Bradford Hospital’s Planned Failure
By Marty Wilder
3/3/2023
Editor’s note: This is the second of two parts about Bradford Hospital’s recent arrangement with Olean General Hospital, Upper Allegheny Health System and Kaleida Health. In the first article, we pleaded with people involved to explain the loss of $9 million from Bradford Hospital Foundation. As of now, we have not heard from any of the parties involved.
The drastic changes at Bradford hospital — the loss of its ICU, operating room and all 107 beds — are not mentioned in the primary legal document which ultimately tied its fate to a Buffalo, N.Y., health care system in 2017.
This Affiliation Agreement, in fact, gives total control of our hospital to Kaleida Health working through Upper Allegheny Health System, itself the “parent” to Bradford and Olean hospitals.
The 2017 document, which apparently has not been updated or replaced, was obtained by Save Our Hospital organization through a Freedom of Information request. (A similar Freedom of Information request from the Pennsylvania Department of Health has been filed but is pending a legal review by the state.)
Not only does this agreement not foretell the radical changes about to hit Bradford, it, in fact, makes the omission conspicuous by asserting the opposite scenario — no change in beds or services was planned.
And it does cite the hospital’s precarious financial position as the rationale for joining forces with Kaleida:
“This decision was based on a five-year plan, long-term financial plan that was developed for BRMC and its sister hospital under BRMC’s parent company — Upper Allegheny Health System which demonstrated a future inability to remain financially viable given the downward pressure of revenue in the health care industry as well as rising costs to provide care.”
Further, “BRMC is not unique in this vulnerable position. Hospitals across America especially rural hospitals face a daunting challenge of survival.”
New York State officials, who needed to approve the agreement, specifically questioned what might happen to services in Bradford and Olean.
In a September 2017 letter to Brian Groski of New York State’s health facility planning office, administrators assured him “there are NO service or bed changes proposed at either OGH or BRMC as a result of this proposed merger.”
“The hospitals serve different states with different primary insurance coverages and are 23.5 miles away from each other,” the letter added. The merger’s intent was to increase the bottom line of both hospitals through improved federal reimbursement, and extra revenue through a drug discount program.
That long-term financial plan was part of a “strategic planning process” undertaken by the board of directors. It apparently is not a public document.
Current administrators have frequently made reference to a “transformational plan” that presumably explains the need for the radical change in services that began to occur just a few years after the merger.
We believe it would be of general public interest to understand when, how and why a decision was made to cut services in Bradford and direct patients to Olean “some 23.5 miles away,” in apparent contradiction to the 2017 merger agreement.
Presumably, this “transformational plan” is the document that recommended the elimination of Bradford’s ICU unit and operating room. Initially, it would have eliminated all in-patient beds. Ten beds were added to meet the minimum requirements of Pennsylvania to be called a “hospital.”
It would be of interest to learn how the “transformational” plan addressed anticipated transportation needs between Bradford and Olean hospitals; complex insurance questions; any analysis of McKean County’s struggling but vital EMS system; and perhaps, even, a plan to provide adequate staff in Olean to accept new patients from Bradford.
Interestingly, the Affiliation Agreement itself provide a path for Bradford services to be cut back — or even for the hospital to be closed.
“An acute care hospital will continue at the BRMC site so long as that facility remains financially viable so as to allow it to continue to provide an acceptable overall level of clinical quality and patient safety,” the agreement says.
Beginning in the the fiscal year when the merger occurred, Bradford was required to have at least $1 as a “positive contribution margin.”
“… if BRMC has a negative contribution margin as averaged at $250,000 a year or greater over a rolling three-year period or in the amount of $1 million in any one fiscal year all service offerings would potentially be subject to modification or elimination to promote forward moving viability.”
In fact, a decision to close Bradford would have rested with the Pennsylvania attorney general to either agree to any closing, or go court to stop it. Since it has never been officially “closed,” of course, this measure presumably was never triggered.
There are no such hypotheticals for Olean hospital in the Affiliation Agreement.
It’s hard to overstate, of course, the importance of the Foundation’s assets in this scenario.
Finally, the Affiliation Agreement raises some interesting historical information about financial concerns at both hospitals
Everyone, it seems, has been told Bradford Regional Medical Center was awash in red ink for years.
There is no doubt, there were times when the hospital struggled financially even to pay its bills. And Medicaid’s falling reimbursements and the Covid years put them firmly in the category of “struggling” rural hospitals.
Even still, Bradford was in a better financial position than Olean in some ways when merger talks were held.
In the financial analysis in the affiliation agreement, Olean hospital had achieved an “operating loss” of $3,201,939 in 2016. Bradford also had a loss in 2016, but much smaller — $488,608.
Year 2017 tells a different story and Bradford was said to have had a $5.6 million operating loss.
Bradford’s financial figures are also relevant in context.
We believe the deck became stacked against Bradford when Olean began moving services, such as maternity care, across the state line. So when Bradford’s numbers started to crash over time, the “red ink” doomed our maternity services. Insiders have said it was done methodically throughout the hospital as part of a so-called “planned failure.”
It was gratifying to see this in the Affiliation Agreement: “If services are reduced or curtailed at the BRMC site, OGH will use good faith efforts to continue to provide those health care services that meet the needs of the people in the BRMC service area, as determined by OGH’s federally required community health needs assessment.”
Finally, in some irony, the document also says that if Bradford is ever closed and sold “due to lack of financial sustainability” the net proceeds would be put into Bradford Hospital Foundation to continue to be used to support health care services in Bradford.
Following the Bradford Hospital Foundation Money
By Marty Wilder
2/18/2023
Ever since Save Our Hospital’s first town hall in September 2020, I’ve fancied myself as somewhat of a detective trying to track down $9 million that “disappeared” from Bradford Hospital Foundation’s books in 2016.
Save Our Hospital has been in contact with numerous experts and past hospital employees, researched hundreds of online sources and read and re-read newspaper clippings. We got a billboard, make road signs, sold t-shirts, and tried to keep up a dialogue with the community on the future of health care in Bradford.
But every now and then … someone mentions the missing funds.
A tax document I held aloft at the town hall was a 990 form that non-profit organizations are required to file annually with the IRS. It was thrust into my hands by one of the first people we contacted — a retired yet still frightened hospital employee — who had underlined in yellow two columns of numbers.
Net assets at the beginning of 2016 were $11,351,713; at the end of 2016, $1,965,582.
“Where’s the money $” she had handwritten on the document.
ProPublica, a national organization of investigative journalists, publishes an online tool to search 990 tax forms filed by what are known as “501c3s”— non-profit agencies — named for their section of the tax code.
Perhaps I could find the missing millions? More like Pandora’s box.
TAX FORM 990
The tax form itself contained a single line about the missing money. Schedule O of form 990, part XI, line 9, “settlement of intercompany balances, (minus) -$8,999,564.“
That was it?
Perhaps more important was timing. In 2017, the following year, Bradford formally merged with Olean General Hospital under the umbrella of Upper Allegheny Health System, and we all became a part of Kaleida Health, the giant health care provider in Buffalo, N.Y.
One other thing on the 990 — which seemed odd on first reading — was this passage about the Foundation:
“The bylaws were revised to remove the Foundation operating exclusively for the benefit of, or to carry out the purposes of Bradford Regional Medical Center (BRMC) and such exempt organizations controlled by BRMC.”
It was also stated: “The revision also removed requirement of BRMC to approve actions related to amendments of the foundation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws, the sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all of the property or assets of the foundation, merger or consolidation with any other corporation, dissolution of the foundation, voting any membership or shareholder interest held by the foundation in any other corporation, any transfer of funds by grant, gift or loan from the foundation to any entity other than BRMC and its affiliates or selection or termination of any members of the board of directors of the Foundation.
“The revision also revised the composition of the board of directors, introducing a nominating committee to recommend new board members and removing the requirements to have the chairman of the board of BRMC and the CEO of BRMC on the board and no longer subject to the approval of the BRMC board of directors.”
Huh.
FOIA REQUEST
I filed a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the Affiliation Agreement which tied together Bradford, Olean, Upper Allegheny Health System and Kaleida Health.
A few things stopped me in my tracks.
Such as: “When the merger becomes effective, the separate existence of Bradford shall cease and said corporation shall be merged into Olean. Olean shall possess all the rights, privileges, powers and franchises of a public as well as a private nature, and be subject to all the restrictions, disabilities and duties of Bradford and all property, real, personal and mixed, and all debts due to or from Bradford on whatever accounts as well as all other things in action or belong to Bradford shall be vested in Olean as the surviving corporation.”
Did people realize the 2017 merger would be the virtual death of Bradford hospital?
Or how about this eye-opener in Olean’s portion of the agreement under Section 904 of the not-for-profit corporation law:
“Any charitable gift transferred after the anticipated merger of Bradford and Olean which is contained in any will or other instrument, in trust or otherwise, made before or after the consolidation, directed to or for the benefit of Bradford, shall inure for the benefit of and be transferred to Olean. …”
The affiliation documents are dated March 29, 2017, conveniently, after the Foundation assets had disappeared from the books. Or, as I put it colloquially, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too.”
My journey to find the missing $9 million was not so much over as, well, meaningless.
I’m the first one to admit I have absolutely no training or background in reading such documents. If someone can challenge this information, I would welcome it. I’ve heard the transaction explained as simply standard accounting practice, something way over my head.
Even now, I keep wishing and hoping that maybe … just maybe … the Foundation money is still intact somewhere I overlooked. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe somewhere in all the tax filings and merger agreements is a little box, wrapped up in a red bow. “To be opened only in the case of an emergency,” the card would read.
I’ve been told countless times — and I agree — that trying to affix blame can become counterproductive to our goals to save our beautiful little hospital. But as a former newspaper editor, it is hard to shrug off its most basic tenet: transparency. Journalism, at its core, is a search for truth.
And so, I have to ask, did the people from Bradford on the boards of directors understand the documents they were signing? And, did the people who orchestrated this deal fully understand these documents?
A “RED INK” SOLUTION?
Listen: I know Bradford’s board has its own story to tell. I believe they were threatened with a take-it-or-leave-it deal that could have decimated both the Bradford and Olean hospitals. They were told about years of “red ink” and a future that was not financially realistic. They did the best they could.
But I can’t shake the thought of hundreds of people, hospital employees and Bradford residents, who had helped this little hospital stay afloat and thrive since 1885.
And I think of the major donors over the years, probably none as generous as the owners of Zippo, including a purchase of a boiler for the hospital only a few years ago for $750,000. Bradford’s most prominent citizens and good, solid businesses have invested literally millions over many years to provide a beautiful full-service hospital. Their names are still on a “donor wall” in one of the hospital’s main corridors.
But, mostly, I thought of what that $9 million could have meant for Bradford Hospital as it went through some difficult years.
Our fate is now completely out of our hands as we so sadly realized when, in subsequent years, they closed our ICU, our operating room, and tried to eliminate all in-patient beds.
Many critics will say it’s time to let go of the past and, besides, new leaders are at the helm. But how do we simply forgive and forget? How do we trust Olean, Upper Allegheny or Kaleida while watching the situation at Bradford hospital deteriorates further by the day?
It’s time to think of a new way forward for Bradford, free of its poisonous past.
As I write, a song keeps running through my mind. It’s “Pretty Boy Floyd, the Outlaw,” written by legendary folk singer Woody Guthrie:
“Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen.”
(Marty Wilder is an organizer of Save Our Hospital and lives in Marshburg.)
Understanding Insurance Restrictions on Emergency Medical Transport Services During Hospital to Hospital Transfers
By Christopher Benson, RN
12/27/2022
Note: Chris Benson has over 11 years experience in nursing, including as a registered nurse, a flight nurse on MedEvac helicopters, and a nurse-educator.
The No Surprises Act
Earlier in 2022, the federal government enacted what is known as the “No Surprises Act” in an effort to mitigate costs, particularly accrued during air medical transport via helicopter or airplane, for patients needing transport from one hospital to another. It also was reportedly designed to decrease patient costs for ground ambulances, as well as hospital bills. Many of the general public have thought that this meant they would receive no “balance billing” for seeking healthcare, especially when needing additional care at another facility-especially in regards to air medical billing (which was one of the primary areas of concern for drafting the No Surprises Act), in which the bills generally start around $20,000 (depending on the level of care provided and the distance the patient needs to go, this can often range from $50,000 to over $100,000). However, this is not necessarily the case.
The full effects of the No Surprises Act still have yet to be known. It is therefore beneficial to understand the transport service’s billing structures, fees, and the patient’s insurance stipulations. Many cases are still pending review by the insurance agency, with more being held in arbitration. But a familiarity of the patient with the stipulations of their health insurance policy is necessary to prevent misunderstandings and judgements regarding fees not paid to the appropriate entities.
The medical transport systems bill is based firstly on the level of care provided, then on the number of miles that the patient is transported. The level of care is generally Basic Life Support, Advanced Life Support I, Advanced Life Support II, Critical Care, and Specialty Care. Basic Life Support transports typically require only routine vital signs and are predicted to have very low chances of the patient requiring significant life-saving interventions during the transport. Advanced Life Support I typically are still stable patients with little to no need of any medical intervention, instead requiring more advanced monitoring (such as heart rhythm monitoring) and occasional medication administration, such as pain medication or nausea medication. Advanced Life Support II transports are slightly more risky, and may be for time-sensitive situations. Examples of this are small brain bleeds, heart attacks, or other conditions that are more likely to require more advanced monitoring and more advanced treatments than the fairly routine treatments of an ALS-I transport. Critical Care transport most often either is extremely time-sensitive, or is for patients requiring Intensive Care Unit care during the transport. This is most commonly performed via helicopter, although some areas have ground ambulances and transport teams trained to this level of care. Specialty Care transports are either reserved for the most advanced life-sustaining equipment, for select populations as newborns, the most critically ill or injured children, or patients having a rare and highly contagious disease.
When billing insurances other than CMS-based insurance (the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services, also known as CMS), the transport organization will likely have a “response fee” to respond to a hospital for a patient transfer, then factor in the mileage with the level of care being provided. If the provider ordering the transfer over-rates the level of care necessary to effect the transport, the insurance may or may not cover a portion of that extra level. It has not yet been determined whether the patient is liable for the difference in such a case, if the transport organization is liable, or if one of the hospitals are liable. In most cases, the level of care is determined firstly by the referring provider, secondly by the overseeing command physician of the transport organization, and occasionally by the receiving physician. In the case of the receiving physician determining the level of care to be provided during transport, typically the risk of additional bills (based on the level of care being provided during the transport) to the patient are less than the other circumstances-although not always.
At this time, it is worth re-emphasizing that many transport bills accrued since the enactment of the No Surprises Act are still in a state of flux. The Act did not stipulate a time period for insurance organizations to review nor reimburse transport organizations for patient transports. Therefore, just because a patient has been transported since the enactment of the bill and has not received a bill for their portion of the transport does not mean that they will not; it is still a possibility.
Medicare/Medicaid
Many patients present to one hospital, especially in medically underserved rural areas, but then require transport to another hospital by medical transport teams. On its face, this seems a straightforward endeavor. The reality though, is much more complex.
Especially in rural areas, the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) oversees reimbursement for the bulk of patient transports; not only reimbursement to the hospitals, but also to the medical transport organizations that take patients from areas of deficient care to areas with suitable care. It is important to note that one of the CMS restrictions is that transport organizations are only reimbursed to “the closest appropriate facility”. For example, if a patient presents to a hospital with complex bone fractures and predicted complications, the patient would require being seen by an orthopedic (bone) surgeon sooner rather than later. In a hospital with no or limited orthopedic coverage, this would generally mean that the patient needs transported to one with coverage. However, CMS does not differentiate on the quality of the orthopedic (or other services), nor the availability unless documented in the transfer paperwork. Therefore, while another hospital in close proximity may have orthopedic services offered, it may not necessarily be an “appropriate facility” in regards to availability of services. But unless the transfer paperwork specifically states that the orthopedic services available at the other close hospital are not appropriate to the predicted course of care for the patient or available within a timely manner, CMS will not reimburse the full medical transport costs-and instead the costs are left to the patient.
In addition to this statute, CMS does not recognize healthcare organization agreements; for example, if a patient presents to local hospital “A” in need of additional services, hospital “A” typically refers patients to another hospital within the system. This is regardless to whether there are other hospitals of a different affiliation that can provide similar quality, similarly available care. In such a case, once again the patient is left paying the difference of the bill. In most cases, the patient trusts the referring hospital to have their best interests at heart. The difficulty lies in that the physician ordering the transfer may not necessarily have a knowledge of the other hospitals outside their employing system, or may be under specific direction to only refer in the system; this is not the fault of the staff, but rather the systems. It is therefore, unfortunately, incumbent upon the patient to have a familiarity with the services offered at multiple different hospitals in a variety of different organizations.
It is also noteworthy that in regards to Medicare or Medicaid patients, that CMS has a very well-defined payment structure to reimburse the transport organization; while some private ambulances attempt to charge their own specific rates, if they have a CMS contract they will only be reimbursed based on the CMS fee structure. The paperwork that the transport organization has the patient sign should have some sort of fee structure listed; many do not. It is very unlikely that the transport team will have a definite grasp of the fee structures for the transport, and in many cases the patient can ask to speak with either the transport team’s supervisor or command physician to ascertain that fee structure. In more urgent cases, that may be feasible, but also may not. If a patient knows that they have Medicare or Medicaid, it is likely more beneficial to ask if the transport team is contracted through the CMS system to determine the likelihood of receiving a balance bill for a transport.
Marketplace Medicare/Medicaid Insurance
In comparison to Medicare and Medicaid, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (often referred to as “Obamacare”) opened up CMS funding to other health insurers in an attempt to mitigate government spending on CMS bills. This leads to an even more complex issue, due to the fact that many large health organizations with a large number of hospitals of varying capability also have insurance offerings; many of these organizations signed up for this CMS funding to expand their insurance offerings to additional patients. Also known as “Medicare Advantage” or “Medicaid Advantage” plans, these plans are required to reimburse transport organizations for taking patients from a low-acuity hospital to a higher-acuity hospital, but do not stipulate the CMS fee structure described earlier. They do, however, still have the stipulation that the patient be transported to the closest appropriate facility. Under these plans, often the insurer requires that the patient be transported to a hospital operating under the same insurer/provider agreement as the insurance offering. In many cases, this is beneficial, due to the fact that the insurer will absorb the loss of paying the transport system for the additional mileage with a goal of keeping the patient “in house” and minimizing expenditures from sending the patient to an out of network hospital. It is less common for a patient to receive a balance bill under in-network transfers, although it is not unheard of. Due to most healthcare organizations posting losses for fiscal year 2022, it is predicted by many that CMS contracted insurers will begin to try to collect those lost costs by balance billing the patient for transfers falling outside of the CMS reimbursement structure.
However, the patient may need to be transferred to another health system for care for a myriad of reasons, rather than an “in network” hospital. In such a case, the CMS “Advantage” plans often follow the CMS “closest appropriate facility” stipulation to the letter, and even then many challenges may arise. It is important to have the reasons for transferring a patient to a hospital well described in the transfer paperwork, including services not available, beds not available in a timely manner, acceptance of the patient not achieved in a timely manner, or weather considerations. While weather considerations are especially true for air medical transports, they can be equally applicable to ground ambulance transports as well. Considerations such as flooding, freezing precipitation, or other adverse weather events that have a likelihood of affecting patient safety are all recognized reasons for transporting a patient to a hospital other than the closest due to the appropriateness of avoiding the adverse weather.
Major Insurances
Other employer sponsored or marketplace insurance offerings purchased by patients have their own stipulations on ambulance interfacility transports of patients. Typically, these have in-network hospitals at which they prefer the patient to be treated. This may or may not have a similar requirement to the CMS “closest appropriate facility” stipulation, but more likely they fall under a pre-designated percentage that the patient is required to pay regardless of transport distance.
It is worth mentioning that ambulances, whether ground or air, charge based on “loaded patient miles”, regardless of the amount of supplies used during the transport. These charges are based upon the level of care provided firstly, and secondly upon the distance the ambulance travels between facilities. There is therefore more leeway in regards to choosing a destination hospital; however, this choice may have financial repercussions based on the designation of the receiving hospital being “in-network” or “out of network”. Patients going to “out of network” hospitals may have to pay the “out of network” ambulance percentage rather than the “in network”, especially since the 2022 enactment of the No Surprises Act.
Conclusion
Patients, notably those in medically underserved areas, often require transport from one hospital to another. A familiarity with not only the different levels of transport care, but also the appropriateness and distances to other hospitals, and understanding of the patient’s own insurance, is important in managing additional costs incurred due to these transports. Not all transports are recognized as appropriate to the receiving hospital, may not be fully covered due to networking agreements, and may be mitigated through better documentation on the transfer paperwork. Additionally, some patients will have either a copay, a set percentage of the cost incurred, or both that for which the patient is responsible.
Is Bradford Too Small to Have its Own Hospital?
By Marty Wilder
12/1/2022
Is Bradford is too small to have its own hospital?
So they say, despite the community operating a flourishing full-service hospital since May 10, 1887.
Not only that but other communities in this region — many smaller than Bradford— have managed to keep thriving hospitals in operation with many of the services our hospital had provided until early 2021.
We have spoken to representatives of three local hospitals — Warren General Hospital; Penn Highlands, Elk, in St. Marys; and UPMC Cole in Coudersport.
This chart shows the status of their services as well as Bradford’s offerings before and after affiliation with Kaleida Health System, Buffalo, N.Y.
For reference, Warren General Hospital, until very recently, was an independent organization but we have recently learned it is now affiliated with Allegheny Health Network. Warren is similar in size to Bradford.
The former Andrew Kaul Memorial Hospital in St. Marys is now affiliated with Penn Highlands, hence its new name, “Penn Highlands, Elk.” St. Marys City is somewhat smaller than Bradford.
The former Charles Cole Memorial Hospital is located in Coudersport, a borough much smaller than Bradford. It is now known as UPMC Cole, and is affiliated with UPMC health care network.
What’s There to Save?
By Marty Wilder
11/17/2022
“What’s there to save?” was probably the most frequent question we received when distributing Save Our Hospital signs recently in downtown Bradford.
A good question, honestly, as the hospital appears to be diminishing by the day as we await good news from Upper Allegheny Health Systems top administrators.
Nonetheless, a core group of volunteers, continues to work to come up with a contingency plan should the unthinkable — the closing of the hospital — actually comes to pass. We feel we are supported by hundreds and hundreds of people in the Bradford area who need a full-service hospital.
We are writing to tell you … We are still here. Just recently, we have put up a website (savebradfordhospital.org) to keep you better informed about our strategy moving forward.
We will continue our Facebook page, of course, as it’s a forum for rapid updating of news and information. As always, we also welcome your first-person stories.
The website will allow us to expand our efforts by publishing information that’s a little too long and detailed, too awkward or too complicated for a simple Facebook post.
As we can, we will be populating the site with research we have gathered over the past 18 months that residents will probably find interesting if not shocking — especially when read at length.
We will be publishing government reports such as inspection infractions (and plans of correction); newspaper and magazine articles which might be related to our own struggle; Medicare information as new plans roll out from the federal level.
We have read these documents but are aware that many people in the region are better able to understand some of the more technical and bureaucratic issues. Please let us know, too. We believe our community of nurses, doctors and administrators are more capable of “translating” some documents in context.
Meanwhile, don’t give up on us … or on your power to change the current dynamic.
We are grateful we still have a fully functional ER, 10 or more beds for in-patient care, and a host of outpatient services such as lab, X-ray, cardiac rehab, cancer treatment. But we still need a full-service hospital.
We wait for even a scintilla of good news from officials at Kaleida or Upper Allegheny — a plan, a timetable, a promise of commitment. We have been waiting close to a year, as the situation at the hospital deteriorates and becomes entrenched.
Meanwhile, we continue to pursue all options for the future of health care in the Bradford area.
Signs Available: Pick Them Up Downtown Sunday 10am-12:30pm
11/10/2022
We have signs! 500 of them, to be precise. It’s time to increase our visibility and send the message that our community needs and deserves a full-service hospital!
Join us Sunday, November 13 from 10am to 12:30pm (before the Bills game) to pick yours up!
We will be located in the big parking lot downtown right next to Festival Way. There is a suggested donation of 5 dollars per sign to pay for printing.
If you can’t join us on Sunday, click on the second link below to access a Google form and request your sign delivered straight to your home or business. You will be asked for your address and any further information we might need. You can donate at the first link, via Paypal, if you like.
Paypal link for donations:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/…
Link to form for delivery:
https://forms.gle/UtrLJE7cWrPd4XCx9
Help for a Vanishing Missing Link
11/4/2022
The following is an editorial contributed by Marty Wilder.
If you’ve read the paper lately, you may have noticed reports on at least two fires in McKean County where there weren’t enough volunteers to help put out the blaze.
Seriously.
But this wasn’t the first time. Fortunately, firefighters knew to call second and even third alarms to get enough first responders for the job. But what happens when they run out of volunteers?
If you don’t find this scary, you should.
While doing research on our “Save Bradford Hospital,” I’ve learned a lot about the interdependence of the entire system of health care which importantly begins and ends where the rubber meets the road.
The road “in” begins with emergency medical providers who often are firefighters for their home district. They are having a serious problem getting volunteers.
Now, if you live in Bradford city or the immediate area, consider yourself very lucky. They have a paid crew of firefighters many of whom are EMTs or paramedics. But their service area keeps growing outward to pick up the slack in townships where there are no EMTs. When the city does this, of course, they are stretched thinner and thinner. They have a limited number of ambulances and firefighters who also, of course, fight fires in Bradford City.
Linda Huntoon and I met this week with Rep. Marty Causer. To his credit, he has championed the EMS issue and brought some state resources to bear for help with training.
Becoming an EMT can be costly, and Marty has helped bring down the bottom line. To our way of thinking, anyone who wants to be an EMT shouldn’t have to have ANY financial burden. EMTs, at this point, are unpaid and must take many weeks of training.
As for firefighters — where most of our EMTs come from — they have been losing volunteers for years. Again, I was surprised to learn how time-consuming and difficult it is to do this job.
Talking with Marty made me aware of his serious this situation is. Knowing the fire departments, they will hop on as many resources as they can. But I doubt they have a grant writer on board who could maybe help with some of their costs.
Fund-raising used to be as simple as holding a couple games of bingo. My home department, Corydon Township, sends out requests for financial support to residents each year.
Some municipalities specifically levy taxes for fire protection — Marty’s home district does that — but that is the exception. Like so many other things, townships and even boroughs often don’t have the money — or the inclination — to help with “extraneous” expenses. Few support the library or even the SPCA.
In a sense, you can’t blame them. Some of their residents are probably elderly and/or poor. Even middle-class residents of McKean County often struggle to make ends meet.
Years ago, I remember my hometown St. Marys had an annual membership drive. I believe it was a card you filled with quarters — probably about $10 at the time. And you can see some hospitals themselves stepping in to offer ambulance and EMTs to their regions.
Can we find a way to help with this vanishing missing link?
A solution must be found. If will do no good for a heart attack victim to have a beautiful full-service hospital but no EMT-trained firefighters to care for and transport them to the facility.
Government at some level needs to see that this problem is fixed. Literally millions of dollars have poured into counties, school districts, townships, cities and boroughs this past year or two, mostly from the federal government. Surely, some of them helped out their fire companies?
These are fragile pieces of a bigger problem we see all across America. If we want to keep living the free and independent lifestyle we enjoy in McKean County, it’s time we came up with some innovative ideas. Or cold hard cash.