RE: Another Interesting Bill

[Guest guest]

Wes, and a fair number of other students whom I have had the pleasure of

knowing over the years, is the kind of student who would excel despite class

limitations.

Imagine what those students would do in a class together, with an

instructor who a: cares, and b: knows how to inspire independent learning!

ck

In a message dated 03/08/11 10:02:07 Central Standard Time,

wes.ogilvie@... writes:

Like ANY educational setting, you got out of it what you put into it.

Wes

On the move from my iPhone

> Wes, I have to ask. How was your Paramedic class?

>

> ________________________________

>

> To: " texasems-l " texasems-l >

> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 8:54:37 AM

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

>

> Does the term " puppy mill " also include college-based programs that are

operated

> by colleges as loss-leaders and to run up the college's enrollment

numbers?

>

> The way I see it, the end-run that's being done already is to have the

> non-college programs " affiliate " with an accredited college program. It

just

> seems to run up the cost and provide an additional revenue stream for

the

> colleges.

>

> Are there some fly-by-night educational programs? Absolutely! Do I think

that

> accreditation will be a panacea to fix that? Absolutely not.

>

> And in my personal experience, I was unable to attend the accredited

college

> based program locally because that program operates only on a daytime

basis.

> There is going to continue to be a need for night and evening programs,

> especially for those of us considering a second career, volunteering, or

who

> already have a college degree.

>

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P/Lic.P.

> Austin, Texas

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:10, " B. Austin "

abaustin+yahoogroups@...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> >solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to

try to

> >eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that

have

> >limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare

minimums of the

> >registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

won't

> >have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

institution to

> >affiliate with.

> >

> > I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the

execution. I

> >think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> >good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy

mill. I think

> >requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization

is an

> >excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> >(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

someone to

> >affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap

their brain

> >around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

Again, I

> >don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization

to work

> >with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

other

> > " arrangement " ).

> >

> > In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people

who will

> >win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

while it

> >will not meet it's goals at all.

> >

> > Austin

> >

> >

> >

> >> Jane,

> >>

> >> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

behind

> >> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in

it?

> >> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> >> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about

this

> >> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd

students into

> >> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> >> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare

script them

> >> here. LOL.

> >>

> >> Bob

> >>

> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> >> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >>

> >>>

> >>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC

last

> >>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

equivalent in

> >>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime

in 2018

> >>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be

able to

> >>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> >>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

become

> >>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> >>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

rule

> >>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

based

> >>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> >>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked

for an

> >>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

they

> >>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >>>

> >>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> >>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

date in

> >>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >>>

> >>> Interesting...

> >>>

> >>> Jane Dinsmore

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> To: texasems-l

> >>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> >>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> >>> Subject: Another interesting bill

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> >>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> >>> until 2018.

> >>>

> >>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> >>> legislation regardless.

> >>>

> >>> -Wes Ogilvie

> >>>

> >>>

[Guest guest]

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

[Guest guest]

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

[Guest guest]

Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in Ohio

I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018 to meet

the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to test and

register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no current requirement

in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become nationally accredited.

Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop something that is not currently in

rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule but it isn't at all yet. Our

" requirement " in Texas for this is just based on the fact that NR won't allow

Paramedics from Texas to test for NR registration after the date in 2013 because

they haven't been asked for an extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been

asked, then why did they give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another testing

organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in 2018 when

all our programs must be accredited.

Interesting...

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: wes.ogilvie@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Subject: Another interesting bill

HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill will

attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas until

2018.

There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the legislation

regardless.

-Wes Ogilvie

[Guest guest]

Jane,

I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

here. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> until 2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> legislation regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jane,

I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

here. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> until 2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> legislation regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

You may want to mark this moment in time. You and I are in complete agreement on

an issue!

There may be hope for the world yet!

Dave

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> until 2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> legislation regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Yes the burden will and is on the rural providers that have to travel 1-2 hours

to attend classes and perform clinicals (or try the class by the internet, but

that is a whole different subject).  In the panhandle region where there is not

a college or hospital in every town, the training is hard to get.  Then try and

convince a volunteer or part-time employee to spend the time or money, it

becomes an enormous issue to get a college degree for a occupation that you are

volunteering your time on top of your occupation that supports the family.  The

bad part is that I know that there are places in Texas that have longer travel

time than we do.  There is not a good answer, but making training more difficult

to come by is not the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

To: texasems-l

Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 8:10 AM

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The National Registry's agenda not withstanding, is there any scientific

evidence that an EMS patient is less likely to survive when treated by a

" puppy mill " paramedic, as opposed to being treated by a " legitimate

educational institution " paramedic? (Stand-by for projection bias) LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:10 AM, B. Austin <

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

> the registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> won't have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> institution to affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

> I think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

> think requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization

> is an excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> someone to affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they

> wrap their brain around the idea and communicate the necessity with those

> organizations. Again, I don't think it will be difficult for the mills to

> find an organization to work with (either by profit sharing, some sort of

> affiliation fees, or some other " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

> will win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> while it will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> equivalent in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

> 2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

> an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> date in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The National Registry's agenda not withstanding, is there any scientific

evidence that an EMS patient is less likely to survive when treated by a

" puppy mill " paramedic, as opposed to being treated by a " legitimate

educational institution " paramedic? (Stand-by for projection bias) LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:10 AM, B. Austin <

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

> the registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> won't have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> institution to affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

> I think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

> think requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization

> is an excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> someone to affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they

> wrap their brain around the idea and communicate the necessity with those

> organizations. Again, I don't think it will be difficult for the mills to

> find an organization to work with (either by profit sharing, some sort of

> affiliation fees, or some other " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

> will win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> while it will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> equivalent in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

> 2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

> an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> date in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

, being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and possible

one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of " quality "

education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP accredited

programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I am

just wondering. Please explain.

Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

Program Director

Lefe EMS Academy

El Paso, TX 

________________________________

To: texasems-l

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and possible

one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of " quality "

education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP accredited

programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I am

just wondering. Please explain.

Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

Program Director

Lefe EMS Academy

El Paso, TX 

________________________________

To: texasems-l

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and possible

one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of " quality "

education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP accredited

programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I am

just wondering. Please explain.

Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

Program Director

Lefe EMS Academy

El Paso, TX 

________________________________

To: texasems-l

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who will

win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while it

will not meet it's goals at all.

Austin

> Jane,

>

> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> here. LOL.

>

> Bob

>

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> >

> > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >

> > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >

> > Interesting...

> >

> > Jane Dinsmore

> >

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > Subject: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Austin, I hate to burst your bubble but that process is not NEAR as easy as your

portray it to be. We ARE a legitimate company with an excellent reputation. It

took us MONTHS of back and forth with various organizations before we finally

came up with one to sponsor because most accredited schools (and even hospitals

and such) are reluctant to step outside of their box and be responsible for

monitoring anyone else in a formal contract or agreement. In fact, I would say

it took us about a year and a half to finally find sponsors and get the

contracts in place just in the nick of time. It's not that easy. The expense

for the accrediation application itself isn't near the problem. The largest

expense is in preparing all of the documents,methods, procedures, and then

preparing for the site visit which so far has cost our company well over 2,000

man hours and we aren't near finished yet. These man hours are NOT being spent

educating students or doing anything to really improve student outcomes. They

are spent to prepare processes and methods and such to show procedures, not

outcomes.

Jane Dinsmore, PERCOM

> To: texasems-l

> From: abaustin+yahoogroups@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:10:58 -0500

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

while it will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent

in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date

in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Does the term " puppy mill " also include college-based programs that are operated

by colleges as loss-leaders and to run up the college's enrollment numbers?

The way I see it, the end-run that's being done already is to have the

non-college programs " affiliate " with an accredited college program. It just

seems to run up the cost and provide an additional revenue stream for the

colleges.

Are there some fly-by-night educational programs? Absolutely! Do I think that

accreditation will be a panacea to fix that? Absolutely not.

And in my personal experience, I was unable to attend the accredited college

based program locally because that program operates only on a daytime basis.

There is going to continue to be a need for night and evening programs,

especially for those of us considering a second career, volunteering, or who

already have a college degree.

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P/Lic.P.

Austin, Texas

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:10, " B. Austin " abaustin+yahoogroups@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

while it will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

>> Jane,

>>

>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

>> here. LOL.

>>

>> Bob

>>

>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>>>

>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>>>

>>> Interesting...

>>>

>>> Jane Dinsmore

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> To: texasems-l

>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

>>> until 2018.

>>>

>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>>> legislation regardless.

>>>

>>> -Wes Ogilvie

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

I actually do have opinions that follow your path of thinking. I feel forced

into the process (even though I have found that it will help us some ways

monetarily), and that there are many issues around this process that have not

been clearly thought out. But we will do it. We are in the process. We plan

to achieve the process. But that doesn't mean we have to like it personally.

And the parts we don't like the most are the financial expense overall and the

fact that the whole process is focused more on stucture of an organization, not

on what their student outcomes represent about that organization. There is more

than one way to skin a cat and some methods are better than others. But the

problem I see is that national accreditation standards so far are restrictive

and not good at " thinking outside of the box " . However, I could be wrong. We

are awaiting our site visit and the outcomes of our ISSR submission. And our

company is extremely unique in structure. But our outcomes are excellent. So

maybe the national accrediting folks will also be learning as we go and may

surprise all of us.

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: kellow.bob@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:52:09 -0600

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

Jane,

I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

here. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>

> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>

> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>

> Interesting...

>

> Jane Dinsmore

>

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> Subject: Another interesting bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> until 2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> legislation regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

>

[Guest guest]

I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than academic

settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

Bob

EMS Dinosaur

>

>

> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> possible

> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> " quality "

> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> accredited

> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I

> am

> just wondering. Please explain.

>

> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> Program Director

> Lefe EMS Academy

> El Paso, TX

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> To: texasems-l

> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

>

> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

> the

> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> won't

> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> institution to

> affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

> I

> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

> think

> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

>

> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> someone to

> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> brain

> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> Again, I

> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to

> work

> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

> will

> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> while it

> will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> equivalent in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

> 2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

> an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> date in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Wes, I have to ask. How was your Paramedic class?

________________________________

To: " texasems-l " texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 8:54:37 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

 

Does the term " puppy mill " also include college-based programs that are operated

by colleges as loss-leaders and to run up the college's enrollment numbers?

The way I see it, the end-run that's being done already is to have the

non-college programs " affiliate " with an accredited college program. It just

seems to run up the cost and provide an additional revenue stream for the

colleges.

Are there some fly-by-night educational programs? Absolutely! Do I think that

accreditation will be a panacea to fix that? Absolutely not.

And in my personal experience, I was unable to attend the accredited college

based program locally because that program operates only on a daytime basis.

There is going to continue to be a need for night and evening programs,

especially for those of us considering a second career, volunteering, or who

already have a college degree.

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P/Lic.P.

Austin, Texas

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:10, " B. Austin " abaustin+yahoogroups@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

>solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

>eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

>limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

>registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

>have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution

to

>affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

>think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

>good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

think

>requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

>excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

>(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone

to

>affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

>around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again,

I

>don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

>with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will

>win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while

it

>will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

>> Jane,

>>

>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

>> here. LOL.

>>

>> Bob

>>

>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>>>

>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>>>

>>> Interesting...

>>>

>>> Jane Dinsmore

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> To: texasems-l

>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

>>> until 2018.

>>>

>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>>> legislation regardless.

>>>

>>> -Wes Ogilvie

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Wes, I have to ask. How was your Paramedic class?

________________________________

To: " texasems-l " texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 8:54:37 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

 

Does the term " puppy mill " also include college-based programs that are operated

by colleges as loss-leaders and to run up the college's enrollment numbers?

The way I see it, the end-run that's being done already is to have the

non-college programs " affiliate " with an accredited college program. It just

seems to run up the cost and provide an additional revenue stream for the

colleges.

Are there some fly-by-night educational programs? Absolutely! Do I think that

accreditation will be a panacea to fix that? Absolutely not.

And in my personal experience, I was unable to attend the accredited college

based program locally because that program operates only on a daytime basis.

There is going to continue to be a need for night and evening programs,

especially for those of us considering a second career, volunteering, or who

already have a college degree.

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P/Lic.P.

Austin, Texas

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:10, " B. Austin " abaustin+yahoogroups@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

>solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

>eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

>limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

>registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

>have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution

to

>affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

>think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

>good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

think

>requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

>excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

>(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone

to

>affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

>around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again,

I

>don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

>with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will

>win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while

it

>will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

>> Jane,

>>

>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

>> here. LOL.

>>

>> Bob

>>

>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>>>

>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>>>

>>> Interesting...

>>>

>>> Jane Dinsmore

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> To: texasems-l

>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

>>> until 2018.

>>>

>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>>> legislation regardless.

>>>

>>> -Wes Ogilvie

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Wes, I have to ask. How was your Paramedic class?

________________________________

To: " texasems-l " texasems-l >

Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 8:54:37 AM

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

 

Does the term " puppy mill " also include college-based programs that are operated

by colleges as loss-leaders and to run up the college's enrollment numbers?

The way I see it, the end-run that's being done already is to have the

non-college programs " affiliate " with an accredited college program. It just

seems to run up the cost and provide an additional revenue stream for the

colleges.

Are there some fly-by-night educational programs? Absolutely! Do I think that

accreditation will be a panacea to fix that? Absolutely not.

And in my personal experience, I was unable to attend the accredited college

based program locally because that program operates only on a daytime basis.

There is going to continue to be a need for night and evening programs,

especially for those of us considering a second career, volunteering, or who

already have a college degree.

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P/Lic.P.

Austin, Texas

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:10, " B. Austin " abaustin+yahoogroups@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

>solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

>eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

>limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

>registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

>have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution

to

>affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

>think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

>good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

think

>requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

>excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

>(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone

to

>affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

>around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again,

I

>don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

>with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will

>win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while

it

>will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

>

>

>> Jane,

>>

>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

>> here. LOL.

>>

>> Bob

>>

>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent in

>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in 2018

>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>>>

>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date in

>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>>>

>>> Interesting...

>>>

>>> Jane Dinsmore

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> To: texasems-l

>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

>>> until 2018.

>>>

>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>>> legislation regardless.

>>>

>>> -Wes Ogilvie

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Exactly what I am saying in the post I made that just followed this one you just

made. LOL That is the problem. Let's look at outcomes of the already CoAEMSP

accredited programs in Texas alone. Pull up your EMS Magazine that came out a

few weeks ago. Some are doing extremely well but most, not so well. So to me

that should be a critical indicator about " the process " . To me, good methods

are fine, but outcomes are what should be achieved - let's improve the outcomes,

not necessarily the process. Like I said, there are MANY ways to achieve

something without necessarily fitting the " norm " . If that were the goal in this

process, I would be ALL for it in heart and soul. (And if we could figure out a

way to minimize some of the expenses, which have to be passed on to students

increasing their tuitions in an economy that doesn't appear to be getting much

better, I would be MUCH happier.)

And I have a question. At the last Education Committee Meeting, it was voiced

by TDSHS staff that only 4 Paramedic programs in Texas are not applying for

CoAEMSP. I know of 3 within 100 mile radius of where I live that are not doing

this even with aligning with another program. So to me, if there are 3 right

here around me, does that mean that EVERY other Paramedic program in the state

(but 1 more not accounted for here) are doing the process???? That seems odd to

me. Is there anyone else out there who can tell us who the 4th program is and

if there are others?

Jane Dinsmore

> To: texasems-l

> From: kellow.bob@...

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:55:59 -0600

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

> I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than academic

> settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

>

> Bob

> EMS Dinosaur

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> > possible

> > one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> > " quality "

> > education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> > accredited

> > programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I

> > am

> > just wondering. Please explain.

> >

> > Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> > Program Director

> > Lefe EMS Academy

> > El Paso, TX

> >

> > ________________________________

> >

> >

> > To: texasems-l

> > Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> > Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> > I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> > solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

> >

> > eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

> > limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

> > the

> > registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> > won't

> > have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> > institution to

> > affiliate with.

> >

> > I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

> > I

> > think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> > good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

> > think

> > requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

> >

> > excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> > (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> > someone to

> > affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> > brain

> > around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> > Again, I

> > don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to

> > work

> > with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> > other

> > " arrangement " ).

> >

> > In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

> > will

> > win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> > while it

> > will not meet it's goals at all.

> >

> > Austin

> >

> >

> >

> > > Jane,

> > >

> > > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> > behind

> > > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> > into

> > > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> > them

> > > here. LOL.

> > >

> > > Bob

> > >

> > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> > equivalent in

> > > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

> > 2018

> > > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> > to

> > > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> > become

> > > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> > rule

> > > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> > based

> > > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

> > an

> > > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> > they

> > > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > > >

> > > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> > date in

> > > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > > >

> > > > Interesting...

> > > >

> > > > Jane Dinsmore

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To: texasems-l

> > > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> > Texas

> > > > until 2018.

> > > >

> > > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > > legislation regardless.

> > > >

> > > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Austin,

Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the college

knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the students and the $$$

will come to the college. Think of it as state sponsored elimination of the

competition.

Dave

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Austin,

Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the college

knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the students and the $$$

will come to the college. Think of it as state sponsored elimination of the

competition.

Dave

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another interesting bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

> >