Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Revenue And Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boyle County approves contract for ambulance supplemental payment cost collection
Summary
At a special-call budget workshop, Boyle County Fiscal Court approved a contract with a third-party firm to perform cost-collection audits for a new voluntary ambulance supplemental payment program; county will pay an upfront amount and the vendor will take a 10% fee on recoveries, officials said.
At a special-call budget workshop meeting, the Boyle County Fiscal Court approved a contract with a third‑party firm to perform cost-collection audits for a new ambulance supplemental payment program, county staff said.
Mike Rogers, a county staff member who presented the item, said the program is voluntary and short‑notice. He described it as similar to a required Medicaid cost recovery the county has used under House Bill 8 but said participation is optional. “We would pay in about 95,000, and then we would get all that back anywhere from 200 to $300,000,” Rogers said. He told the court the payments should begin coming in around January.
Rogers told the court the vendor would perform the audit and collection work and would retain a 10% fee on recoveries. “So the contract you have for you is to let this company do it, to do the audit. And it does they do take a 10%,” he said, adding the work could be audited. Rogers and court members said they could consider doing the work in‑house in future years if the county learns the process.
County officials stressed the program carries audit risk and a short timetable. Rogers said there is an approaching deadline tied to the cost collection paperwork; he said, “It’s due May 15,” which was cited as the reason the item was placed on the special‑call agenda. The court approved the contract on a motion by Manager Gay and a second from Manager Cohen; the motion carried.
The court did not provide a detailed vote tally on the record beyond the motion and its passage. The presentation named the vendor only as a third‑party cost‑collection company (referred to during the meeting as “Public Consulting”), and Rogers said the county could reassess the contract after its first year of performance.
Court members noted the expected net revenue would help an EMS budget that routinely operates with a deficit. Rogers cautioned the revenue is not guaranteed and the collection process is new for most U.S. jurisdictions. The court authorized signing the agreement and directed staff to proceed with the contract paperwork.
The court moved on to the next agenda items after the vote.
