Expert says both proposals viable but prefers hospital-linked Aetna for deployment and medical control; cross-examination probes staffing, 'pit crew' and costs

Expert testimony resumed after a break and counsel cross‑examined the witness, identified in the record as Mr. Gunderson, about the basis for his comparative evaluation of the two competing EMS proposals for Wethersfield.

Bottom line from the witness: Mr. Gunderson said both proposals are viable, but between the two he “would probably give a little bit more strength to the Aetna proposal” based on a number of operational factors including dynamic deployment, hospital-aligned medical control, and Aetna’s longer history of providing ALS-level services.

What Gunderson said about the two proposals - Viability: “I would say both, would be adequate,” Gunderson testified, acknowledging WEMSA’s local model could work and that the staffing arrangement WEMSA proposes (using a staffing vendor to supply career paramedics) could mitigate recruitment problems. - Deployment model: Gunderson described Aetna’s approach as a dynamic-deployment or system-status-management model that makes “real time adjustments” with commercially available tools (he cited EMS Loop) and agreed that model results in different crews being assigned to calls on any given day. - Staffing continuity and pit‑crew performance: Gunderson said consistent staffing supports pit‑crew choreography for cardiac arrest responses but that the staffing-company arrangement WEMSA proposed could produce adequate continuity when the same personnel are regularly assigned. He described the pit‑crew concept as standardized roles so responders “know what that set of responsibilities are” during a resuscitation. - Medical control and potential conflicts: Gunderson said medical control based at the hospital where most patients are taken can provide advantages for quality improvement and feedback. He also acknowledged potential conflicts where a medical director has ownership ties to the provider but said the configuration “cuts both ways,” giving rise to possible conflicts of interest as well as incentives for good performance. The hearing record includes a Secretary of State annual filing (admitted as Exhibit HHH) identifying the medical control director as a principal for Aetna Ambulance Service Inc. - Financial analysis and subsidy: Gunderson said he did not perform a financial analysis or rate review. He noted cost elements mattered to town subsidy considerations and said, “If neither proposal is requesting subsidy support from the town, then they're equal, based on that element.” He also said he had not examined pro forma budgets in detail.

Scope of witness review and limits Gunderson described the limits of his work: he reviewed testimony and the proposals’ descriptions of medical control and deployment, but he did not do a comprehensive EMS system-design evaluation that would examine prevention, PSAP operations, or the full continuum of post-acute care. He said he relied on the record and did not perform new independent analyses of the hospital systems’ finances or the bankruptcy-related filings.

Cross-examination highlights (selected direct quotes) - On WEMSA’s model: “I think it [the Southbury example] did. I think it can show that, that model can work.” - On comparative strength: “Between the two, I would probably give a little bit more strength to the Aetna proposal.” - On staffing agencies and continuity: “It’s good that there's a staffing company that they can rely upon, but staffing companies... has its limitations.” - On medical control independence: “My preference is that the medical director, works for an organization outside of the ambulance service... but there, admittedly, there could be... some concerns about conflict of interest.”

What this means for the hearing officer The expert’s testimony clarified operational tradeoffs between a locally controlled, dedicated provider and a hospital-affiliated, dynamically deployed provider. The hearing officer and counsel repeatedly pivoted between system-design considerations (deployment, medical control, pit‑crew readiness) and evidentiary limits (the expert’s admitted lack of financial analysis, the late introduction of demonstratives and their underlying data).

Ending note: Mr. Gunderson’s testimony strengthens the record on operational factors — deployment, staffing continuity, medical control, and pit‑crew protocols — while leaving financial and legal questions (subsidy demands, bankruptcy impacts) to documentary proof and legal briefing.