EMS No-Transport Policy is Criticized

Birmingham's big, expensive EMS unit will respond to a 911 call, but if you require transport to a hospital, the fire department's policy in most cases is to call a private ambulance.

I learned this from a Birmingham resident who is a firefighter in another Detroit-area town and who is critical of the policy. And I confirmed it with a police officer who was patrolling downtown the other night. I wish I had the time to report the whole story, but maybe Laura will pick up the ball and give us the details.

No doubt, Birmingham is foregoing significant revenue — $300,000 per year by the firefighter's estimate — by letting the private services bill for transport.

No doubt, too, that Birmingham officials have good reason for following this policy. We have only one EMS unit, I was told, and officials are concerned that it might be tied up on a hospital run when another resident needs help. And concerns over legal liability may play a role.

But if I've got these scant facts right, the policy raises questions:

• Why do we bother buying, maintaining and staffing a unit capable of transporting patients if we aren't going to use it for that purpose?
• What happens when our EMS unit responds to a call, and a decision is made to call a private ambulance? Is time lost?
• How does our policy compare with other local communities that own and staff EMS units?

I don't know what to think till I hear more. But it's in everyone's best interest to know more about the policy, not least so we know what to expect in the event that a call to 911 is necessary.

A disclaimer: Nothing I am saying or was told in any way is meant to criticize the performance and abilities of our EMS techs. Quite the contrary. The tone was more, "Why not let them do what they were trained to do?"

This is an example of where responsible journalists and government officials need to pick up the ball.