GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department Washington, DC 20001

Vincent C. Gray Mayor Kenneth B. Ellerbe Fire & EMS Chief

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 21, 2013

CONTACT:

Lon Walls at (202) 673-3331

PUBLIC STATEMENT CONCERNING AN INNACCURATE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FIRE AND EMS EMERGENCY CALL STORY
Recently, a number of newspaper, broadcast and social media stories have circulated describing the delayed response by a District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department ambulance to an emergency call during the early morning hours of January 1, 2013. Some stories also suggest that a patient was fraudulently billed for ambulance services. Unfortunately, much of the information being circulated is inaccurate and only serves to undermine the confidence that District residents have in the Fire and EMS Department to effectively provide high quality emergency medical services (EMS).

What follows are answers to commonly asked questions about this call. 1. Did a Fire and EMS Department ambulance respond to the call?
Answer: Yes, a Fire and EMS Department ambulance responded to the call. The call was dispatched to the Fire and EMS Department at 01:26 AM. Because of the nature of the call, the closest available fire truck, Truck 17, was dispatched for first respond assistance. Because the call required a paramedic, the closest available ambulance or fire truck staffed with a paramedic was also dispatched. Truck 17 arrived at 01:35 AM. Engine 10 arrived at 01:37 AM. Truck 17 called for additional assistance at 01:40 AM. From 01:26 AM until 01:42 AM, no DC Fire and EMS ambulances were available to respond to the call. This occurred because all ambulances were already assigned to other calls. If no ambulances are available to respond on calls, a mutual aid request is sent to neighboring jurisdictions. A Prince Georges County (Maryland) ambulance began responding to the call at 01:45 AM. Because Truck 17 called for assistance, an EMS Supervisor was dispatched to the call at 01:41 AM. At 01:42 AM, a DC Fire and EMS ambulance, Basic 01, became available and also responded to the call. Basic 01 arrived at 01:55 AM, before the Prince Georges County ambulance. The EMS supervisor arrived at 01:56 AM.

Public Statement Concerning Emergency Call 02/21/2013

Page 1 of 4

In all, four (4) DC Fire and EMS units with thirteen (13) emergency personnel arrived at the call, including eleven (11) EMTs and two (2) paramedics. The Prince Georges County ambulance was not used for assistance and returned to Maryland. The information provided above was compiled from computer aided dispatch (CAD) data records, radio communication audio tapes and incident reports. Emergency vehicle responses, arrival times and locations were verified by GPS satellite vehicle tracking records.

2. Was appropriate medical care provided to the patient?

Answer: Yes, appropriate medical care was provided to the patient. The Fire and EMS Department uses a combination of fire trucks and ambulances to provide emergency medical care for patients. Truck 17 was a basic life support (BLS) equipped unit, staffed with firefighters trained as EMTs. Engine 10 was an advanced life support (ALS) equipped unit, staffed with firefighters trained as EMTs and one firefighter trained as a paramedic. Personnel from Truck 17 provided first response BLS patient care, supplemented by ALS patient care after the arrival of Engine 10. Appropriate patient care, using recognized national standards, was immediately provided to the patient after the arrival of each fire truck and was not compromised by the delayed arrival of Basic 01, the Fire and EMS Department ambulance. The information provided above was compiled from a review of incident reports, including patient care records.

3. Did a Fire and EMS Department ambulance transport the patient?

Answer: Yes, a Fire and EMS Department ambulance transported the patient. Truck 17 and Engine 10 provided first response patient care prior to the arrival of Basic 01, the Fire and EMS Department ambulance. The patient was moved to Basic 01 and transported to the hospital at 02:05 AM. The paramedic from Engine 10 accompanied the patient to the hospital on the ambulance, providing appropriate patient care using recognized national standards. The EMS Supervisor followed the ambulance to the hospital to provide additional assistance, if needed. Basic 01 arrived at the hospital at 2:26 AM. A nurse, working at the hospital, signed the ambulance report verifying the patient was transported. The information provided above was compiled from CAD data records, radio communication audio tapes and incident reports. Emergency vehicle arrival times and locations were verified by GPS satellite vehicle tracking records.

Public Statement Concerning Emergency Call 02/21/2013

Page 2 of 4

4. Did the Fire and EMS Department bill the patients family?
Answer: No, the Fire and EMS Department did not bill the patients family. The Fire and EMS Department uses a contractor for filing insurance claims and ambulance billing. On January 5, 2013, the contractor mailed a notice requesting insurance information and permission to file an insurance claim. This notice is required by Federal law and is sent to all patients. The notice states: As a courtesy to our residents, we will only bill your insurance company for the services performed. If you have insurance, please complete and sign the back of this form, and return to us. DC Municipal Regulation 29-525.2(d) requires the Department not (to) bill or hold financially responsible, any District resident who is a Medicare beneficiary not covered by any other secondary health insurance program for any out of pocket expenses, including co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance. The Fire and EMS Departments ambulance billing policy, along with answers to commonly asked questions, can be found on the Departments website by accessing the link below:

http://fems.dc.gov/DC/FEMS/About+FEMS/Ambulance+Billing

5. What has the Fire and EMS Department done to prevent this from happening again?
Answer: The Fire and EMS Department sincerely regrets what occurred and has already acted to prevent reoccurrences. At the time of the call, emergency call volume was very high. All ambulances and several fire trucks were already at or responding to other EMS calls. At the same time, ten (10) ambulances had been placed out-of-service because 106 firefighters, EMTs and Paramedics called out sick earlier during the same work shift. Although the Department attempted to place more ambulances in service by using overtime personnel, the list of employees available to work overtime was exhausted before all out-of-service ambulances could be staffed. After January 1st, the Fire and EMS Department implemented new procedures that have reduced the number of employees calling out sick on the same day. Additionally, rules restricting the availability of employees to work overtime are being reviewed and may be revised. Several days after the call, a notice about filing an insurance claim was mailed to the patients address. Although this type of notice is a requirement of Federal law, the contractor responsible for filing insurance claims and ambulance billing changed the language used for such notices during December, 2012, without notifying the Department. The revised language of the notice was confusing and could be misinterpreted as a bill. The Fire and EMS Department received a number of complaints about the new notices during January, 2013. On January 29th, the Department reviewed the revised language of the notice and immediately instructed the contractor to suspend using such notices until they could be updated. Currently, all insurance claim and billing notices are undergoing content review.

Public Statement Concerning Emergency Call 02/21/2013

Page 3 of 4

6. Why hasnt the Fire and EMS Department issued a statement about this call previously?
Answer: The Fire and EMS Department respects the privacy of our patient customers. District of Columbia and Federal Privacy Laws prevent the Department from making public comment concerning any specific patient case. However, extensive coverage of this call by newspapers, broadcast and social media has resulted in millions of readers and viewers receiving inaccurate information about the nature of emergency services provided to District of Columbia residents by the Fire and EMS Department. Additionally, some coverage included allegations that a patient was fraudulently billed for ambulance services, a clear violation of District and Federal law. The combination of inaccuracies and allegations of fraud have prompted our statement.

###

Public Statement Concerning Emergency Call 02/21/2013

Page 4 of 4