Group Forums >> EMS >> Cost Recovery
Cost Recovery
|
Posted 2 months ago Hello all. I've mentioned before that there may be instances from time to time that may necessitate the use of a cost recovery program of some type. Check out this story and tell me what you think. http://www.firelink.com/news/3958-no-hardship-allowance-in-city-emergency-cost-recovery Should there be a "hardship waiver"? Where do you draw the line in a situation like this? If there is no real medical need, and medical services weren't used, should the "patient/victim/subject" be billed anyway? I'm up in the air on this one, so let's hash it out. Thanks. |
|
| Posted 2 months ago I think that in certain circumstances a cost recovery plan is ok. For example, in our area, if a commercial business has more than one fire alarm activation in a four month period, they are then charged with expenses for equipment used and people's time. In the case of this man however, it was not his fault that the sidewalk had a hole in it that he just happened to hit in his wheelchair that knocked him off balance. Another thing is that he is not a member of the community's fire department that got called, so I do not feel that they should be able to dictate that he pays back for services rendered. I mean, what if he would have been seriously injured and then came back on that city to sue them. They certainly wouldn't be trying to recover their cost's then. At least I wouldn't hope so because they wouldn't get anywhere considering it was the city's fault in the first place. And as far as drawing the line, I feel that the line should be drawn when something can be rightly blamed on the city, borough, or township that the incident took place in that could have easily been avoided. Also, it should not the placed on an individualy who doesn't even live the city to begin with. As far as the medical services go, that one could be up in the air because the EMS agency can bill for BSI, and even lift assist, it's wrong but they can. So that one I do not have an answer too but I would say that they could very well bill him because they could do exactly the same thing if he had gotten more seriously injured, which is completely acceptable for an agency to do. |
|
| Posted 2 months ago This is a sad situation that unfortunately falls into that "gray" zone of proper EMS billing. On one hand the fire department was called out to provide a service but on the other hand it's the citys lack of maintaining a sidewalk that seems to be the cause of this issue. I agree with the Fire Chief for not waiving this fee. I have had patients in the past try to get out of paying for services that were clearly needed at the time and when you start to give hardship waivers to patients, you then have to start doing private investigations on each person that calls in saying they can't pay their bill. Those investigations and the time spent on them will drain a department's budget very quickly and just waste alot of time. For this particular case the Chief gave the option for making payments over an extended period of time. That to me was the right thing to do for this patient. The patient should seek reimbursement from the city for the costs...... |
|
|
| Posted 2 months ago My thing with it though is yes, it is the city's fault that the sidewalk was like that. But on the same hand, the man did not call for the FD to respond. Someone else called on his behalf. And it seems to me that this man was CAOx3, and if that was the case and he never asked for EMS/Fire assistance, implied consent cannot be used on behalf of the person who called. So if it comes right down to it, the person that called for EMS/Fire should be the one responsible. At least that's how it is with some situations in pa. If someone is CAO, and they do not want help, they do not have to receive it, but if they have any sign of LOC, the pt is overridden at that time. |
|
|
| Posted 2 months ago BLPavlovich, your right that he did not call for Fire/Rescue but nothing in the article states that he didn't deny the help that was rendered to him on scene that caused the charge for services given. If he actively denied any help what so ever on scene then I would totally agree with you, but since it seems he did not and by the looks of him he probally would of not been able to get back into the chair by himself anyway I still say a charge for services was warented. We dont know all of his medical conditions and a simple fall from a seated position could of caused some life threatening injuries and because of that an EMS evaluation was warrented also. Like I said before it's sad to see people have to pay out of their pockets for these services after they are usually taxed for it somewhere else, but unfortunately money is the evil consistant plague that we have to deal with in a public service industry. Without it we would not be able to fund the services..... |