Maryland Legislators Imposes MVA Surcharge
Commentary By: Dick Johnson, Taxpayer Of Maryland
07 July 2007
In 1992, the General Assembly created the Maryland Emergency Medical Systems Operation Fund (MEMSOF), financed through a surcharge in motor vehicle registration fees. It was $8 originally, but has been increased to $13.50 annually. In fiscal year 1993, the fund reported expenditures of $28 million. By fiscal year 2006 that figure has swollen to a reported $58.1 million available revenues. And FY 2003 legislators added $2.50 surcharge for reimbursement Fund for physicians and trauma centers. At the end of FY 2006, the Fund balance stood at $20.8 million, up from $15.4 million in 2005. Legislators added $7.50 surcharge to moving violation to augment $13.50.
Maryland State Police Aviation command (MSPAC) a component with Maryland’s EMS Systems make up the largest portions of MVA surcharge. Promised made by the lawmakers on the use of the MVA surcharge, is that the Funds would be used for EMS/Trauma “Operational Use”, you the taxpayer would not be billed for medically orientated med-evacs and Med-Evac Helicopters would be used for those with life-threatening injuries/illnesses. Promised Broken!
MSPAC has Memoranda of Understanding with private med-evac companies to do MSPAC medically orientated med-evacs and the patient gets the bill for that when he/she is already paying taxes and MVA surcharges. It’s outrageous!
The purchase price of the MSP helicopter fleet 12 twin-engine American Eurocopters Dauphin AS365N, $57 million (1989-1999), from the MVA surcharge an estimated $190 million over the last 13 years for the operations of the helicopter fleet and for Law Enforcement, Homeland Security and Search & Rescue other source of State funds, estimated at $60.2 million. Costly mandatory maintenance inspections and helicopter replacement parts adds approximately $11.0 million in expenditures (1999-2004). In addition, personnel costs for the MSP helicopter program have increased from $8.8 million in FY 1998 to projected $10.4 million for FY 2002. (Requested current State budget documents were not provided. see Exhibit emails)
Patients Needs – VS – Helicopter Frequencies – Proposed tax increases for new helicopters “due to the current relationship MSP has with manufacture, would prefer the Eurocopter” -
63.6% of Trauma Patients flown with Nonlife-threatening injuries.
Source: MSPAC outdated study in the Journal of trauma June 2006.”studies has several limitations and risk for selection bias”
Statistics could be higher?
59.91% of patients discharge from the shock trauma center within 48 hours, ground and air transports.
Source: FY 2006 UMMS submission to the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission.
Are they truly Trauma patients? Statistics could be higher?
The fact that the above mentioned statistics are very high indicates that other factors are at play not just ruling out injury nothing is found.
MSPAC Non-emergency flight missions PR, Filming, static displays, and back-up for ground transports impacts the helicopter availability for life-threatening injury flights and increases maintenance costs.
Increase maintenance cost: Could part of the problem be the infrastructure that is built around the Dauphin? The Dauphin helicopters is working flawlessly…Why tamper with the Dauphin…its not the problem?
“… Pilots are complaining about keeping competent people flying the helicopters, and concerned about keeping qualified people to work on them,”
Said Delegate Galen R. Clagett quoted in the Friday, April 27, 2007 Gazette.Net.
A business and tax consultant has been awarded the 3rd MSPAC external helicopter replacement study. The study included U. S. Army helicopters, even though U.S. Army purchased new Eurocopter helicopters, for the DNR replacement helicopters. Funding for this study, MVA surcharge MEMSOF $400,000.00 and $163,355.18 from another source. The State could have saved the taxpayers $400,000.00 by utilizing previous external and internal studies and Helicopter Data software at a cost of $1,075.00 or less. Conklin & deDecker has data software covering: “Cost Benefit” Analysis – “Financing Planning” – MX Manager and a book on Air Craft Acquisition Planning. The Legislature Joint Chairman’s report, April 2000 “…Comprehensive helicopter replacement procurement plan…proposed funding resources…cost schedule”.
“… The need to replace MSPAC helicopters has not just appeared. Since 1995 a great deal of work has been completed by the Aviation Command...”
- DSP-MSPAC Strategic Plan For Helicopter Replacement Program June 1, 2006
Joint Legislative Committee to Study and Make Recommendations about the Structure and Funding of the State’s Emergency Medical Response System 2003 Interim Report, states “The helicopter Replacement Committee identified three helicopter manufactures and analyzed each for its suitability as Medevac and law enforcement helicopter. Each helicopter and its base price in calendar year are provided below. The report indicates that MSP, due to the current relationship MSP has with manufacture, would prefer the Eurocopter”. Who is benefitting from the 3rd external helicopter replacement program? Not “WE” The Taxpayers. Taxpayers Are left Footing the Bill!
Maryland’s projected MSP helicopter replacement cost $126 Million. U.S. Coast Guard Upgraded their Dauphin helicopter fleet of 89.The state could follow the U. S. Coast Guard lead by upgrading MSP helicopters which would be a cost savings approximately $60 million for the taxpayers.
MSP Helicopter Replacement Revenue Proposals:
1). Vehicle Registration Fee,
2). Transportation Revenue Enhancement Package, and
3). General Obligation Bonds.
Comment: Putting our emotions aside, it would appear as through the Maryland’s air medical transport system has failed to evolve throughout the years to incorporate and benefit from marked efficiency improvements within the air medical transport industry at large. This left us with costly, inefficient, and less qualified system in comparison to what is available to other states throughout the nation.
It's my understanding in the year 2006 the MSP may be acquiring a FAA Part 135 Certificate (cost of certificate approx. 1 million)also adding a second prehospital provider (state budget increase)per helicopter per shift, however I don’t think their intent is to charge. I believe it is to comply with CAMTS (Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Transport Services) standards. The second provider is also intended to comply with CAMTS accreditation standards. This seems to me to be an admission on the MSP part, that they had previously been providing a sub standard service to the taxpayers when compared to industry standards. Many States are even adopting the CAMTS standards within their statutes to function as an air medical provider.
|
