Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

July 3, 2008

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to introduce

workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers...unfortunately, not small

in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who find the

proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot regulate

any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not be

so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all those

interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea of what we

are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation....

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 3, 2008

:

Spending time talking about HEMS at GETAC is a waste of time-an exercise in

futility. The HEMS people know we cannot do anything to them. When GETAC

sought CAMTS certification as a minimum, Air-Evac balked and cried foul.

GETAC sought an attorney general's opinion and it supported Air-Evac's

stance. Only the feds can regulate HEMS because of airline deregulation. The

same thing occurred in Tennessee except that Air Evac filed suit I federal

court. The federal judge in Nashville ruled in Air-Evac's favor stating

that only the feds can regulate HEMS.

You might as well take some crayons to the air Medical Committee meeting.

Any hopes of regulating HEMS are a waste of time in the current environment.

This is worse than ambulances in the 60s. At least then there was a county

or state official who might intervene. The quote from the editorial in the

Arizona Republic yesterday says it all:

" If the problem doesn't turn out to be life-threatening, insurance companies

may reject an air transport bill and then send the bill to the patient. It

can easily top $15,000. The state Department of Health Services gets so many

complaints that it posts the prices of various air ambulance services -

along with a note that the state has no authority to regulate them. "

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of dpems500

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:19 PM

To: texasems-l ; texasems-l

Subject: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

On Jun 30, 2008, at 3:43:24 PM, " Grayson " <Grayson902@...

<mailto:Grayson902%40aol.com> > wrote:

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers...unfortunately, not

small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation....

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 3, 2008

Can the states regulate billing via insurance laws? Or is that a part of the

airline deregulation issues as well?

LNM from Baku, Azerbaijan

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

On Jun 30, 2008, at 3:43:24 PM, " Grayson " <Grayson902@...

<mailto:Grayson902%40aol.com> > wrote:

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers...unfortunately, not

small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation....

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 3, 2008

Maybe what you should do is research the programs in your area to find out who

has implemented safety measures that were recommended by GETAC and the FAA.

Utilize those programs instead of the ones who are clearly profit driven. By not

using their services will send a message that is loud and clear.

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to introduce

workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not small

in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who find the

proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot regulate

any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not be

so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all those

interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea of what we

are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation. ...

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 4, 2008

Jeff:

Excellent point. One problem though. The trend in some of these operators is

to identify a key person in an EMS system (county, city, region) and hire a

family member. Or, they hire a medical director with multiple ground

services. Thus, as happens in so many endeavors, money trumps logic. The

same thing is occurring in Tennessee, except there the media are questioning

it through investigative journalism. But, Jeff is on the right track.

Always act in the patient's best interest and you will be ethical and remain

within the confines of the law.

BEB

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of JEFF COBB

Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:20 AM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

Maybe what you should do is research the programs in your area to find out

who has implemented safety measures that were recommended by GETAC and the

FAA. Utilize those programs instead of the ones who are clearly profit

driven. By not using their services will send a message that is loud and

clear.

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

....

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 4, 2008

I could not agree with you more!!!!

And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

insiders.

Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

strongly.

There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

every turn by:

1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

providers to which I allude in item #1.

The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

goal(s).

Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

....

--

, BS LP

President

Central Texas Regional EMS

Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

office

dispatch

cell

July 4, 2008

These HEMS networks are like cancers. They metastasize into all sorts of

places in urban markets. In addition to the ways Mr. Bledson has mentioned,

they have tie-ins to hospitals. For example, CareFlight has a " sponsorship "

with in Fort Worth, the County Hospital. Will this insure

that JPS will get preferential treatment in patient destinations? What would

be

the advantage for JPS to pay money to CF? You be the judge. JPS has

" representatives " on CareFlight's board. It may be legal, but is it a

conflict of interest? It smacks of kickbacks, doesn't it.

So here's a theoretical case. Ground crew calls air for a patient who

genuinely DOES need air transport, intending that the patient be taken to

Hospital

A, but instead, air crew takes patient to hospital B, which is a " sponsoring "

hospital. Patient doesn't even know what's happening. Hospital B lacks the

ability to carry out the treatment that is in the patient's best interests,

hospital A.

If that happened to me as a patient, not only would I refuse to pay the bill,

I would charge the air service for transfer to the appropriate hospital and

sue them for violation of my rights as a patient.

The air services hire medical directors who will do their bidding. One way

to stop that is to file a complaint with the Texas Medical Board against the

medical director for violation of patient's rights every time that happens and

sue them for the additional expenses incurred through being sent to the wrong

hospital. That might encourage air medical directors to exert some pressure

on their corporate bosses to think about patients instead of their bottom

line. Of course, management would just fire them and hire another who would

keep

quiet.

Nobody seems to be thinking about the patient's rights in all of this.

Now, before all you flight medics, pilots, and nurses pound me into

smithereens, let me say that YOU are NOT the culprits in this. You go to work

and do

what you're told or get fired or leave. This is all about the corporate

masters and medical directors, not you.

Also, it's about time patients stand and refuse to pay for inappropriate air

transports. When a patient, without informed consent, is sent off by air

when he could just as easily have gone by ground, and he finds himself with a

$15,000 bill, he needs to see a mean lawyer immediately. Refuse to pay the

bill

and file suit against the ground service, because it's the one responsible

for the decision, not the patient.

At least that might convince the ground services to inform the patient of the

probable costs, the unliklihood that insurance will pay for the trip, and get

a written authorization before transport.

Ground services might then begin to address the issues of when and why to

call air.

Another example: Air Utopia sells Bob's family a " subscription membership "

guaranteeing that all family members will receive free helicoptor service.

They even sometimes encourage folks to call them directly instead of 911.

" We'll land right in your yard and whisk you off to Utopian Hospital (which owns

Air Utopia) before you know it. Won't cost you a thing. "

Emergency happens. 911 gets called. 911 calls " the next helicopter in the

rotation " which AIN'T Air Utopia. This one is Air Amazing, and it arrives,

takes the patient to Amazing Hospital, and sends a bill for $18,947.62 to

Bob's family. Bob says, " Time out. I have a subscription for air service! "

" Not with Air Amazing, " their friendly customer service representative says.

Bob can't pay, so Air Amazing turns the bill over to Vito and Big Louie's

Collections, which harasses Bob's family day and night for payment, and finally

it's turned over to the law firm of Beatum, Cheatum, and Howe, which files

suit and gets a judgment against Bob.

This is a national scandal. At present, it appears that the only way to

correct it is through federal legislation. Write our Congressmen and Senators.

Gene G.

>

> Jeff:

>

> Excellent point. One problem though. The trend in some of these operators is

> to identify a key person in an EMS system (county, city, region) and hire a

> family member. Or, they hire a medical director with multiple ground

> services. Thus, as happens in so many endeavors, money trumps logic. The

> same thing is occurring in Tennessee, except there the media are questioning

> it through investigative journalism. But, Jeff is on the right track.

> Always act in the patient's best interest and you will be ethical and remain

> within the confines of the law.

>

> BEB

>

> From: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem [mailto:texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem] On

> Behalf Of JEFF COBB

> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:20 AM

> To: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem

> Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

>

> Maybe what you should do is research the programs in your area to find out

> who has implemented safety measures that were recommended by GETAC and the

> FAA. Utilize those programs instead of the ones who are clearly profit

> driven. By not using their services will send a message that is loud and

> clear.

>

> And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

> charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

> leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

> accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

> insiders.

> Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

> strongly.

>

> There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

> resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

>

> We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

> introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

> every turn by:

> 1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

> small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

> find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

> 2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

> regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

>

> I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

> be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

> providers to which I allude in item #1.

>

> The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

> those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

> of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

> goal(s).

>

> Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

> ...

>

> --

> , BS LP

> President

> Central Texas Regional EMS

>

> Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

> Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

>

> office

> dispatch

> cell

>

July 4, 2008

I am not going to get into it with about HEMS popping up like cancer. It does

seem like there are more and more HEMS going in every where. Some of these

groups have dollar signs in there eyes and some are out to corner the market by

saturating an area with helicopters.

As far as CF and JPS. If I am not mistaken, JPS was one of the original

hospitals that helped create CF when there was no HEMS in the area. CF is a top

notch program in my opinion. As far as there be under the table action for

deciding where patients are transported to give me a break. The only way your

theory could have any validity is if they did a wallet biopsy on the patient

before the decision was made. At my program, the EMS folks decide where the

patient goes. Now, with that being said we will not transport a trauma patient

anywhere but a Trauma Center. JPS is a Level One Trauma Center so they should be

able to take care of just about anything you can throw at them. If the patient

does not warrant a trauma center, they should probably not be in an aircraft to

begin with. Since you singled out CF, I will " ASSUME " you are from the DFW area.

When I lived there, Ft Worth had two trauma centers, JPS and Methodist. I

believe they live at

so if your theory was correct, you would think they would be more willing to go

to than JPS. Do not stereo type all HEMS programs together. You may not

believe this but there are some that are around for the right reasons and CF is

one of them. Why don't you take a little time and go by CF's office and sit down

with them. Ask them what there policies and procedures are. They will more than

likely be glad to let you know how they work. While you are at it, go by the

other operations in your area. Look at the whole picture including equipment,

safety procedures, training, ect and make the best choice for your patients.

Just because one group comes by and takes you to lunch from time to time and

gives you a bunch a trinkets does not make them the best choice. There are

programs in my area that will transport patients to inappropriate hospitals only

for them to get transferred out later.

OK, enough of defending CF I do not even know anyone that works there. As far as

the subscription stuff. I think that needs to stop. That is all I will say about

that.

> And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

> charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

> leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

> accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

> insiders.

> Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

> strongly.

>

> There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

> resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

>

> We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

> introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at almost

> every turn by:

> 1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

> small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

> find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

> 2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

> regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

>

> I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not

> be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical

> providers to which I allude in item #1.

>

> The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

> those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

> of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

> goal(s).

>

> Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

> ...

>

> --

> , BS LP

> President

> Central Texas Regional EMS

>

> Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

> Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

>

> office

> dispatch

> cell

>

July 5, 2008

Jeff, I really think Gene was just using them as a hypothetical situation. I DO

know of situations where the story Gene has described has occurred - in

different systems. However, I don't think he was throwing stones are CareFlite

OR JPS - he was just using them hypothetically.

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l@...: jcobbfpc@...: Fri, 4 Jul 2008

22:45:39 -0700Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

I am not going to get into it with about HEMS popping up like cancer. It does

seem like there are more and more HEMS going in every where. Some of these

groups have dollar signs in there eyes and some are out to corner the market by

saturating an area with helicopters. As far as CF and JPS. If I am not mistaken,

JPS was one of the original hospitals that helped create CF when there was no

HEMS in the area. CF is a top notch program in my opinion. As far as there be

under the table action for deciding where patients are transported to give me a

break. The only way your theory could have any validity is if they did a wallet

biopsy on the patient before the decision was made. At my program, the EMS folks

decide where the patient goes. Now, with that being said we will not transport a

trauma patient anywhere but a Trauma Center. JPS is a Level One Trauma Center so

they should be able to take care of just about anything you can throw at them.

If the patient does not warrant a trauma center, they should probably not be in

an aircraft to begin with. Since you singled out CF, I will " ASSUME " you are

from the DFW area. When I lived there, Ft Worth had two trauma centers, JPS and

Methodist. I believe they live at so if your theory was correct,

you would think they would be more willing to go to than JPS. Do not

stereo type all HEMS programs together. You may not believe this but there are

some that are around for the right reasons and CF is one of them. Why don't you

take a little time and go by CF's office and sit down with them. Ask them what

there policies and procedures are. They will more than likely be glad to let you

know how they work. While you are at it, go by the other operations in your

area. Look at the whole picture including equipment, safety procedures,

training, ect and make the best choice for your patients. Just because one group

comes by and takes you to lunch from time to time and gives you a bunch a

trinkets does not make them the best choice. There are programs in my area that

will transport patients to inappropriate hospitals only for them to get

transferred out later. OK, enough of defending CF I do not even know anyone

that works there. As far as the subscription stuff. I think that needs to stop.

That is all I will say about that.> And rather

than have HEMS industry insiders leading the> charge for stricter standards,

they're resisting it at every turn. That> leaves the ground pounders to point

out the problems, who are then> accused of having an ax to grind by those

recalcitrant HEMS industry> insiders.> Ooh...I would have to wade in here and

disagree with you . Very> strongly.> > There are a few...and it truly is a

few....air medical " insiders " that are> resisting attempts to require additional

safety requirements.> > We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical

committee of GETAC to> introduce workable safety improvements, but have been

turned back at almost> every turn by:> 1. A small group (in terms of number of

providers... unfortunately, not> small in terms of total number of aircraft) or

air medical providers who> find the proposed changes to be financially

prohibitive, and> 2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we

cannot> regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.> > I

believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would not> be

so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air medical>

providers to which I allude in item #1.> > The air medical safety issue is a

deeply challenging one. I encourage all> those interested to attend our August

GETAC meeting, and get a better idea> of what we are trying to do, and what are

the obstacles to our mutual> goal(s).> > Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE,

regardless of your mode of transportation.> ...> > > > --> ,

BS LP> President> Central Texas Regional EMS> > Member, Air Medical Committee of

GETAC> Adjunct Faculty, Temple College> > office > dispatch

> cell > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]> >

July 5, 2008

I was CareFlite's first employee when they opened. It was a joint endeavor

of Methodist in Fort Worth and Methodist Hospitals of Dallas. They

set up a 501c3 called North Central Texas Services to run it. The first

aircraft was a 206-L that spent two weeks in Dallas and 2 weeks in Fort

Worth. Presbyterian, Baylor and Parkland came in later as partners. I don't

believe JPS ever did.

BEB

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of JEFF COBB

Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:46 AM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

I am not going to get into it with about HEMS popping up like cancer. It

does seem like there are more and more HEMS going in every where. Some of

these groups have dollar signs in there eyes and some are out to corner the

market by saturating an area with helicopters.

As far as CF and JPS. If I am not mistaken, JPS was one of the original

hospitals that helped create CF when there was no HEMS in the area. CF is a

top notch program in my opinion. As far as there be under the table action

for deciding where patients are transported to give me a break. The only way

your theory could have any validity is if they did a wallet biopsy on the

patient before the decision was made. At my program, the EMS folks decide

where the patient goes. Now, with that being said we will not transport a

trauma patient anywhere but a Trauma Center. JPS is a Level One Trauma

Center so they should be able to take care of just about anything you can

throw at them. If the patient does not warrant a trauma center, they should

probably not be in an aircraft to begin with. Since you singled out CF, I

will " ASSUME " you are from the DFW area. When I lived there, Ft Worth had

two trauma centers, JPS and Methodist. I believe they live at

so if your theory was correct, you would think they would be more willing to

go to than JPS. Do not stereo type all HEMS programs together. You

may not believe this but there are some that are around for the right

reasons and CF is one of them. Why don't you take a little time and go by

CF's office and sit down with them. Ask them what there policies and

procedures are. They will more than likely be glad to let you know how they

work. While you are at it, go by the other operations in your area. Look at

the whole picture including equipment, safety procedures, training, ect and

make the best choice for your patients. Just because one group comes by and

takes you to lunch from time to time and gives you a bunch a trinkets does

not make them the best choice. There are programs in my area that will

transport patients to inappropriate hospitals only for them to get

transferred out later.

OK, enough of defending CF I do not even know anyone that works there. As

far as the subscription stuff. I think that needs to stop. That is all I

will say about that.

> And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

> charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

> leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

> accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

> insiders.

> Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

> strongly.

>

> There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

> resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

>

> We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

> introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at

almost

> every turn by:

> 1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

> small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

> find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

> 2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

> regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

>

> I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would

not

> be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air

medical

> providers to which I allude in item #1.

>

> The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

> those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

> of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

> goal(s).

>

> Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

> ...

>

> --

> , BS LP

> President

> Central Texas Regional EMS

>

> Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

> Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

>

> office

> dispatch

> cell

>

July 5, 2008

JPS is now a " sponsor. " It's public record. Do the records request and

see for yourselves.

GG

>

> I was CareFlite's first employee when they opened. It was a joint endeavor

> of Methodist in Fort Worth and Methodist Hospitals of Dallas. They

> set up a 501c3 called North Central Texas Services to run it. The first

> aircraft was a 206-L that spent two weeks in Dallas and 2 weeks in Fort

> Worth. Presbyterian, Baylor and Parkland came in later as partners. I don't

> believe JPS ever did.

>

> BEB

>

> From: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem [mailto:texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem] On

> Behalf Of JEFF COBB

> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:46 AM

> To: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem

> Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

>

> I am not going to get into it with about HEMS popping up like cancer. It

> does seem like there are more and more HEMS going in every where. Some of

> these groups have dollar signs in there eyes and some are out to corner the

> market by saturating an area with helicopters.

>

> As far as CF and JPS. If I am not mistaken, JPS was one of the original

> hospitals that helped create CF when there was no HEMS in the area. CF is a

> top notch program in my opinion. As far as there be under the table action

> for deciding where patients are transported to give me a break. The only way

> your theory could have any validity is if they did a wallet biopsy on the

> patient before the decision was made. At my program, the EMS folks decide

> where the patient goes. Now, with that being said we will not transport a

> trauma patient anywhere but a Trauma Center. JPS is a Level One Trauma

> Center so they should be able to take care of just about anything you can

> throw at them. If the patient does not warrant a trauma center, they should

> probably not be in an aircraft to begin with. Since you singled out CF, I

> will " ASSUME " you are from the DFW area. When I lived there, Ft Worth had

> two trauma centers, JPS and Methodist. I believe they live at

> so if your theory was correct, you would think they would be more willing to

> go to than JPS. Do not stereo type all HEMS programs together. You

> may not believe this but there are some that are around for the right

> reasons and CF is one of them. Why don't you take a little time and go by

> CF's office and sit down with them. Ask them what there policies and

> procedures are. They will more than likely be glad to let you know how they

> work. While you are at it, go by the other operations in your area. Look at

> the whole picture including equipment, safety procedures, training, ect and

> make the best choice for your patients. Just because one group comes by and

> takes you to lunch from time to time and gives you a bunch a trinkets does

> not make them the best choice. There are programs in my area that will

> transport patients to inappropriate hospitals only for them to get

> transferred out later.

>

> OK, enough of defending CF I do not even know anyone that works there. As

> far as the subscription stuff. I think that needs to stop. That is all I

> will say about that.

>

> > And rather than have HEMS industry insiders leading the

> > charge for stricter standards, they're resisting it at every turn. That

> > leaves the ground pounders to point out the problems, who are then

> > accused of having an ax to grind by those recalcitrant HEMS industry

> > insiders.

> > Ooh...I would have to wade in here and disagree with you . Very

> > strongly.

> >

> > There are a few...and it truly is a few....air medical " insiders " that are

> > resisting attempts to require additional safety requirements.

> >

> > We have worked extremely hard on the Air Medical committee of GETAC to

> > introduce workable safety improvements, but have been turned back at

> almost

> > every turn by:

> > 1. A small group (in terms of number of providers... unfortunately, not

> > small in terms of total number of aircraft) or air medical providers who

> > find the proposed changes to be financially prohibitive, and

> > 2. The FAA, which in no uncertain terms has told us that we cannot

> > regulate any meaningful way the operational aspects of HEMS.

> >

> > I believe that these two factors are importantly linked....the FAA would

> not

> > be so vehement in their defense if not for the " coaxing " of the air

> medical

> > providers to which I allude in item #1.

> >

> > The air medical safety issue is a deeply challenging one. I encourage all

> > those interested to attend our August GETAC meeting, and get a better idea

> > of what we are trying to do, and what are the obstacles to our mutual

> > goal(s).

> >

> > Thanks...and stay safe PLEASE, regardless of your mode of transportation.

> > ...

> >

> > --

> > , BS LP

> > President

> > Central Texas Regional EMS

> >

> > Member, Air Medical Committee of GETAC

> > Adjunct Faculty, Temple College

> >

> > office

> > dispatch

> > cell

> >

July 5, 2008

Gene:

Just relating pre-1980 data. The current picture borders on incestuous.

BEB

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On Behalf

Of wegandy1938@...

Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:53 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Air Medical safety initiatives in Texas

JPS is now a " sponsor. " It's public record. Do the records request and

see for yourselves.

GG

In a message dated 7/5/08 6:26:58 AM, bbledsoe@...

<mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> writes: