Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Cost Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn proposes $1,000 fee for nonemergency lift-assist calls from care facilities; chief cites sharp rise in calls
Summary
The fire chief told council that calls to assisted-living facilities for nonemergency lift assists have risen sharply and proposed an ordinance to bill facilities $1,000 per nonemergency response; the ordinance had a first reading and staff described plans for billing and liens on unpaid amounts.
Dearborn Fire Chief (name given in the transcript) told the City Council on Sept. 9 that the department is seeing a marked increase in nonemergency calls — including lift assists — from assisted-living and nursing facilities, and staff introduced a first-reading ordinance to recover costs from facilities that repeatedly summon emergency responders for nonurgent needs.
The proposed ordinance (ordinance number 25-18-58) would authorize billing facilities $1,000 per nonemergency run, subject to periodic adjustment by the council, and the city said unpaid costs could be placed as liens on properties. The chief said one nearby facility went from about 200 calls a year to roughly 1,000 calls, and that many facilities that advertise on-site assistance are not staffing to meet those obligations.
"We're always happy to help, but we're also there very frequently, and it's taken the resources away from other members of the community as well for other more emergent, matters," the chief said. The chief added the city has reached out repeatedly to facilities about staffing and that other communities have adopted similar ordinances.
Councilmembers asked administrative questions about billing, collection and the intended recipient of bills. The chief said the city will work with its EMS biller and the finance department to issue invoices and use existing delinquency processes, including placing unpaid amounts on tax rolls. The ordinance completed a first reading; no final vote was taken.
Supporters framed the ordinance as a cost-recovery and patient-safety measure and said it targets facilities with legal obligations to maintain appropriate staff, not individual residents. Opponents at future hearings could contest specific assessments under the proposed appeal process in the ordinance.
