South Windsor-Backed Ambulance Bill Clears Committee [Updated]

The following article was posted by Ted Glanzer. It was written by Glanzer and Farmington Patch Local Editor Kaitlin McCallum.

South Windsor officials may yet get their wish to have the freedom to decide who provides ambulance services to the town. But the bill - HB 6518 - suffered a significant setback while in committee.

Indeed, the bill HB 6518, which is co-sponsored by state Sen. Gary Lebeau, included many bills, including one that would allow municipalities to choose their ambulance providers passed out of the Public Health Committee by a 26-1 vote on Friday.

But the language contained in the bill was significantly stripped.

Firefighters and town officials from across the state, including Town Manager Matthew Galligan and Town Councilor Keith Yagaloff, offered testimony and made visit after visit to the Capitol to voice their support for HB 6518.

“I find that the current system resembles an unfunded mandate,” Galligan testified before the committee on March 15. “If you are willing to provide the best medical services for your community, you have to pay an exorbitant amount of money which would raise taxes in these tough economic times. This would hurt all of our taxpayers, especially senior citizens. All of this has to happen in order to provide services that we could otherwise get for free.

“I feel that all communities in the State of Connecticut deserve the ability to make a choice. We make choices for our roads, our schools, our police services, and our fire services. I find it ludicrous that we do not have the ability to choose the one service that has a dramatic impact on us.”

But the bill did not come out of the committee as it went in. Language on the bill was rewritten, removing language that would have made the changes.

Farmington Director of Fire and Rescue Services Mary-Ellen Harper said advocates were still hopeful that the measure could be added, since the bill is still alive.

“Some Republicans expressed disappointment, feeling that it didn’t go far enough and that are things that really need to be addressed," Harper said.

She and a few others went to the Capitol Friday to make one last plea for the bill before the committee meeting.

“Our understanding from the co-chairs is that they’ve felt an awful lot of pressure to do something,” Harper said.

Several ambulance companies have also lobbied hard against the bill, saying HB 6518 would destroy the current system – which divided the state into service areas in the 1970s.

Under the current system, a state body assigns the ambulance provider to the service area indefinitely and municipalities are able to appeal the assignment only in the most dire of circumstances.

“This would inappropriately destabilize emergency medical service coverage and response across the state by politicizing emergency medical services in each of our cities and towns,” offered David Lowell, president of the Association of Connecticut Ambulance Providers, in his testimony.

In South Windsor, the issue is one of public safety.

The South Windsor Ambulance Corps has been the town’s ambulance provider for decades. However, its relationship with the town has become strained in recent years due in no small part to SWAC only providing basic - or EMT - service, despite several requests from the Town Council to have the service upgraded to advanced life support.

In March 2012, SWAC President Larry Gorman said that it would cost the town between $500,000 and $700,000 to upgrade the service.

But SWAC announced two weeks ago that it was upgrading to advanced life support with a capital investment of $80,000. Gorman has also announced that he was stepping down from the organization.

The South Windsor Town Council last week also unanimously passed a resolution supporting the passage of HB 6518.

For a town like Farmington, the issue is financial.

If freed from the state assignment of service provider, the town could go out to bid or provide the service itself.

“The proposed bill would give municipalities the discretion of going out to bid for a new ambulance service provider, or to provide this service themselves,” Demicco said in his testimony at the public hearing March 15. “Municipalities routinely go out to bid for proposals to determine the best way to provide a variety of services as a matter of best practices. Ambulance Transport Service should be no exception.”

Advocates are now hoping the bill will quickly clear the Legislative Commissioner’s Office and quickly find a spot on the legislative calendar.

You can keep up with the bill's status here.

Correction: Though the bill was passed by the Public Health Committee much of the original language was stripped.