Weekend round-up

The editors of The Blade think that we, the voters of Lucas County, just don't understand tax levies. In this editorial, they say "(t)he third time should be a charm for COSI Toledo."

Yes, two failed levies and they think it needs to be on the ballot again.

"COSI may ask voters again to help fund the museum with a 0.167-mill levy, the same amount as last year. That would be a good move, provided it is backed up with an adequate campaign to educate the public about what's at stake."

You see, we just didn't understand what was at stake when we defeated the two previous levies.

I guess we didn't understand that OUR priorities for spending were more important than theirs - and COSI's. I guess we didn't understand that the management of the facility was lacking in sound financial practices. I guess we didn't understand that the attraction didn't continue to attract attendees because they didn't keep their exhibits current. I guess we didn't understand that such a museum needed to do more to be self-sufficient rather than rely upon eventually turning to taxpayers for support. I guess we didn't understand that Toledo tax dollars were already subsidizing the facility through the payment of utilities. I guess we didn't understand that the financials for the facility showed that it was not sustainable when it was first built. I guess we just don't 'get it.'

But when you consider all these points, I'm of the opinion that the voters are actually smarter than the Blade editors because they chose NOT to give their tax dollars to a non-profit organization that shouldn't ever be on the ballot in the first place.

In the end, The Blade thinks "COSI should give Toledo voters another chance to reconsider the folly of previous levy failures. Maybe a third time will be lucky." COSI should give US another chance??? COSI hasn't done anything to earn another chance from us - and hopefully the Board of County Commissioners will, for a change, heed the will of the voters and tell COSI no when when they ask to put another levy on the November ballot.

***

The Lucas County Republican Party has a new chairman - Jon Stainbrook. He was elected by the Central Committee during their meeting Saturday. Of course, winning the chairmanship is the easy step. Raising the money and following through with all the promises is where the real work begins - and it's much harder to do than it is to say.

***

The City of Toledo, in an anti-business move, took over providing ambulance services and is now getting ready to make their first lease payment on the vehicles. They're saying that they've billed about $1.4 million - as they planned in their original budget. What they don't say is how much they've actually collected. Hopefully city council members will ask about the money actually received as part of the discussion on the payment.

The Fire Department also says that response times have improved. That's because they dispatch an ambulance with the rescue squad, ensuring that the ambulance and rescue squad arrive at almost the same time. Of course, when the private ambulance companies suggested this very same dispatching protocol, the Fire Department objected. You see, if an ambulance with a paramedic arrived before a rescue squad, that paramedic could begin to provide treatment and care - and wouldn't have to turn over the patient to the Fire Department upon arrival. And that just wasn't acceptable to the Fire Department and their union members.

Now that the union members are providing the ambulance services, it's okay to dispatch at the same time, so it's clear that this wasn't really about 'patient care' because they could have accomplished the same 'reduced transport times' by changing their dispatching protocol.

In the mean time, private ambulance companies have laid off employees, reducing the amount of payroll taxes the City collects. I wonder if any council members will think to ask about how much tax revenue the city's lost when they evaluate the 'success' of the ambulance program.

Anti-logic: Toledo ambulance runs

Well, here goes another post on the anti-logic so prevalent in today's governmental actions.

On Sunday, The Blade had an article with a terrific headline: Ambulance runs will pay off for city, fire officials assert. New service squeezes private transporters.

Doesn't that just about say it all?

But that was just the headline. In the second paragraph you see that perhaps the headline is a bit misleading.

"But so far, basic life-support ambulances - which began their full operation last month - haven't brought in any profit and are projected to cost the city nearly $1 million over the next five years to lease six rigs."

Granted, the article is filled with quotes and estimates that the profit will be there, despite a projected collection rate of only 40%. But I can't help but wonder if the 'profit' that is projected was ever balanced with the lack of payroll taxes, income taxes and other taxed due to the city caused by the elimination of jobs and income by the private ambulance companies.

Certainly someone looked at that DECREASE in tax revenue, even though it was never discussed by city council. Perhaps not, though, as that would have required city council members to think of such a question in the first place.

But the real zinger is the false claim that better patient care is a result of this decision - based upon the following:

"Jim Martin, president of Toledo Firefighters Local 92, said first responders are able to more quickly return to service. In the past, fire engines were out of service while they waited for a private ambulance to arrive.

"Now, they turn around and go back into service," Mr. Martin said.

Rescuers were called to a West Toledo apartment last week and were able to quickly transport a 3-year-old boy, who had fallen and hit his head, to Toledo Hospital.

Previously, first responders would have arrived, assessed the scene, and then called a private ambulance company to transport the boy - which sometimes took up to 20 minutes, Mr. Harman said.

Within minutes of the call, the little boy was buckled into a child safety seat inside the rig and was on his way to the hospital.

"He might still be there waiting for the private ambulance [and] now he's at the hospital," Mr. Harman said. "That's where the patient care gets better.""

If the main 'problem' government was trying to address in taking over this task was the delay waiting for the arrival of the basic life support ambulance run, it would have been easy to fix. Ambulance companies have, for years, asked to be dispatched at the same time as the rescue squad, with the understanding that they'd respond without lights and sirens. They even offered to cover any internal expenses as a result of getting to the scene only to find that they might not be needed. But if they were needed, they'd be present and ready to transport, allowing the fire unit to return quickly to service.

But that idea was routinely rejected by the fire department without much explanation - or at least none that made a lot of sense.

And here's where the problem with article comes in. The article explains that:

"Basic life-support units and first responders are dispatched simultaneously, which also reduces the amount of time it takes to get patients to the hospital, said Luke Harman, a firefighter and EMT at Station 9 in South Toledo."

Did you note that? Under the city-run transport services, they're now dispatching the tranport unit AND the first responders at the same time - and then they're using this as an example of 'better patient care.'

Of course, they could have agreed to this dispatching protocol without going to expense of leasing ambulances and then staffing them ... and without significantly impacting local private companies. But where's the fun in that?

Again, it's anti-logic. It doesn't make sense to say that 'governmentizing' such tasks results in better patient care when a simple change in protocol was all that was needed. Face it - this really had nothing to do with patient care or time at the scene because both these issues could have been addressed by implementing the protocol the city changed - dual dispatching.

So why did government have to take over this function? I'll let you decided - and comment accordingly.

ASIDE: background on this issue is available here and here.

Ambulance Fees - What will they be? UPDATED

On June 12th, Toledo City Council will consider an ordinance to give the Fire Department the authority to establish and implement Basic Life Support (BLS) transport fees. The ordinance also awards "a contract to Advanced Data Processing, Inc. under terms and conditions prescribed by the Director of Law to collect transport fees for the Basic Life Support (BLS) transport billing and collection service."

The County has established a cap on the amount that ambulance companies, under contract with the County, can charge for BLS runs dispatched by them. That cap is $500 plus mileage. Dennis Cole, director of the County Emergency Management Agency which oversees the County's ambulance contracts, explained that the County does not have any contractual language that would limit the amount that the City of Toledo can charge.

Toledo has not said what they're looking at in terms of a fee. Interestingly, I could find no news coverage of any discussion on how much would need to be charged to generate the "at least $1.2 million a year in extra cash for the city's general operating fund" that this service is supposed to produce. And with no publicized discussions of what fees would equal $1.2 million in revenue, there are likely no 'promises' of not increasing the cost to those who have to use the service. And with all the discussion of 'continuity of care' being more important, I can predict that this will be the excuse should the fee be more than $500.

Somehow, I don't think Toledoans will happy if it's anything other than the $500 that they were paying under the private structure, and woe to any politicians who supported this if it is.

UPDATE: I've been trying to find my old notes on this issue, but I believe that the County's rate is set at a maximum of $500 - and that many ambulance companies were charging less than this for BLS runs. Since the ordinance gives the Fire Department the ability to set the fees, I wonder if anyone will question or require documentation for how those fees are determined?

Kudos to 5 Council Members for Ambulance Vote

Kudos and thanks to five Toledo City Council members who voted against having government take over a portion of the private ambulance services in our city!

Republicans Joe Birmingham, Rob Ludeman, George Sarantou, and Betty Shultz along with Democrat Ellen Grachek cast no votes on this ordinance which would allow our Fire Department to lease ambulances and provide basic life support services on 9-1-1 calls.

More information on this vote is available in this Blade story, but lacking in all the stories is the impact of taking these fire fighters out of service for the ambulance runs.

The City estimates that this decision will gain them about $600,000 this year and up to $1.2 million next year...additional revenue they say is needed to help balance our budget deficit of almost $11 million.

The logic some of the other members of council used to justify the vote was 'continuity of care.' Under this process, the same people who provide the emergency service will also be the ones transporting to the hospital. And yes, there is an aspect of 'continuity' for the individual who is injured or ill.

However, by using these fire fighters to transport, they are no longer available for other emergency runs nor for fighting fires and that results in a lack of continuity of service for everyone else.

The ambulance companies said that, based upon the location of the city-owned ambulances (in the more affluent areas of the city), they could lose up to 40% of their business. MedCorp President Richard Bage said he may move his headquarters and 300-employee payroll out of the city. The claims of loss of business ring true considering the impact of the City's decision to take over tow operations from private companies in 2005. That venture was supposed to net the city about a half a million dollars a year, but no one has publicized the financials on this - probably because it didn't measure up to projections.

Before Council voted on this, you'd think they'd want to know of the last government takeover of private business resulted in the projected revenue...but not in Toledo.

Toledo is losing people and businesses. Our mayor and council have said that they want to be a place that people and businesses want to come and grow. But their actions speak louder than their words - and people and businesses are hearing them loud and clear.