Laserfiche WebLink
� r � <br />No specific incidents were cited as to why the delays mentioned in <br />the forms occurred. Therefore, the information is not quantifiable <br />in a format which would demonstrate a need for additional <br />providers. Generally, surveys are used to determine a specific <br />objective (i.e. need) and are prepared in such a manner that the <br />survey is blind and impartial so it does not support or lead to a <br />particular position or finding. The survey form used and responses <br />obtained in this instance are not specific enough for the EMS <br />Director to conclude that a need for additional wheelchair <br />providers has been established. The survey would certainly <br />strongly suggest that those surveyed would prefer to have <br />additional providers available, and there is concern that after <br />hour and weekend transports of the facilities are not being met as <br />they should be. <br />It appears that Able has raised a point that*the Board may want to <br />consider in terms of wheelchair services for those clients who pay <br />with private funds versus clients whose wheelchair transportation <br />is paid from governmental resources. Chapter 304 does not directly <br />address the issue of private pay. Able has stated on several <br />occasions that they would like to provide wheelchair transportation <br />services to private pay clients until such time as a contract could <br />be favorably considered and finalized with the Council On Aging and <br />the Community Transportation Coordinator. <br />Possible alternatives the Board may consider are as follows: <br />1. Deny the application for a Class "E" certificate to provide <br />wheelchair transportation services. <br />2. Approve the application for a Class "E" certificate to provide <br />wheelchair transportation services. <br />3. Approve the application for a Class "E" certificate and limit <br />the wheelchair transportation services to serve only private <br />pay clients. <br />RECONMNDATION: <br />The EMS Director carefully considered all the information submitted <br />in this matter. However, a great amount of creditability is given <br />to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board since <br />that Board was the genesis of the wheelchair ordinance. Its <br />finding that no additional wheelchair providers were needed in the <br />County is significant. It was also confirmed that Able is not <br />currently under contract with the Community Transportation <br />Coordinator, which is a requirement in the ordinance to obtain a <br />Class "E" certificate. <br />In addition, the information meeting which was held established a <br />consensus among the providers present that no additional providers <br />were needed. Able feels, since it was providing wheelchair <br />transport services at the time the ordinance was passed and others <br />services were grandfathered in, that they should have been included <br />in that group. However, that is not an issue at this time since it <br />has been prior addressed by the Board. <br />The survey letters were addressed earlier in this document and no <br />further discussion is necessary. They say what they say. <br />Based on consideration of the totality of the information available <br />at this time and pursuant to Chapter 304, the EMS Director <br />recommends that the Board approve Alternative #1. <br />However, if the Board finds that Able has provided sufficient <br />information that would demonstrate a preference for facilities to <br />have a provider which would serve private pay clients only, then it <br />is within the Board's providence to consider approving Alternative <br />#3. <br />we <br />t <br />September 24, 1996 BOOK ; = 24, 9 PA <br />