Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-30-1999 Meeting I PUBLIC SAFETY COlYfN[[TTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - August 30,1999 3:30 P.M. PRESENT: F. Handy, Chairman, B. Kuhlke, W. Mays, S. Shepard, members; U. Bridges, J. Brigham, R. Colclough, Commissioners; R. Oliver, Administrator; J. Wall, Attorney; C. Rushton, IT Director; S. Hatfield, Sheriffs Dept.; Chief C. Scott and Chief Sheridan, Fire Dept.; E. Doss, Rural Metro Ambulance Service; T. Schneider, Gold Cross Ambulance Service; L. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. ABSENT: B. Young, Mayor. ALSO PRESENT: S. Cooper, Augusta Chronicle; S. Eidson, Metro Spirit. A request to approve $95,000 for the cost of additional training and related travel expenses and necessary software modifications to support the Bi- Tech IFAS Software. Mr. Shepard: In view of the hour and in view of the backup materials on items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 there are really no alternatives to those items, I don't see why we couldn't approve them as a consent agenda. I NIr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. A request to approve $59,000 for the cost of additional Bi- Tech IF AS Software licenses and third party software. Mr. Shepard: So move. tvIr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. A request to approve $8,000 for the purchase of laptops for Traffic Engineering in order to satisfy Y2K compliance with software requirements. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. I A request to approve $18,000 for a Computer-Aided-Dispatch Wrecker Rotation Module, approve replacing the current Mugshot Photo Imaging System with an integrated New World System at no additional cost, and approve $10,000 for additional end-user training. I Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. Presentation on status of Y2K updates. Mr. Shepard: I move we defer this item to the next Committee meeting. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. Presentation by Rural Metro. Mr. Oliver: As you recall, Rural Metro asked for an ordinance that would require advance life support services for ambulance service provided in this county. I wanted to get both parties to the table so that you could get that dialogue. We have NIr. Tom Schneider from Gold Cross and lVIr. Ernie Doss of Rural Metro. I asked Rural Metro to I be prepared because there was some discussion by Commissioner Colclough as it related to response time standards, what the level ofresponse was, the training and that type thing, but just to give an over view of those types of services. So my suggestion Mr. Chairman would be to ask Mr. Doss to make the presentation. Mr. Doss. General Manager, Rural Metro: What we've asked and what we've presented as a proposal to require the designated number one provider for Richmond County to operate all ALS system. Currently Rural Metro maintains the level of care provided in our contract with University Hospital, which was to maintain the same level that University had at the time of the contract. The contract between University and Richmond County just simply calls for an ambulance service it does not specify a level of service. So we've been operating at the level of our intent of the agreement with University Hospital, we would like to raise the bar and this ordinance would do that. As far as training and other issues, we currently put on the street twelve to thirteen ALS units a day that would require us to change three of our BLS trucks to ALS so that would require some additional training. We have some people that are completing paramedic school and we feel that we could also recruit if we need to, the additional staff. We already have all the additional equipment and the units it would take to do that. We're not asking for anything from the county. All we need is the additional people to those units. As far as our communications and response times, we've made some changes in our communications center. We have a new communications manager making sure that all of our dispatchers are EMT trained and we're making some modifications to our I systems status plan. Ambulances have traditionally been located in Richmond County I through a tradition a long tradition and we're actually looking at population changes in Richmond County, they've shifted and moved and we're looking at all of our graphics to figure out, do we have our stations in the correct places. Our current agreement with the hospital is looking at a countywide response time. And as we've been hearing some feed back, we're looking at changing that response time, maybe back to smaller geographical areas, instead of looking at the whole county as a response. We feel the ordinance would improve the level of care in Richmond County. It has been written so that it would not adversely impact any ambulance service operating in Richmond County, unless that county was designated by the state as the 911 provider for either the county or for a portion of the county. Mr. Kuhlke: I don't really have any questions regarding this. \\lhen the ordinance came to us I know our concern was the questions that have been answered. The other question was what impact would it have on competition within the area? I !vIr. Schneider, CEO, Gold Cross Ambulance Service: We feel that this ordinance is not necessary. We think it would impact our service. We learned ALS trucks as well as LS the same as Rural Metro does. I received this hand out too, and I noticed that it would only apply to the designated 911 service and no impact on other licensed ambulance service and I would have to disagree with that. The EMS Council has ruled that Rural Metro is the primary provider but Gold Cross is the secondary provider and the closest available ambulance would be sent on calls. If Gold Cross was closer, we would be the designated provider, so we feel it would have an impact. Only two percent of the actual ambulance calls will you need ALS on. Therefore, r can't see the feasibility of it and I think it could result in higher ambulance charges for everyone in the county. Mr. Shepard: I would like to ask both representatives to tell me if the EMS Council has spoken to this issue as to what is an adequate level of service, what do they require, if anything? Mr. Doss: In the current zoning plan the EMS Council does not designate whether a provider has to be ALS or BLS. But I think that Mr. Schneider would have to agree, since he and I both serve on Council that the intent of the zoning was to insure that zoned ambulance providers, people running 911 calls were at the ALS level. Proving a paramedic unit on a 911 response is a better standard of care than providing a basis ambulance. That's what we're looking to do is improve patient care. In our particular region the EMS Council has not mandated a particular level of service. They have gone with whatever the county has. Richmond County is the only county that does not have it spelled out by contract. Mr. Doss: The ALS Ordinance will require Medicare to reimburse at a higher rate. I Mr. Handy: rfMedicare pays for Medicare patients what about someone without Medicare, will I have to pay the extra money? Mr. Doss: Currently, over ninety percent of emergency ambulance calls responded to in Richmond County are responded to by the paramedic unit. Of the remaining ten percent that are responded to by a basic unit, the paramedic backup is going, so currently today, those people are already receiving a bill for advanced life support or paramedic response. So our rates are not going to change, our rates are contractually with the University Hospital. So the only person that will pay a higher bill on a significant standpoint will be Medicare. !vIr. Handy: So you're saying we're over charging already. !vIr. Doss: No sir, we're not overcharging. Mr. Handy: You're saying that I'm paying a higher price now, regardless of whether I use the service or not. Mr. Doss: You're getting the paramedic service now, and you're paying of it. Medicare because of federal rules are paying what they want to pay. Medicare is down grading these paramedic calls to basic life support. Mr. Mays: We're talking about making a professional decision that is being basically hidden within an ordinance that probably the folks sitting around this table do not have the expertise to make. You're talking about one company basically saying one thing and one saying another. Naturally we want the best of care for the citizens in this community. But I think if we're playing the game of Medicare to push us into that mode. then I ask the question in reverse, what happens in the number of Medicare cases that are turned down or that those limits are not approved or that when you answer a call not knowing what you're going to find when you get there that may go out as a 911 deal where basically you may not need that level of training to get it, when its put forth into paper work, then if it's turned down or if it's lesser to a degree, who pays that? Is it then passed on to that consumer out there when Medicare says that this did not have to be of that level, just like other normal treatment. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know there are a lot of cases inside of hospitals that Medicare when examining those do not pay for those things when they are presented and you have those kick backs in Medicare. Now are we putting that on a constituency without the guarantees. If! was the federal government and knew what you all were passing an ordinance basically to extract some money out of me. then I'll be looking at that system and monitoring it very close from a federal officer just to see whether or not you're doing that so that you can pad the billing of it. I don't think we need to make that decision. We asked prior to in reference to the Council and some guidance as to where we were going. I think that's what's supposed to be, and you gentlemen are both members of it to give some guidance to a political body as to what we are to do other than the fact of getting into a contest between two providers. I think that's basically around this level of the room in the background. When we have this type of dispute, I don't want to do anything negative to the constituents that we serve, but I'm not necessarily in the business of ordaining a pre-written ordinance that comes to me by way I I I I of a vendor, by way of a professional company that says make this law to extract a billing process, I don't think we should be in that kind ofbusiness. Mr. Kuhlke: I agree with Mr. Mays on that and I would like to make a motion that we defer doing anything on this and they can present it to the EM Council and see if they want to come back with a recommendation in regards to this. Mr. Shepard: I second that if the providers are going to take that to their council. Motion carried unanimously. A request to approve the sale of two (2) surplus Fire Pumpers, Reserve Engine 2 and Reserve Engine 12 to another government entity for the sum of $37,000. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. I A request to approve the following additions to contract for new ROD system: · Make changes to ROD system to allow data conversion of instruments with alphanumeric books and/or pages. . Make change to ROD system to allow a select list of subdivisions for the IndexinglProofing modules. · Make changes to ROD system to allow copying of previously entered parcel nomenclature to he copied to additional parcels being entered for the same instrument transaction. . Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of "Return Mailing Labels". . Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of all transfer and intangible tax charges on the cashier's receipt. . Make changes to ROD system to show summary reports of UCC activity. · Make changes to the ROD system so that a charge of $2.50 will be applied for the printing of a search results list from the public access stations. . Cost for all changes - 542,000. Mr. Shepard: So move. !vIr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. I With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission Ibb I PUBLIC SAFETY AGENDA COMMITTEE ROOM - August 30, 1999 3:30 P. M. I. Approve $95,000 for the cost of additional training and related travel expenses and necessary software modifications to support the Bi-Tech IFAS Software. 2. Approve $59,000 for the cost of additional Bi-Tech IFAS Software licenses and third party software. 3. Approve $8,000 for purchase of laptops for Traffic Engineering in order to satisfy Y2K compliance with software requirements. 4. Approve $18,000 for a Computer-Aided-Dispatch Wrecker Rotation Module, approve replacing the current Mugshot Photo Imaging System with an integrated New World System at no additional cost, and approve #10,000 for additional end- user training. 5. Presentation on status of Y2K updates. 6. Presentation by Rural Metro. I 7. Consider ordinance requiring emergency ambulance services to provide Advanced Life Support level of service. 8. Approve the sale of two (2) surplus Fire Pumpers, Reserve Engine 2 and Reserve Engine 12 to another government entity for the sum of$37,000.00. 9. Approve the following additions to contract for new ROD system: · Make changes to ROD system to allow data conversion of instruments with alphanumeric books and/or pages. . Make change to ROD system to allow a select list of subdivisions for the IndexinglProofing modules. . Make changes to ROD system to allow copying of previously entered parcel nomenclature to be copied to additional parcels being entered for the same instrument transaction. . Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of "Retum Mailing Labels". . Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of all transfer and intangible tax charges on the cashier's receipt. . Make changes to the ROD system to show summary reports ofUCC activity. . Make changes to the ROD system so that a charge of $2.50 will be applied for the printing of a search results list from the public access stations. . Cost for all changes - $42,000.00. I