|
Alberta Federation of Labour
Submission to the MLA Review on
Ambulance Service Delivery
June 15, 2001
The Alberta Federation of Labour is pleased to have the
opportunity to make a submission to the MLA Review examining the delivery of
ambulance service in the province of Alberta. The Federation is comprised of
most of the province’s major unions; representing 80,000 unionized workers and
their families in Alberta.
Our members are affected by changes to the provision,
delivery and legislation of emergency medical services in many ways. As workers
who provide these types of medical services, as well as those Albertans
requiring emergency medical attention, our members contribute to and benefit
from well-funded, accessible ambulance operations.
Delivery of Ground Ambulance Services: Governance Model
Under the current legislation, the authority to administer
ambulance services has been granted to the municipalities. Within the province’s
Municipal Government Act, cities, towns, villages and counties have the
power to establish ambulance services and to determine the level of those
services. As a result of this governance model, differences in the delivery of
and access to ambulance services are apparent across the many municipal
jurisdictions.
In rural and smaller municipalities, the public
infrastructure may be either unavailable or unable to sustain the provision of
an ambulance service. This has led many of these municipalities to contract-out
the service to private companies. In contracting out a public service to a
private service provider, a municipality relinquishes some of its ability to
ensure adequate service and access levels.
In urban centres, a varied approach has been taken in
establishing and administering emergency medical services. In these
jurisdictions, ambulance services have been separately established, created as
amalgamated services and merged with municipal fire departments, or formed as a
service under contract with a Regional Health Authority (RHA). Under these types
of arrangements, emergency response professionals often work collaboratively in
meeting the emergency medical needs of patients. The levels of access and
service are generally higher in these areas.
By legislating municipalities the power to establish and
administer emergency medical services, specifically ground ambulance services,
the province has created jurisdictional inequity. Staffing, response time,
accessibility, and generally, the level of service one receives will depend, in
large part, on where one lives. In order for the province’s healthcare system,
and the services provided under that system to be ‘universal,’ Albertans
should have the same levels of access to those services, regardless of where,
geographically, in the province they are located.
The Federation believes that in order for there to be
jurisdictional equity with respect to ambulance services, the current governance
model should be reformed to establish the following:
- Provincial authority to establish ground ambulance service
- Provincial authority to fund ground ambulance service.
- Provincial authority to regulate and enforce standards for
ground ambulance operation.
- Regional or municipal authority to administer and deliver
ground ambulance service
Existing Standards for Emergency Medical Services:
Service, Access,
Direction and Dispatching
Level of Service
The standards contained within the Ambulance Services Act
sets forth a "floor" or minimum for which ambulance service is run in
the province. Like any minimum standards, there is an inherent danger that
standards pertaining to ambulance service may be set to a point so low that the
line separating ‘adequate’ service and ‘inadequate’ service is blurred.
This creates a situation where patient care and access may be
negatively impacted due to some ambulance operators choosing only to meet the
minimum regulations. This is not to say that ambulance operators are haphazardly
choosing to offer inferior levels of service, but rather that they may have
little choice but to offer lower levels of ground ambulance service because that
is all that they can afford.
Many municipalities have established higher levels of service
because of population requirements, so it seems that it may be necessary to
review the current legislation to ensure all municipalities are legislated to
provide service at somewhat higher levels.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends a review of the
Ambulance Services Act to ensure the standards pertaining to ambulance
operators, ambulance attendants and ambulance equipment are strengthened.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that the
province determine the level of ambulance service required in each jurisdiction.
Medical Direction
The current legislation has created an important role for
medical directors in the administration of ambulance services. By guiding and
directing ambulance operations, medical directors play a large role in shaping
the type of emergency medical services patients are able to access. The medical
protocols, which are given to these directors as resources, play an equally
important role. The difficulty lies in the fact that medical directors are under
no legal obligation to implement and meet these provincially derived guidelines.
Medical directors are given the power to adapt and change protocols without
having to justify these decisions. Adaptations to these protocols may affect the
provision of ambulance services.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that medical
protocol guidelines become a set of legislated standards. Further, the
Federation recommends that medical directors be legally obligated to implement
and observe any and all legislated medical protocol guidelines for ground
ambulance service.
Communication and Dispatching
Ambulance dispatchers are increasingly called upon to provide
emergency medical advice and direction to callers. Jurisdictions without the
staff able or available to provide this type of service are, in some respect,
failing to provide a ‘complete’ ambulance service.
Ambulance dispatchers also provide an important link between
ambulance attendants and patients. Differences between the dispatching systems
across the provincial jurisdictions create difficulties in providing seamless,
effective communication between the receivers and providers of emergency medical
attention.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that regional
dispatching centres be established in the province of Alberta. It is further
recommended that these dispatching centres ensure all communication and
dispatching personnel are trained and skilled in providing on-line medical
advice and instruction.
Patient Access
As stated previously, the geographical and jurisdictional
differences in ambulance service adversely affect Albertans living in areas not
complemented by a well-established emergency medical service. In order for there
to be parity in patient access, the size and scope of a jurisdiction’s
ambulance service should be based on a criteria that includes:
- Geographical area served
- Population density and population growth
- Emergency medical call frequency (yearly average)
- Distance to the nearest emergency medical facility
(average kilometres)
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that the
province reassess ambulance service needs using the following criteria:
geographical area, population density and population growth, emergency medical
call frequency, and distance to the nearest emergency medical facility.
Use of Emergency Medical Service Resources
Over the years, municipalities have seen their responsibility
for the provision of public services increase. While the public services
municipalities provide has increased, the levels of funding available to provide
theses services has remained relatively unchanged. Simply, municipalities have
to do more, with relatively much less. Despite this, many municipalities have
continued to provide as good an ambulance service as they can reasonably afford.
Because of the differences in ambulance service between the
various jurisdictions, it is difficult to make specific suggestions for
improvement. The ambulance needs of each jurisdiction is driven, in large part,
by the population it serves. Inefficiencies in rural areas cannot be improved by
using the same methods employed to fix problems in urban centres.
It may be beneficial for the province to consult with the
various municipalities, and undertake an appropriate analysis of ambulance
service levels and delivery models.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that the
province consults with the municipalities, and undertake an appropriate analysis
of ambulance service delivery, and the use of ambulance and emergency medical
resources.
We believe that one way to alleviate some of the strain
placed on ambulance service resources is to increase the amount of provincial
spending dedicated to areas that include community-based health services,
interfacility transfers, and public health initiatives and education. By
increasing the resources in these areas, one allows for ambulance services to
focus on providing emergency medical attention to those requiring it.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that the
province increase its spending in the areas of community-based health services,
interfacility transfers, and public health initiatives and education.
Funding of Ambulance Services
Ambulance services derive their funding from a variety of
sources. Whether funding is through municipal grants, through Alberta Health and
Wellness, the Federal government, user fees, third party insurance, or a
combination, the funding and fee schedule is neither homogeneous nor simple in
any jurisdiction.
Despite ambulance service being an integral part of a
well-functioning provincial healthcare system, more times than not, it is both
the municipalities delivering the ambulance service and those patients requiring
the emergency medical attention, who bear the brunt of the funding burden.
Ambulance providers are able to set fees by whichever means they feel necessary,
basing costs on level of service, equipment and supplies used, as well as
distance travelled. These costs are different in each municipality.
For someone who is in need of emergency medical attention, a
cost-benefit analysis is generally not something that would be undertaken prior
to calling for an ambulance. Instead, a patient must hope that Alberta Health
and Wellness, or one of a few other government agencies will cover their trip.
Barring this, a patient must then rely upon third party insurance. Should the
patient not have this type of medical benefit, any ambulance fees will result in
out-of-pocket costs for the patient.
There are problems with this scenario:
- There are many individuals that do not have third-party
medical insurance in Alberta.
- Costs for ambulance trips are not affordable.
Source of Funding
To ensure Albertans have equal access to ambulance service,
there should be one source of funding. This funding should come from the
provincial budget areas dedicated to Health and Wellness.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that funding
for ambulance service in Alberta becomes the responsibility of the provincial
government.
Rate for Ground Ambulance Service
To ensure equitable ambulance rates, there should be a single
rate for the use of ground ambulance service, only when Alberta Health and
Wellness or the Federal government does not cover fees for ambulance services.
Ambulance providers and operators should not be allowed to charge any additional
fees to clients of other government-sponsored programs.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that a single
rate for ground ambulance services be established in the province of Alberta.
User Fees
User fees should not be levied for those patients accessing
ambulance services in the province. By implementing user fees, some Albertans
will be denied access to ground ambulance services.
Medically Necessary and Medically Unnecessary
The Federation acknowledges the importance of ensuring that
all Albertans who need ambulance services are able to access it in a timely
manner. The Federation also understands the need to ensure Albertans are not
burdening the system with unnecessary requests for ambulance services.
To deter the unnecessary use of ambulance service in the
province, the Federation is recommending the following:
Medically Necessary: Patients for whom ambulance service
is medically necessary will have the entirety of their ambulance costs covered
by the Province of Alberta’s Department of Health and Wellness or the
applicable Federal Government agency.
Medically Unnecessary: Patients for whom ambulance
service is deemed medically unnecessary will be responsible for the cost of
ambulance services. This cost will represent the single rate established by the
province for ground ambulance service.
RECOMMENDATION: The Federation recommends that the
province establish guidelines for ambulance services that will define what will
be deemed to be "Medically Necessary" and "Medically
Unnecessary."
Designation of Emergency Medical Services as an Essential
Service
In most cases, ambulance workers (paramedics and emergency
medical technicians) are represented by unions, and as such are afforded the
right to bargain collectively. Unfortunately, the provincial government is now
considering changes that would see all ambulance functions designated as
"essential services." This would mean that unionized emergency medical
workers would no longer have the right to strike.
The AFL is strenuously opposed to these changes for several
reasons.
First, we oppose removing the right to strike from emergency
medical personnel because such a move would undermine their rights as workers
and citizens. We believe that the right to bargain collectively is a fundamental
democratic right that must be enjoyed by all working people. However, collective
bargaining without the right to strike is meaningless – it shifts the power
balance decisively in favour of employers. So, if the government removes the
right to strike, they are also effectively infringing on the right to bargain
collectively. It is our submission that these kinds of restrictions cannot be
justified in a truly democratic society.
Second, we oppose any move to outlaw strikes because it will
inevitably undermine the bargaining process and poison relations between
employers and workers. When workers have the right to strike there is a clear
incentive for both parties to compromise and work towards agreement at the
bargaining table. The workers compromise in order to avoid loosing wages – and
employers compromise in order to avoid loosing profits and/or the ability to
provide certain services. However, in situations where workers do not have the
right to strike, the employer has no real incentive to bargain in good faith.
This is exactly what happened during the recent paramedics’
strike in Edmonton. When the provincial government announced in March that it
was considering expanding the "essential service" designation to cover
ambulance workers, negotiations came to screeching halt. One union official
described what happened in this way:
"As soon as the City heard about the proposed
essential service legislation, they just stopped bargaining. It was like
someone had dropped a two-ton weight on the whole process … (The City)
knew that any strike we called would probably be declared illegal by the
province. And they knew that some kind of compulsory bargaining would
probably be imposed on us. So they just sat on their hands and refused to
bargain."
These comments summarize one of the central problems with
so-called "essential service" legislation. Without the right to
strike, workers are rendered virtually powerless and bargaining turns from a
process of negotiation into a parade of ultimatums, threats and "final
offers" from management.
The whole point of bargaining is to reach an agreement that
is acceptable to both parties – but under a system that relies on strike-bans
and binding arbitration, the final agreement is almost never acceptable to
workers. The result is festering resentment and lowered morale among employees
and a poisoned relationship with management. Paramedics in Edmonton are now
talking about feeling "under-valued" and "brushed off" by
the City. These are exactly the kinds of frustrations that can be expected to
spread across the province if the right to strike is denied to all emergency
medical workers.
The third and final objection that we will raise to expanding
the "essential service" designation has to do with protecting the
public good. People familiar with contract negotiation – especially those in
the public sector – know that monetary items like wages and pensions are not
the only issues brought to the table. Often, workers are more concerned about
things like work load, staffing and access to the best possible equipment. All
of these things have a profound impact on the quality of service provided to the
public. Unfortunately, in a system where the employers refuse to bargain, these
issues are unlikely to be addressed.
Once again, the recent paramedics’ strike in Edmonton
provides a good example of the problem. The paramedics wanted to talk about
inadequate staffing levels and the shortage of ambulances on Edmonton streets
– especially when compared to Calgary. But because the City was refusing to
bargain in good faith, these issues were never addressed. Clearly, the public
would have benefited from an open and frank discussion between management and
the union on these issues. For example, if the union had been able to win a
promise of more ambulances, the quality of service available to Edmontonians
would have improved. But that didn’t happen – largely because the City was
relying on a strike-ban and binding arbitration to force a deal on the
paramedics. This was a clear example of how removing the right to strike is not
in the public interest.
Of course, supporters of revising Alberta’s essential
service designation will say that removing the right to strike from ambulance
workers is a matter of public safety. But, with all due respect, we see that
argument as nothing more than a red herring.
The reality is that more than 98 percent of contract
negotiations in Alberta are settled without strikes – and there is no reason
to believe that those numbers would be any different with ambulance workers.
What’s important is the prospect of strike – it compels both parties to
bargain even if a strike never actually materializes. Furthermore, even in the
unlikely event of a strike, experience shows that there is no serious risk to
patients or the public. That’s because unions regularly work out agreement
with employers to provide skeleton or emergency staffing during strikes. For
example, when a military Hercules went down during an Edmonton ambulance strike
in the mid 80s, the striking paramedics immediately put down their picket signs
and went back to work for the duration of the emergency. A similar commitment
regarding emergency service was made during the more recent paramedics’
strike.
That’s not to say, of course, that strikes by paramedics
won’t disrupt ambulance service – it’s obvious that they will. All we’re
saying is that the benefits of maintaining the right to strike (in terms of
defending basic democratic rights, fostering better labour relations and
protecting the public good) far outweigh the drawbacks.
RECOMMENDATION: With all this in mind, we urge the
provincial government to fully recognize the collective bargaining rights of
ambulance workers in Alberta. That means recognizing both their right to bargain
and their right to withdraw their labour. We further encourage the
government to eliminate all so-called "essential service" clauses from
its labour laws (both the Labour Relations Code and the Public Service Employees
Relations Act) and grant all organized workers in Alberta the right to strike.
Concluding Remarks
We would like to thank the MLA Review of Ambulance Service
Delivery for requesting the Alberta Federation of Labour provide comments and
recommendations. We hope that our input will assist in shaping the future
delivery and governance of ambulance operations in the province.
Respectfully submitted,
Alberta Federation of Labour
|