopoly would be unlawful.

The Ft. Wayne system is unlike any other in Indiana. Isn't it time to give the dinosaur a proper burial?

[towheadedmule]

Dust I have an opinion on this. I work in a PUM. But I need time to collect my thoughts and to type in from in front a computer, not my iPhone. So I will get a response up hopefully in the next 24

[spenac]

Anything that keeps me as a taxpayer from paying more taxes for something I may never need is a good thing. Another big plus is it keeps the fire monkeys out of the equation. I have no problem charging higher rates to those that need a service rather than unfairly billing me as a non-user. Plus perhaps it will help eliminate abusers.

[WelshMedic]

Anything that keeps me as a taxpayer from paying more taxes for something I may never need is a good thing. Another big plus is it keeps the fire monkeys out of the equation. I have no problem charging higher rates to those that need a service rather than unfairly billing me as a non-user. Plus perhaps it will help eliminate abusers.

Well, I think we can safely say you are no socialist.........

WM

[towheadedmule]

Dust I have an opinion on this. I work in a PUM. But I need time to collect my thoughts and to type in from in front a computer, not my iPhone. So I will get a response up hopefully in the next 24

[JakeEMTP]

I really can't offer a constructive ideas since I haven't been involved in a PUM system and do not work where SSM is taking place.

I do however, have a few thoughts on this, right or wrong. The current rate for a ambulance call of $998.00 + $14.00 seems excessive. That is almost double what we charge (maybe we're missing the boat here. However, if medicare only pays 50%,wtf?, are they aggressively billing for the remaining outstanding balance?)

Couldn't the Three Rivers Ambulance Authority run this system without AMR or the FD? Maybe by having a subscription charge to residents, then billing medicare for the rest? Again, I haven't any idea, this is all new to me. I mean, EMS doesn't have to make a profit if run by local Government. Heck, breaking even would be nice. The fire service isn't profitable either, yet taxpayers pour millions and millions of dollars into it.

I think SSM would suck. I haven't had to do it but it just doesn't seem palatable to me. Why don't they stage the Big Red Truck if they can look into the crystal ball and determine where the most 10-50's occur?

I will watch the remainder of the thread with interest. I really have nothing of value to add.

[Dustdevil]

Keep it up, guys! I have indeed worked in a PUM/SSM system. And I have a lot of thoughts on the validity of the theory, as well as this article in particular. As always, I look at the situation from every angle, not just those that benefit me personally. With that objectivity, I find myself with really quite mixed feelings about it. I'd still want to hear more of your thoughts before I contribute my own.

What do you think the motivation of the author was? This is clearly an Op-Ed piece, and not a straight news story. What was the agenda here, and why? Is he right or wrong?

[Ridryder 911]

I have a lot of opinions but would like to see more. My ex-brother in law help assist in developing some of those systems in the 80's. As well when I see the name Jack Stout and PUM; the hair on my neck stand up.

In regards to PUM; I don't believe they are a considered a dinosaur yet. There are still many that are still attempting to operate such as those in my home state... how successful is still debatable. Hence, the reason the Fire Services are circling alike a buzzard just awaiting their time.

R/r 911

[HellsBells]

The biggest over spending here is what the taxpayers are spending for the fire department. More than half of their annual runs are for medical calls. Would it not be logical, and cost effective for the municipality to have a tax funded EMS system, double the amount of ambulances and cut down on the amount of engines that are responding to medical calls? What is the minimum number of Fire Fighters that it takes to man a Fire Engine? I've never seen less than four. Thats at least double the staff of an ambulance.

For the life of me I just don't understand this idea of EMS responding from Fire Engines because they are "closer" than Ambulances. This means the system needs more ambulances, not the extra cost of two different depts doing the job of one ambulance.