Second, The continued partisan pickering is ridiculous. If you are so one sided ACP or BFD on this issue that you can’t look at the Big picture without ruffling your union sticker or tarnishing a white shirt then you live a very limited life – but ignorance is bliss isn’t it.

That being said, I do believe that Dennis / BFD’s goals are to obtain a position of power over EMS transport. I also believe that the hiring practices of medics in the fire department (with some exceptions) is not condusive to good overall medical care. There is no real precepting program in place to validate skills or experience (if it exists), but the simple fact of the matter is most people don’t care and it’s a losing battle to argue it. But that doesn’t make it right either.

Third: ACP as a dept treated BFD like second class citizens for years and are now starting to reap the benefits of that (not really). As a result there is a joint deployment / staffing model being proposed that would essentially pay BFD / MFD for providing 3.5 positions on an ACP ambulance. Is it the right thing for ACP to do…. pay fire dept personnel to work on a transport vehicle? Won’t that create OT in the Fire Dept? Likewise won’t that eliminate jobs for the paramedics at ACP? Why is that fair or the right thing to do for either service or the taxpayers at large? The answer is, it’s not. If medicine was important to the fire depts. and training their staff was a core value of the organization, they would have found an avenue to do this much earlier in the game than now. … But they haven’t. Likewise, it smacks of ACP trying to buy the Fire dept off and that’s a bit of a joke in itself. This won’t delay the goal, which is to gain 1)Control 2)More revenue to fund a fire mission that seems well funded and staffed for it’s present mission.

Typically I don’t put much stock in beating around the bush and try to be direct, honest and fair. My comments may not be well received, but for the most part, they aren’t personal either. I can back them to most logical people if they are willing to listen. If anyone out there is truly interested in seeing public safety (EMS / FIRE) move forward in a stewardly way, they would promote the notion and development of a county wide public safety division. The reasoning for this is it takes out the partisan City Fire / County views of what patch you wear and who it is that you work for. Fire / EMS ??? Get over it. Let medical folks do medicine and they won’t try and put out the fire/fires that come along and vice/versa. The missions are different as should be the primary focus of each specialty.

Damm!

(Suffice it to say that I am NOT agreeing with almost anything your laying out on the table…)

There is a lot that could use correcting, it seems apparent that your ability to look at things objectively and see another side of it is the thing that needs correcting the most.

Namaste and be well

I would like to say thank you for agreeing with me. Since the only thing in my last few posts that you feel is wrong and needs correcting is Hagen’s resume, you must agree with me about the fire medics complementing the ACP units is a good thing for the citizens. You also must not have a rebuttal for the idea that Chief Doan is trying to work together to make the system better and Chief Hagen is turning his back on him. And that ACP is stealing money from the ambulance that actually serves the folks in Kuna, and ACP shouldn’t be taxing the Kuna Rural Fire district. Stealing probably isn’t the best word to use there but ACP should be forwarding any tax monies from that area to Kuna Fire.

Thanks for your support

Jim

Your post there is a bit misinformed on several levels:

Now my memory gets fuzzy in my advanced years, but I recall Director Hagen was not jumped from the field to director, He worked his way up from the field , stopping at Supervisor (think Battalion Chief in Fire terms), then Assistant/Deputy Director and then acting director for a period of time, then Director. This was done over a career. Along the way he was a team leader (supervisor) on several specialty teams as well.

On top of that he also has his MBA I believe.

He is also member on several Federal Level task forces on a variety of issues pertaining specifically to EMS.

This is far different from the history of Chief Doan.

I get the point your trying to make, but your making it on misinformation.

Namaste

I do find it interesting that the pot is calling the kettle black and maybe when we get new commissioners Ada county will get a new ambulance chief.

After reading some old posts, how many times are you going to dip in that well?

But Doan’s inner “Command Staff” has some very impressive fire/ems managers, EMS Deputy Chief Randy Howell should be able to help Doan along concerning EMS matters. I do find it somewhat interesting the two highest Chief positions in BFD came right from Captain positions, but their are a few Chiefs with in the staff with earned and proven experience. Maybe with the next Mayor, Boise will get a new Fire Chief?.

Nemo, Like you said most mutual aid only can happen if it goes both ways, than you admit, though rarely, Kuna responds to ACP area. I will admit that it probably not a 1 to 1 exchange. Let’s say for example that in a given year ACP respond to Kuna 20 times, and Kuna respond to ACP area 2. Each response cost $1000. Since ACP responds 18 more times, 18 x $1000 = $18000. Do a little math and Kuna should cut a check to ACP for $18000. Given your NACFR example, if Boise has to respond to NACFR more than NACFR covers Boise, Does this give Boise the right to Tax all of NACFR area at the same rate as they do the City of Boise? Now the citizens of NACFR are paying both a NACFR fire tax and a Boise fire tax. I don’t think that is how it works this seems to be a clear cut case of taxation without representation, and ACP should forward the tax money to the ambulance that actually does the work and responds to calls to help people. As far as the single medic on a mule (budget cuts must really be getting to ACP) that can be written into the mutual aid contract that they will respond regardless of the situation if there is an available unit. And even if that couldn’t be written into a contract does the single mule responding to Kuna justify taxing the entire area at the same rate as everyone who regularly receives ACP service. No. ACP is taxing and not providing a regular service to people being taxed. This is wrong and you can try to justify it all day long but in the end People are getting taxed and not receiving a service.

Why do I keep catching hints about how impossible it would be for the BFD to take over the ambulance business? Are they planning to do this? I thought the current push was to work together with ACP to make the system better. Does anyone know why chief Hagen wouldn’t want to work with the BFD? Maybe he is so busy answering phone calls from other systems begging him to come to their town and help them mimic the ACP system. Maybe we do have the greatest system in the world and there is NO room for improvement. If that is the case maybe BFD should leave ACP alone. But I don’t think that is the case.

That being said…I believe I have a pretty good understanding of fees/costs/services with regard to health care. Over the past several months, I have been following this debate and doing my own investigation. For the amount of fees charged plus the amount of the Ada County EMS tax levi plus the level of services available (numbers of medications/medical interventions/staffing levels) provided by Ada County compared to other areas of the same/similar size (square miles covered and population)….the emergency paramedic services system here is great. The City Fire Department just could not do it for less. It may be a wash for the first year, after that iot would be far more expensive to the tax payer…either with increase in Fire Tax, fees for service from the fire department (they would have to send bills) or a combo of both (for me, numbers just don’t lie). City and County fire departments have much higher tax rates AND send bills out to people when they get into the business of amblances (usually about a year after starting). I did sit through a city council meeting some time ago. There, Mr Doan gave a presentation with regard to Amulance fees, service prices, etc. I can tell you that entire presentation came from a person who maybe did not understand the information he collected, did not get all of the required information to make an informed decision, or was attempting to misdirect the council (I have tio admit it made me some what sick to see a Fire Department Official do that. I don’t believe Mr Doan is a good representation of the Boise City Fire Department. The fire personnel who work at the fire station near my home are wonderful!!) Again, I am saying this with regard to user fees, insurance payouts, taxed funds, etc.

To Just a Thought and Jim…Thank you for your opinions and information. Both of you have given me much more subject matter I need to educate myself on!

PS. Just a Thought…in my own “investigation”…lol….I know that Ada County has “compationate billing”….place people on a payment schedule, etc. Did that not work with your friend? Just wondering

I regret that you, and your friend had an unfortunate event that required ambulance transport. I also regret that your friend was turned over to collection. ACEMS makes it a practice to work with anyone that will contact them to make any kind of payment arrangements. After all, they do not want to lose half of the bill to collections either. Is it possible that your friend did not make an effort to contact the billing office and just ignored repeated billing? The $275.00 collection fee is reflective of expenses incurred by ACEMS on deliquent accounts. If not billed to the deliquent account, this expense has to be made up by the taxpayer. Which way would appear to be most fair to you? Would you be first in line to say “yes, please increase my taxes to pay for those who don’t pay their bills?”