Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates proposed EMS non-transport fee amid senior concerns; item moved for more information
Summary
Councilman Donald Pavlik questioned a proposed $300 EMS non-transport fee as unfair to seniors and a potential deterrent to calling 911. Mayor Kilway and staff said a 2011 ordinance prevents balance billing and described limited circumstances when the charge would apply; council advanced the item at first reading pending historical billing data.
Councilman Donald Pavlik urged caution over Ordinance 20-26-58, a first-reading proposal to authorize a non-transport emergency-medical-services fee. Pavlik said residents, particularly seniors, view the charge as "nickeling and diming" and worried it could discourage people from calling 911: "they feel like this is nickeling and diming, especially the senior citizens," he said.
Mayor Kilway and staff responded that the city already operates under an ordinance preventing balance billing of residents. Kilway described the narrowly defined instances when a non-transport charge would apply — chiefly when advanced life support interventions (IVs, medications, advanced airway treatment, a 12-lead ECG) were provided and a patient then refused transport — and emphasized that insurers would be billed first. "We do have an ordinance where we do not balance bill our residents," Kilway said, adding the charge would not apply to routine checks where no medical reason for transport exists.
Council asked staff for records on historical non-transport or related billings and for several years of call data; the sponsor agreed that the ordinance could be amended or withdrawn after more information. The item was left at first reading and moved forward pending the requested data rather than being adopted on first reading.
