Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Operational Capacity Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DPH hearing centers on who can safely provide ALS in Weathersfield and whether implementation should be delayed
Summary
At oral argument on July 29, town and Aetna counsel argued that Aetna’s regional deployment model better preserves ALS coverage and response times; WEMSA countered that it lacks ALS equipment and med‑control in place and asked for a delayed implementation if the proposed decision is adopted.
Counsel for the town of Wethersfield and for Aetna Ambulance told the Department of Public Health on July 29 that the hearing officer correctly found Aetna’s plan would maintain or improve patient care in the town, citing decades of local experience and evidence on response times and dynamic deployment.
Town counsel Arnold Menschel and Aetna counsel Kim Reinhart described a regional model in which multiple ambulances are posted and dynamically redeployed so one unit moving to a hospital is backstopped by another ambulance moving into its posting. Menschel said the record includes evidence that Aetna historically maintains two to three posting locations in Weathersfield and, regionally, typically staffs 10–12 ALS and 10–12 BLS ambulances so it can scale coverage.
Why it matters: Parties framed this dispute as a life‑and‑death policy question about whether the town’s emergency medical services will have reliable ALS coverage, especially given Weathersfield’s older population and several major highways running through the town.
Aetna and the town pointed to exhibits and testimony in the record showing Aetna’s experience responding to multiple simultaneous calls — counsel referenced an exhibit that tracked hundreds of solo Aetna responses and an exhibit showing instances where multiple ambulances were provided within a short period. Aetna’s counsel also emphasized internal quality‑control practices and a low reliance on mutual aid in the record.
WEMSA’s attorney disputed that the incumbent association could be converted to the same ALS capacity on short notice. Mary Alice Moore Lenhart noted findings in the record that WEMSA does not currently have ALS equipment on its ambulances and lacks an approved procedure for securing controlled drugs, and she said WEMSA has never itself delivered ALS services (it contracted ALS in past arrangements). On that basis Lenhart urged either denial of the proposed decision or, if the decision is adopted, a transition period of at least 30–60 days (she also suggested 90 days or up to six months in argument) to allow orderly redeployment, med‑control approvals and staffing transitions.
Town and Aetna counsel opposed a long delay. The town said dispatch would only need to switch the primary phone number it uses to call responders and argued a short 24–48 hour notice could suffice. Aetna counsel said the company already staffs sufficient resources in the region and that implementation can proceed without lengthy delay; counsel noted the parties have had months of prior notice while the case proceeded.
Ending: The hearing officer closed oral argument and said he would issue a final decision soon. If the department adopts the proposed memorandum of decision, parties indicated they may separately press the agency on the length of any implementation or transition period.
