Item B: Ambulance Fund Stabilization

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT 1 Provider departments and their governing bodies have already expended substantial effort to address this critical public concern by taking steps to reduce expenditures and increase revenues including passing extraordinary increases in user fees, FireMed memberships fees, and implementing initiatives recommended by the 2009 initial Joint Elected Officials ATTF. None of these adjustments individually or in whole has created a sustainable revenue source during any 6- year financial forecast period. The Task Force was re-established in 2011 to continue the discussion of finding a permanent funding source offering stabilization for this vital service. The 2011 ATTF has developed the following options: Do nothing. 1. Jurisdictions would remain responsible for providing and funding ambulance transport within its assigned Ambulance Service Areas (ASA). Under this option, jurisdictions recognize stabilizing the fund could require additional fee increases, continued reduction in expenditures, change in service levels, and/or on-going General Fund support for the continued high-quality provision of this core service. The elected bodies could choose to make General Fund support the permanent solution to the problem. However, the Task Force believes that, for the sake of preserving other local government services to the greatest extent possible, General Fund support should be viewed only as a short-term solution. Further, residents who do not live in the city limits but reside within the ambulance service area will not be contributing to the support of the service under this scenario. Privatize. 2. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield currently contract with a private provider for non-emergency transport. Under this contract, the Cities remain responsible for the service provided within the ASA. Under full privatization, the public would not only relinquish quality control, but also the emergency response versatility afforded by the firefighter/paramedics now staffing local ambulances. The goal would be to find the equilibrium point between these two ends of the public/private partnership spectrum. For this option, a feasibility study would be required including a review of costs to each jurisdiction to maintain fire response for medical calls in the event the ambulance transport system is contracted to a private provider in its entirety. For example, jurisdictions would need to maintain contracts for a supervising physician, which are currently funded by individual Ambulance Transport Funds. Additional considerations include payment for first response by the private provider and the financial stability of a private provided to ensure long-term, high quality service. Form Ambulance Transport District. 3. A new limited special-purpose district could be formed in central Lane County, or the region could annex to an existing health district to provide ambulance service. These options require governance by an elected board of directors. Alternatively, a county service district could be established. This type of entity would be governed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Forming a district requires an affirmative vote of the electorate within the proposed district. Attachment B is an overview of district-related options for ambulance service funding, prepared in June 2011 by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The Task Force reviewed a full LCOG report regarding districts that was commissioned by the Lane May 24, 2012 Page 2 of 7