Read in the Sunday edition of the Tulsa World that Oklahoma City decided to extend EMSAs contract for another 5 years. Which that means odds are Tulsa will do the same. A TFD Captian I talked to this morning says they will be prepared for it in 5 years and thinks it will happen for sure then.
More EMSA Talks
- Thread starter Medic32
- Start date
- Status
peterjmag
Member
Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't surpise me...
I've heard rumors that Tulsa is at least 5 years behind OKC in trying to take over the ambulance service, and OKC is at least 5 years behind getting it and they WANT it badly. Most Tulsa firefighters aren't very enthused about operating the ambulance service. Of course that can change. It'll be very difficult, however, for either of the cities fire departmenst to prove that they can do an equal quality job at the same price, or cheaper. One of the big kickers is they have said they would have a better collection rate. I find that hard to believe since we have one of the top, nationally awarded, insurance collectors that works for us. She also teaches the classes on how to bill insurance companies. Our medicare/medicaid collection rate is one of the best in the nation at the moment.
I just don't see how TFD plans to do it cheaper when they say they need a minimum of 104 paramedics, and would like to have 134, to do the same job we do with 55 paramedics. And we struggle keeping the schedules full on top of that. Paramedics aren't a dime a dozen like EMTs and the longevity of their careers in one place is roughly 4 years.
In all, I'm glad OKC (and hopefully Tulsa) will stay with EMSA and I love the working relationship we have with TFD (I heard OCFD and EMSA don't get along as well) and hope to keep working with them for years to come.
I just don't see how TFD plans to do it cheaper when they say they need a minimum of 104 paramedics, and would like to have 134, to do the same job we do with 55 paramedics. And we struggle keeping the schedules full on top of that. Paramedics aren't a dime a dozen like EMTs and the longevity of their careers in one place is roughly 4 years.
In all, I'm glad OKC (and hopefully Tulsa) will stay with EMSA and I love the working relationship we have with TFD (I heard OCFD and EMSA don't get along as well) and hope to keep working with them for years to come.
I remember the same argument back when Pioneer, Curtis Tate, and a few other funeral homes were running EMS. (yes I did work for Tate!), the FD wanted the service until they realized that there is more to Ambulance work than just emergencies. Sometimes you have to take grandma to her dr's appointment. They wouldn't do it, so COATA was formed, which caused Amcare, later EMSA. I think the FD should stay as they are first responders. They are good, but ambulance work is so much more than they can handle.
We have the same problem here in Elk City right now. Sinor's ran the serivce for decades, now the FD runs it and they have to run "grunt" calls. I understand they don't like it...
Jim
(Former EMT-P now BMET-III)
We have the same problem here in Elk City right now. Sinor's ran the serivce for decades, now the FD runs it and they have to run "grunt" calls. I understand they don't like it...
Jim
(Former EMT-P now BMET-III)
Dissolve EMSA? Why?
Everything I read says that EMSA contracts out service to Paramedic Plus. At certain intervals, that contract is up for renewal. TFD or OCFD could bid on that, but then they'd have to cover all the EMSA service area. That makes no sense to me.
So is the debate in OKC and/or Tulsa really about dissolving EMSA and starting over? What is so broke that it needs to be fixed?
Or is this just the FD managment looking at declining fire/hazmat runs and realizing that if they expect to justify their budgets in the future, they better start doing more?
I have no skin in this game - I'm in Norman where the hospital runs the EMS, I'm just curious.
KE5EHI said:
Everything I read says that EMSA contracts out service to Paramedic Plus. At certain intervals, that contract is up for renewal. TFD or OCFD could bid on that, but then they'd have to cover all the EMSA service area. That makes no sense to me.
So is the debate in OKC and/or Tulsa really about dissolving EMSA and starting over? What is so broke that it needs to be fixed?
Or is this just the FD managment looking at declining fire/hazmat runs and realizing that if they expect to justify their budgets in the future, they better start doing more?
I have no skin in this game - I'm in Norman where the hospital runs the EMS, I'm just curious.
plaws said:
EMSA is a public trust of the City of Tulsa. The City pays for all of our non-disposable equipment. Paramedics Plus is our contract owner, which pays for all of our disposable stuff. EMSA is the service itself, which all of the employees work for (which in turn makes us employees of Paramedics Plus). The reason there is three groups that 'own' EMSA is for a checks and balance system so no one entity can run the operation into the ground. If Paramedics Plus were to back out and someone else took over the contract for EMSA, only two things really change at EMSA itself. Where the paychecks come from and about two employees. EMSA remains the same. If the fire department took over, EMSA would pretty much go away and the fire department itself would take over service, so the ambulance wouldn't be EMSA anymore, it would be Tulsa or Oklahoma City Fire Department Ambulance.
plaws said:
Yes and no. The debate is, as there is every five years when the contract with the cities is up for renewal, is there a cheaper alternative or better service. The answer is basically 'no.' The reason there's such a debate this time is for the past 10 years (two contract periods), both cities have pretty much let the contract with EMSA automatically renew. This time around, they opened it up for others to submit a proposal. OCFD has been wanting to take over the ambulance service for some time now, so they offered up their deal. Mayor Taylor of Tulsa wanted to see if the Tulsa FD could do it cheaper because some of them had mentioned it, so she asked them for a proposal. Both OKC and Tulsa city council members got to see the numbers and talk with both parties. OKC went in favor of EMSA before the deadline to vote and hopefully Tulsa will side with EMSA.
plaws said:
Well, in a way. They would like to think that running the ambulance service would generate income for the fire department, like it does in Owasso and Broken Arrow. The problem lies with the cost of operations is WAY more than they could make (at least in Tulsa). Then you run into a whole batch of other issues, like:
How would quality of care compare?
How fast would response times be?
Why are we getting billed if we pay taxes to support a FD?
What about TotalCare?
Where are you going to get all of these paramedics you need? (see my post above)
Everyone knows a fire department is a bear on a cities budget. So if the fire department takes over, they are going to need more money to fund the operations of an ambulance, which the tax payers will shell out. The revenue generated in a city like Tulsa wouldn't meet the cost with as many 911 calls as we get.
Due to medicare/medicaid cutbacks on paying for things like an ambulance, EMSA asked the City of Tulsa to subsidize about 2 million to make up for the money lost from insurance compaines to help fund the operations. This means that the taxpayer has to pay about an extra one to two dollars a year to support EMSA. EMSA then bills it's patients to keep the subsidy down, therefore you only really pay when you call an ambulance. OKC is about the same, except taxpayers there pay about five to six dollars. This is petty change compared to other cities that the taxpayer might pay 30-60 dollars a year for a service that isn't as good as EMSA.
A few million a year is pocket change to a city, and in return, they are getting one of the best EMS systems in the nation for one of the lowest price tags.
Last edited:
Secret_Squirrel
Nut Protector Extraordinaire
Must....resist...the urge...to....chime in on this......
- Status
Similar threads
