Guest guest Posted April 30, 2004 Report Share Posted April 30, 2004 Dr. Bledsoe, I am going to use one of your tools back at you. If someone had posted a statement in support of CISM or Helicopter transports like you stated here " PUMs, by definition, low-ball wages to keep costs low " they would have been attacked and degraded on many levels to show the research and data out there to prove such an anecdotal statement. The definition of a Public Utility Model system has nothing to do with the way that paramedics are paid. And at MAST, from reading the newspaper articles over the past year, not just this one editorial, it is easy to see that the administration did fail and the oversight was not very good. There were mistakes made in labor costs, unit hours needed, and the impact of the Medicare fee schedule. The livable wage you speak of for MAST is $33,700 starting for paramedics. Not bad, but not the best going either. Funny thing is, in the report from the consultant, it was stated that financially they had suffered because of management oversight but that patient care had and continues to be exceptional. There have been several viewpoints in the newspapers over the past 2-3 weeks. Each one is very opinionated regarding the future of MAST and how it should be operated on a go-forward basis. Each of them is worth the read if you are so inclined... I think it is not very responsible to state that the PUM model fell because of providing a " livable wage " . I also do not believe it is an accurate statement. I appreciate your time...let the firing begin!!! Dudley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.