|
Can financial penalty boxes stop frivolous calls?
I agree that something has to be done — most of us experience many runs where our services are not needed
By Art Hsieh
|
Editor's note: Residents in a town in N.Y. should be certain they need help when calling 911, because the city might soon charge people if they're dialing for frivolous reasons. Check out Editorial Advisor Art Hsieh's take below. |
I'm very interested in finding out if this financial penalty box for "frivolous" calls will make an impact with reducing their volume.
I agree that something has to be done — most of us experience many runs where our services are not needed.
It can be frustrating, to be sure. We have tried a variety of mechanisms to address it, such as public education and efforts like this one.
One option we don't have is not responding — 911 laws compel us to do so, regardless of the reason.
Even a "hang up" compels a public safety agency to provide some type of response. Honestly, I'd rather we err on this side of the debate, despite the headaches of doing so.
The larger issue is that these are symptoms. Despite our efforts to control the types of calls we receive, the issue is far greater and deeper than the niche market we call EMS.
Inadequate public services, lack of access to medical care and a lack of personal responsibility are tough obstacles to overcome.
Most EMS providers are not prepared, nor trained, to handle calls for service that require a social worker, public health expert, or public works.
And it is a bit of "shoveling against the tide" in trying to correct more than one generation of expectations that we have created through the 911 system.
We have seen the development of 511 or 311 services that are designed to take the load off the emergency response system; I have no doubt that these are somewhat effective in reverting nonemergency calls. It will still take some time to shift the public's mindset, though.
Finally, I'll assume that a set of guidelines will be in place as to when and how to apply this penalty fee during an actual call.
Without them, it can become a slippery slope in deciding what is "frivolous" and what is not. That can create the dynamic where on scene EMS personnel might be tempted to apply the rule in an unfair manner. Not worth $55 bucks.
KevinAmy Johnson Friday, December 23, 2011 10:21:55 AM In most 911 systems don't cops answer the call first? I bet that's the case 99% of the time. If so why don't we let the cops deal with all the frivolous calls, not just ones they respond to initially. I love to watch cops read the riot act to people who waste their time, they can just start doing it for fire and ems also. Even fire officers have a spiel they give people about wasting valuable resources and what if your house was on fire now, kinda thing. I bet in a lot of small towns the local sheriff would give someone the third degree for activating the local volunteer fire department and rescue squad for a cat rescue. It looks like yet another case of not working well with the other services. Cops don't put up with bull poop calls. I remember the first house party my roommates and I threw ( a long time ago). Sheriffs department showed up, asked for the music to be turned nicely, and warned if they were called back I would be charged with the entire response, over time, gas, donuts, the whole thing! I learned not to mess with those guys ever again. Ummmmm just do that for EMS and problem solved...humbly and Merry Christmas. 
Richard Berger Friday, December 23, 2011 11:44:43 AM The problem with agencies other than EMS responding, and determining that EMS is needed, is actually a bad step backwards into our collective EMS history. Yes, it will deter frivolous calls, but it would also delay EMS responses. At least once an EMS team is on the scene, they can determine if they are actually needed or not. If they are not needed, a signed "Refused Medical Assistance" on the back of a call report is legal evidence that someone came. What probably will not happen is, Medicaid, Medicare,. and the assorted "3rd Party" medical insurers can refuse to pay for the "frivolous" calls, the caller would then be responsible, financially, for the response. If a legitimate call, they would obviously pay, within their reimbursement schedules. 
Michael Moore Friday, December 23, 2011 2:49:54 PM Armed EMTS with police powers, with Fire rescue traing, sense we are called to everything and police is not. 
Bruce Chew Monday, December 26, 2011 6:59:57 AM This is a bad idea! I know we have all had our share of callers that abused the system and were never in any really medical crisis but the majority of the people calling for us, need our help. We (the EMS system) need to stop judging the merit of people's call for help based on our own criteria of emergency. To these people they are dealing with a situation beyond their control - they need someone's help! If it is not a true medical emergency than it is our DUTY as public safety providers to get them connected with the proper resources. My fear is that this type of action will make people hesitate to call for help. The system abusers are going to call regardless. EMS agencies need to work with regional social services and if needed law enforcement to combat the problem on an individual case by case bases. 
Barb Oelschlegel Monday, December 26, 2011 9:07:16 AM Compassionately said. But don't you think everyone should contribute to the cost of the ride!
