Lack of Clear Performance Standards and Accountability Mechanisms:
The ordinance fails to establish specific, enforceable response time standards for ambulance services, which are critical for evaluating performance and ensuring timely medical care. State law (California Health and Safety Code §1797.224 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations) mandates such standards, yet the ordinance references only vague “bi-annual reviews” by the Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC). To ensure compliance, quarterly by an independent oversight body.
Conflict of Interest in Oversight and Drafting Process:
Involvement of EMS providers, particularly the Lake County Fire Chiefs Association (LCFCA), in drafting the ordinance and monitoring compliance creates a conflict of interest. The EMCC, which includes service providers, effectively allows self-monitoring, diminishing accountability. Moreover, ambiguous staffing requirements allow public sector providers to substitute “Public Safety Responders” for fully trained EMTs or paramedics, creating a double standard that undermines service quality. The ordinance should prohibit individuals or entities with financial or operational stakes in EMS from serving on oversight committees.
Ambiguity in Key Definitions and Provisions:
The ordinance’s references to “Exclusive Operating Areas (EOAs)” under California Health and Safety Code §1797.224 lack clarity on how these areas will be determined or awarded. Without a transparent, competitive bidding process, concerns about fairness and favoritism persist. Additionally, while the ordinance assigns oversight to the Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA), it does not address LEMSA’s operational limitations, creating a regulatory gap that must be resolved.
Inconsistent Enforcement Standards for Public and Private Providers:
The ordinance imposes stricter requirements on private providers while exempting public providers from vehicle inspection standards mandated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Similarly, mutual aid agreements lack clarity on whether public providers are held to the same standards, potentially leading to service gaps.
Inadequate Provisions for Data Transparency and Public Reporting:
Robust data collection and public reporting are essential for maintaining accountability. independent complaint resolution process.
Lack of Clear Performance Standards and Accountability Mechanisms:
The ordinance fails to establish specific, enforceable response time standards for ambulance services, which are critical for evaluating performance and ensuring timely medical care. State law (California Health and Safety Code §1797.224 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations) mandates such standards, yet the ordinance references only vague “bi-annual reviews” by the Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC). To ensure compliance, quarterly by an independent oversight body.
Conflict of Interest in Oversight and Drafting Process:
Involvement of EMS providers, particularly the Lake County Fire Chiefs Association (LCFCA), in drafting the ordinance and monitoring compliance creates a conflict of interest. The EMCC, which includes service providers, effectively allows self-monitoring, diminishing accountability. Moreover, ambiguous staffing requirements allow public sector providers to substitute “Public Safety Responders” for fully trained EMTs or paramedics, creating a double standard that undermines service quality. The ordinance should prohibit individuals or entities with financial or operational stakes in EMS from serving on oversight committees.
Ambiguity in Key Definitions and Provisions:
The ordinance’s references to “Exclusive Operating Areas (EOAs)” under California Health and Safety Code §1797.224 lack clarity on how these areas will be determined or awarded. Without a transparent, competitive bidding process, concerns about fairness and favoritism persist. Additionally, while the ordinance assigns oversight to the Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA), it does not address LEMSA’s operational limitations, creating a regulatory gap that must be resolved.
Inconsistent Enforcement Standards for Public and Private Providers:
The ordinance imposes stricter requirements on private providers while exempting public providers from vehicle inspection standards mandated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Similarly, mutual aid agreements lack clarity on whether public providers are held to the same standards, potentially leading to service gaps.
Inadequate Provisions for Data Transparency and Public Reporting:
Robust data collection and public reporting are essential for maintaining accountability. independent complaint resolution process.