HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS

January 25, 2007

So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a

private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they

are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that

for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only

game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get

experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some

may require at least one year experience before they will hire you.

Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private

service during their off time, so while they are working municipal

they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not?

That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money

but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public

in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is

why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this

law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor

providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we

are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as

everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to

maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said

in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated

training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the

PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so

why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and

private services? We are all doing the same job just under different

circumstances.

Anita

NREMTP/LP

>

> > Mike,

> >

> > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone

chooses

> > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental

> > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected?

> > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly

hope

> > that I have misunderstood your meaning here.

> No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced

> punishment range as those working for a government entity, or

under

> the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not

> just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone

> engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an

enhancement/

> protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be

> engaged in?

>

> We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing

> services under the auspices of government are working directly for

> the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like

> we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers

are

> present. Private employees, government contract. That same

> " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working

on

> their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house -

at

> that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and

the

> " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against

them.

>

> In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing

service

> under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault

> against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will

> assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're

facing

> more punishment for doing so).

>

> Mike

>

January 25, 2007

Mike,

I am not sure that there is enough bandwidth out there for me to express just

how much I disagree with you one this one. Rather than try and change your mind

which seems set, (as is mine) I guess that this is one of those times when we

are going to have to disagree but not be disagreeable.

Dave

Mike wrote:

> Mike,

>

> Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses

> to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental

> entity that they really don't deserve to be protected?

> I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope

> that I have misunderstood your meaning here.

No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced

punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under

the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not

just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone

engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/

protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be

engaged in?

We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing

services under the auspices of government are working directly for

the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like

we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are

present. Private employees, government contract. That same

" enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on

their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at

that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the

" standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them.

In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service

under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault

against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will

assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing

more punishment for doing so).

Mike

The comments contained in this correspondence are the sole responsibility of the

author. They do not necessarily reflect the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of

my employer, or any other group or organization that I may be, am perceived to

be, have been or will be involved with in the future. They are my own comments,

submitted freely and they are worth exactly what you paid for them.

---------------------------------

The fish are biting.

Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

January 25, 2007

> Using the same arguments - what about PSOB benefits? Should for profit

> security agencies and industrial fire fighters as well as for

> profit EMS

> agencies be eligible for PSOB?

Personally, I think they should not.

Mike

January 25, 2007

Gene,

By your interpretation...then....this won't apply to volunteers either? Most of

them work for non-profit corporations that contract or " just do it " for

governmental agencies....is this not going to apply to them either?

Dudley

Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS

I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational reason to mandate

enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS providers, any more than

there

is a reason to extend such provisions to private plumbers.

There is a vast difference between public EMS providers and private ones.

Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually must meet budgetary

limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit enterprise, and as such, is a business

just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal status. Private EMS

providers do not wear the badge of the state. (Well, they may, but their badges

are

bogus.).

Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that plumbers do not. As Mike

points out, they can have ambulances that can run with lights and sirens and

violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are responsible for their

employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover their losses from negligent

acts.

They can purchase health insurance for their employees. They are a

business, and not a governmental entity. So they do not qualify for governmental

immunities.

I see no reason that any private EMS service not the contracted exclusive

provider for a city or county should have any emergency rights whatsoever.

Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS services at some time, and now is

the

best time to do it.

When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas County, and 200 in

County, things are seriously out of control.

I do think that if a private contractor has the exclusive right to provide

EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should be some provision to afford

that service recognition as a quasi governmental entity, but it should be

limited, if the provider is a for profit company.

There are many issues involved with private EMS companies, but they ought not

to enjoy special status given to governmental entities.

Gene G.

>

> > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this line of PUBLIC

> > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to whom ever calls,

> > where ever it is, and it should make no difference the provider

> > they chose to work for.

>

> We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies exist to make

> money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist not for the

> public good, but to make money for the owners, founders or stockholders.

>

> > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best care possible

> > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be free from

> > potential harm or at least know that if they are violated the

> > violator will be punished.

>

> Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just like any other

> " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves serious bodily

> injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any other " regular "

> person that gets assaulted.

>

> > If there is any chance anyone is looking at limiting protection we

> > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys don't differentiate

> > between Private or Government employees; we wear the same patch for

> > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red.

>

> Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at limiting

> protection. People are looking at creating yet another " exception "

> where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault is still

> assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, why not make it

> the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He takes tickets from

> the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS drivers? They

> deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery guys - they

> deliver pizza to the public.

>

> The fact that the public can't distinguish between private and public

> EMS providers is indicative of several other problems, the first of

> which is that they don't know there's no " requirement " that their

> government provide them with service at all, and no idea that private

> EMS providers work for for-profit companies who must, as a matter of

> finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs running on

> government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid directly by the

> public). It's also indicative of the problem that we allow private

> providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the *only* public

> service that does so. There are NO private police and NO private

> fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers cannot get the

> " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason for that - they're

> PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the public to slip into

> apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS as a service to

> the public, have allowed (and in some places, 'required') private

> providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not saying that

> private providers don't do a good job filling the gap - just that we

> should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the gap, and this law

> ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS providers equal,

> which they shouldn't be if we really want the public to see EMS as a

> public service that *must* be provided rather than a " choice " between

> providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers to benefit from

> a lack of public understanding and interest.

>

> > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as a whole....

> Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just doesn't give that

> extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant.

>

> Mike

>

January 25, 2007

> Mike,

>

> The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is

> intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY

> generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5)

> classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree

> felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. "

>

> The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an

> addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of

> " security officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in

> the statute which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that

> " security officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as

> were - under certain conditions - persons with a relationship with

> the actor as " described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005,

> Family Code. " They aren't " public servants " either, and never have

> been.

While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers "

in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for

their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the

state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at

large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons,

etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for

purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers

(the same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and

are allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an

appropriate situation, use weapons including deadly weapons

(handguns). So, to a degree, they are " quasi- " representing a public

interest. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, as they work

for private companies who are purchasing protections above and beyond

those offered through existing public safety infrastructures (police,

sheriff, constable, etc.), but it's the law on the books as of today.

I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone,

serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a

public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a

service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government

service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served.

The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing

private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of

insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a

service to or for the public should they be considered a public

servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this

discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all

fair discourse!

> Regardless of what the DPS title may be, the governing document is

> the statute - not DPS shorthand.

Yes and no. The DPS published arrest title is what the probable

cause addifavit, complaint, indictment or information are written

using. It's also the " charge " listed on a criminal history for

purposes of tracking and conviction. So, a person arrested for

assault is only charged with ASSAULT. A person arrested for assault

on a public servant (under the same portion of the code, just a

different section of the same title) is in fact charged differently,

ASSAULT / PUBLIC SERVANT (I don't have my actual arrest title sheet

in front of me, but I can find it if need be - that's close enough

for discussion's sake). It's all still under the same title, but the

arrest title makes a SIGNIFICANT difference and does show up

differently in prosecutorial documents and on a criminal history.

> EVERY mention of the phrase " public servant " in the body of HB 495

> is in an OR situation, such as " public servant, security officer or

> emergency services personnel. " The statute [sections 22.01 ( and

> (d), Penal Code], as HB 495 amends it, will apply equally to all of

> them - not just to " public servant " personnel.

Right. And the reason for that is to include emergency service

personnel who are not currently considered public servants, which I

don't agree should happen. I believe the law, as enacted, correctly

represents the intent of the legislature - to enhance punishments for

those who assault a public servant in the course of their duties.

Mike

January 25, 2007

I strongly feel that no licensed or certified EMS provider should be

excluded from this Bill if it does become enacted--private, volunteer or

otherwise.

For any of our municipality employed brethren to suggest otherwise

demonstrates even further the " us versus them " syndrome that keeps us divided

as a

profession on the whole. Some of the same " exclude the private " commentators

are the same ones who preach " unity and the world " for EMS. Does that mean

" unity and the world--unless you a employed by a private service, volunteer

department or hospital? " Kind of like the founders of this country--All men

are

created equal. Equal if you a rich, white. male landowner. It took almost

200 years for us to clarify that " Everybody is equal. " Even if you are a

privately employed EMT or Medic in Texas.

And by the way, not all privately owned services are corrupt or out to

fleece their employees, clients or the system. In fact, I started my service

with

a vow to myself to operate ethically, treat my employees well, pay them a

livable wage and respect them for the job that they do. I have worked for too

many services that were the opposite. In return, I have (in my opinion) the

best damned group of EMS PROFESSIONALS that I have ever had the Privilege to

work with. Every single one of them. My only regret is that I cannot do

more for them. Despite the typical " family bickering " we all pull together to

get the job done and it makes me proud to see that folks are proud to work at

FREMS. In fact, most of the employees who have left voluntarily have

reapplied within a few months. That says a lot about us as a team. And

whether

they are working an MVA, a 911 mutual aid call, an assault at an event, a

psychiatric transfer or a simple dialysis call, I hope and pray that the

lawmakers

of this great state have the wisdom and the courage to extend that additional

protection to them and everyone else that is not municipally employed.

After all, they deserve it.

Bacco

January 26, 2007

Gene, I was reading your post regarding this issue. I agree with the fact

that the private EMS provider as a company should not get any more special

privileges or exemplary treatment while engaged in the course of private

business. However, the licensed and certified EMS personnel should be covered

under

the law. I really wish my previous post of a few hours ago would be posted.

It must have gotten " moderated. "

The bill in question addresses the personnel of the EMS agency as being

covered. Not the company. For profit or not, all providers in the state

charge

for the ambulance transport for reimbursement. Whether one of my employees

is running an MVA, a 911 rollover, mass casualty mutual aid call, and assault

at a special event, a seizure, chest pain, dialysis call or a stop to render

aid, they are being placed at the same risk with the same duties of a

municipally employed emt or medic.

I know plenty of privately employed medics and emts, as well as the hospital

employed personnel and volunteers who have been assaulted, threatened,

stalked by sex offenders and even abducted at gun point and raped for several

hours before being returned to her place of employment by her abductor

(1994/95--VA hospital in Dallas, AMR employee-- before the " police " there were

allowed

to carry sidearms). With her for an example, she was clearing a medical call

and was simply fixing the cot in the ER. Would extra " punishment' have

stopped this? Probably not. Will it stop it in the future? Don't know.

Everybody in this country knows that if you hit a cop while performing his

duties

bad things are going to happen. 1) you will get your but kicked or

pepper-sprayed at the very least. then; 2) You will be charged with a felony

and spend

several years going " Man, I really messed up this time. "

A call that results in any patient contact is a call. An injured person is

an injured person whether they call 911 or a private service. Why should the

increased criminal penalties be offered to private security personnel who

have far less training than a basic peace officer on a whole and not offered to

an EMT or medic who has met the same training requirements to function as an

EMS Provider (employee not employer). ACLS is the same,CPR Healthcare

provider is the same, PTLS, BTLS, PALS--all the same.

Are the increased penalties applied if one assaults a " private " police

officer such as a hospital cop. Baylor Medical Center has them, so does

Methodist

in Dallas. They are privately employed by a hospital? How about a DART

transit officer? You bet it will be because the language reads (not verbatim)

" peace officer while executing his/her duties and has identified themselves as

a peace officer.

With that said, the lawmakers need simply to change the language from

" emergency services worker " to Emergency Medical Services personnel and Fire

Services personnel..... " That should cover it and settle the argument so that

all

Emergency Services personnel (EMS, LE, FD and SEO) can feel better that Mr.

or Mrs Havingabadday may spend some more time in jail if they hit me.

I am disappointed though to see that some of our municipally employed

brethren are so willing to deny a privately employee EMS employee the same basic

legal protection from bodily harm. From my perspective, that discrimination

and " municipal vs private " attitude only further drives yet another wedge into

us (EMS) evolving as a profession on a whole.

Argue all you want about calls, transfer providers, differences in wages and

benefits, the alleged benevolence of a non-profit provider private versus

the " corrupt, money-grubbing " private ambulance service owner (yes

ambulance--privates are that, others are private EMS services) or the " tax

dollar wasting

municipalities that are just trying to justify their budgets " for the next

fiscal year. All of that is simply time wasting bickering that is based more

on opinion than fact. The bottom line is that we are all ECAs, EMTs, and

Paramedics. If we cannot come together on a proposed bill that would give all

of us more protection, then we are doomed as a profession and all of the

efforts of groups like EMSAT have been for naught.

You do not see other professions publicly disparaging their peers because of

where they choose to practice. Under the Nurse Practice Act, Medical

Boards, The Texas Bar association etc all see every body with the respective

license as their profession and fight for all of them. Hospital RN vs nursing

home

or doctors office or school nurse--all are equal in their associations, as

we are un the eyes of DSHS and the Bureau of Emergency Management .

We do not see Physicians publicly bickering or trying to deny malpractice

insurance to a plastic surgeon but offer it to an EMS medical director.

Attorneys do not publicly bicker or try to deny court privileges to an

ambulance

chasing personal injury attorney while favoring a civil rights attorney.

Sure, they may all joke about the other specialty because it is not what they

chose to practice. However, you will not see a doctors lounge in a hospital

deny entry to a family practice physician or a pathologist because they are not

doing surgery or cardiac catheters. We do not see LE personnel try to denies

benefits because they work for DPS and not SO or a large urban department or

even the Border Patrol--they are all law enforcement. When one dies in the

line of duty, they all wear a black ribbon on their badges. What to we do?

What traditions do we have that are uniform (other than the free t-shirt,

Frisbee and sandwiches at the ER during EMS week?) How many of us even know

that their is a national EMS museum (thanks Woody at TEEX--great dvd!).

The one thing that Physicians, Law Enforcement officers, Firefighter,

Attorneys and Nurses have that EMS is lacking is MUTUAL RESPECT no matter where

one

chooses to work. We need to learn how to support each other rather than

tear each other down.

I challenge any fire-based medic to go to work for a " reputable " private

provider in their area and run some critical care calls or see what the private

EMS folks really do. I have had numerous Dallas FireFighters and suburban

firefighters who have worked with us part-time come back and tell me that our

jobs were way tougher than they imagined and that they were surprised at the

amount of " real runs " that we " privates " do. All without the benefit of going

back to our lazy-e-boy at the station because now the " non-emergency " calls

need to be run. The non-emergency calls that are no less important to the

health and well-being of patients and the public overall that no " self

respecting " 911 fireman would run because " there are private services for

that. "

Like I said earlier, a call is a call, is an call regardless of who you work

for or where you work for. We ALL deserve the equal protection of the law.

I am going to go and buy my crews a cup of coffee now. They deserve it.

Bacco

January 26, 2007

Using the same arguments - what about PSOB benefits? Should for profit

security agencies and industrial fire fighters as well as for profit EMS

agencies be eligible for PSOB?

Personally, I think they should not.

Mike

January 26, 2007

Mike,

The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is

intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY

generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5)

classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree

felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. "

The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an

addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of " security

officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in the statute

which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that " security

officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as were - under

certain conditions - persons with a relationship with the actor as

" described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code. "

They aren't " public servants " either, and never have been.

While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers "

in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for

their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the

state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at

large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons,

etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for

purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers (the

same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and are

allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an