For details, see here.
Baltimore County Executive
224 of 228 precincts reporting
Kamenetz (D): 136820 (54%)
Holt (R): 117240 (46%)
District 3 Senate
Frederick-Washington Counties
45 of 51 precincts reporting
Young (D): 21371 (51%)
Mooney (R): 20706 (49%)
District 30 Senate
Anne Arundel County
52 of 55 precincts reporting
Astle (D): 23610 (51%)
Elfenbein (R): 22843 (49%)
District 33A House
Anne Arundel County
41 of 44 precincts reporting
Vitale (R): 22785 (42%)
McConkey (R): 17593 (32%)
Brennan (D): 13838 (25%)
District 30 House
Anne Arundel County
52 of 55 precincts reporting
George (R): 24259 (19%)
Busch (D): 22450 (18%)
McMillan (R): 21298 (17%)
Clagett (D): 19677 (16%)
Howard (R): 18983 (15%)
Legum (D): 18385 (15%)
District 38 Senate
Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties
Mathias (D): 21080 (50%)
James (R): 20924 (50%)
District 42 Senate
Baltimore County
40 of 40 precincts reporting
Brochin (D): 22709 (58%)
Carney (R): 16162 (42%)
Anne Arundel Question A (Slots)
194 of 197 precincts reporting
For: 103263 (56%)
Against: 82008 (44%)
Montgomery County Question A (Ambulance Fee)
217 of 243 precincts reporting
For: 98674 (46%)
Against: 116962 (54%)
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Other Races: Third Cut
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Other Races: Second Cut
For a recap on these races, see here.
Baltimore County Executive
98 of 228 precincts reporting
Kamenetz (D): 57423 (52%)
Holt (R): 51978 (47%)
District 3 Senate
Frederick-Washington Counties
37 of 51 precincts reporting
Mooney (R): 17845 (50%)
Young (D): 17728 (50%)
District 30 Senate
Anne Arundel County
26 of 55 precincts reporting
Astle (D): 11534 (55%)
Elfenbein (R): 9598 (45%)
District 33A House
Anne Arundel County
19 of 44 precincts reporting
Vitale (R): 11001 (43%)
McConkey (R): 8379 (32%)
Brennan (D): 6327 (25%)
District 30 House
Anne Arundel County
26 of 55 precincts reporting
Busch (D): 10876 (19%)
George (R): 10454 (18%)
Clagett (D): 9596 (17%)
McMillan (R): 9094 (16%)
Legum (D): 8958 (16%)
Howard (R): 8091 (14%)
District 38 Senate
Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties
19 of 19 precincts in Wicomico County reporting
James (R): 8445 (51%)
Mathias (D): 7955 (48%)
District 42 Senate
Baltimore County
28 of 40 precincts reporting
Brochin (D): 14186 (57%)
Carney (R): 10670 (43%)
Anne Arundel Question A (Slots)
79 of 197 precincts reporting
For: 46784 (56%)
Against: 36241 (44%)
Montgomery County Question A (Ambulance Fee)
135 of 243 precincts reporting
For: 60549 (46%)
Against: 72368 (54%)
Early Results: Other Races We Are Watching
Here are the early results in the other races we are watching.
District 3 Senate
Frederick-Washington Counties
15 of 51 precincts reporting
Young (D): 7146 (54%)
Mooney (R): 6061 (46%)
District 30 Senate
Anne Arundel County
5 of 55 precincts reporting
Astle (D): 4006 (57%)
Elfenbein (R): 2985 (43%)
District 33A House
Anne Arundel County
5 of 44 precincts reporting
Vitale (R): 4156 (43%)
McConkey (R): 3033 (31%)
Brennan (D): 2413 (25%)
District 30 House
Anne Arundel County
5 of 55 precincts reporting
Busch (D): 3732 (19%)
Clagett (D): 3550 (18%)
George (R): 3352 (17%)
Legum (D): 3164 (16%)
McMillan (R): 3009 (15%)
Howard (R): 2687 (14%)
District 38 Senate
Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties
9 of 19 precincts in Wicomico County reporting
James (R): 4157 (52%)
Mathias (D): 3819 (48%)
District 42 Senate
Baltimore County
13 of 40 precincts reporting
Brochin (D): 4520 (57%)
Carney (R): 3458 (43%)
Anne Arundel Question A (Slots)
5 of 197 precincts reporting
For: 15282 (55%)
Against: 12689 (45%)
Montgomery County Question A (Ambulance Fee)
68 of 243 precincts reporting
For: 32720 (47%)
Against: 37157 (53%)
League of Women Voters Denounces "Unauthorized" Robocalls on Ambulance Fee
The Leauge of Women Voters of Montgomery County sent out the following mass email today protesting robocalls using its name without permission that advocated for the ambulance fee (MoCo Question A).
From: "LWV of Montgomery County, MD"
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:50:05 -0400
To: [lwvmc@erols.com]
Subject: Unauthorized Robocalls Sent Using League's Name
Dear League Members,
Over the weekend robocalls using the League of Women Voters name went out to the community telling them to vote for Question A. This was not authorized by us and we asked the group involved to stop. To notify the public, the press release below was sent to the Gazette, the Washington Post and to WAMU radio, as well as being posted on our website:
Although we support the ambulance fee law passed by the Council in Ballot Question A, the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County did not authorize the use of robocalls by the Committee for Question A. In fact, on October 21, we made it very clear in written correspondence that we did not want to be involved in such calls and on Sunday evening October 31, the Committee agreed to stop all calls immediately. Unfortunately, some unauthorized calls went out.
Please spread the word that sending out robocalls is not the way the League does business, and we are very upset that our name was used this way.
Sincerely,
Diane Hibino and Elaine Apter, Co-Presidents
Thanks,
Cindy Snow, Office Manager
The League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, MD, Inc.
12216 Parklawn Dr., Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20852-1710
Tel: 301-984-9585 Fax: 301-984-9586
lwvmc@erols.com http://mont.lwvmd.org
Monday, November 01, 2010
Phil Andrews: Ambulance Fees Can Cost Lives
Council Member Phil Andrews sent out this mailer under his own authority line.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Vote for Question A Flyer
A coalition of elected officials, unions and other groups has launched a late challenge to the effort to repeal the ambulance fee (known as Question A). This flyer is one of the tools they are using to urge voters to preserve the fee in order to avoid budget cuts by voting for Question A next week.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
DED for the Ambulance Fee
County Executive Ike Leggett used the Department of Economic Development's (DED) email system to send the following message yesterday about Question A, the ballot question on the ambulance fee.
e-Alert
October 27, 2010
Dear County Businessperson:
Montgomery County is facing an important issue that could have an adverse impact on our businesses, so I wanted to take a moment to give you the facts. County Question A concerns the County’s Emergency Medical Services Transport fee, which was passed by the County Council.
With the EMS Transport Fee, we have only three choices:
1) Approve the Fee so the County can recover ambulance transport costs from premiums already paid to insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid that amounts to $14 million this year and $170 million over the next 10 years. All revenues would be dedicated, by law, to strengthen our Fire & Rescue Service.
2) Without the Fee, cut an additional $14 million in critical services out of the County’s current year budget. According to the plan submitted on October 5 by County Executive Leggett to the County Council, the result could be $6 million in cuts to our County’s Fire & Rescue Service and a loss of 89 career firefighter paramedic positions. That will affect ambulance response times, making all of us less safe.
3) Without the Fee, raise taxes. County Executive Leggett has said that County residents already pay a Fire Tax and that there’s no reason to increase taxes when $14 million is there on the table in insurance reimbursements.
Recovering EMS Transport Fees from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid makes good business sense. Nearly every jurisdiction in the Washington region is already collecting millions of dollars in these reimbursements – with no adverse effects. They are using those resources to save lives – and Montgomery County should do the same. We cannot afford to leave this money on the table.
Let me be clear. Contrary to what you might have heard, if County Question A is approved, no County resident will ever get a bill for ambulance transport, co-pays or deductibles -- whether they have insurance or not. And, there is no evidence that insurance premiums have risen because of implementation of a cost recovery program, because ambulance transport fees are already paid through most policies or coverage.
The League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, which for many of us is the “gold standard” for the public interest, supports the County’s ambulance reimbursement program. So, too, do editorials in the Washington Post and the Gazette newspapers.
County Question A is about protecting our families, our businesses, and our property – at no additional cost to County businesses or residents. Learn more at: www.montgomerycountymd.gov/emstransportfee.
Sincerely,
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Leggett Speaks Out on Ambulance Fee Ballot Question
County Executive Ike Leggett sent out this message on the ambulance fee ballot question through the county government's email subscription service.
October 28, 2010
Dear County Resident:
I want to inform you of an important issue facing the County that could have an adverse impact on every County resident.
Many of you are aware that the November ballot will contain County Question A. The Question gives voters the opportunity to decide whether County Council Bill 13-10: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Transport Fee, which passed in May, should remain law.
Under the law, the County would be allowed to recover ambulance transport costs from premiums already paid to insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid -- $14 million this year and $170 million over the next 10 years. All revenues would be dedicated, by law, to strengthen our Fire & Rescue Service. No County resident will ever get a bill for ambulance transport, co-pays or deductibles -- whether they have insurance or not.
The Montgomery Fire & Rescue Service will continue to serve anybody in need, regardless of ability to pay – whether rich or poor or in-between, whether County resident or not. Just like now. Nothing will change – except that our Fire & Rescue Service will have more resources in meet critical future needs for staffing, equipment, and to improve EMS response times.
Nearly every jurisdiction in the Washington region collects millions of dollars in ambulance reimbursements from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid – with no adverse effects. (Click here to see the Washington Post story on Thursday, “Area Fire Chiefs Back Ambulance Fee: 911 Calls Unaffected”.)
Our neighbors are using those resources to save lives – and Montgomery County should do the same. We cannot afford to leave this money on the table.
The League of Women Voters of Montgomery County agrees. So too does the Montgomery County Fire Fighters and Paramedics, Local 1664. Click here to see editorials in the Washington Post and in The Gazette newspapers supporting County ambulance reimbursement.
There are basically three choices:
1. Approve ambulance reimbursement from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid to bring in $14 million this year and $170 million over the next ten years;
2. Reduce critical County services, including public safety; or
3. Increase taxes.
I choose the first option. It just makes sense.
As I travel around the County, I meet many residents who have asked for facts and accurate information on the EMS Transport Fee. For more information, you can go to www.montgomerycountymd.gov/emstransportfee.
Whatever your perspective, please vote in the upcoming general elections as they are critical to our ability to maintain Montgomery County as the special place it is today to live, work, play, and age with dignity. In addition to voting in person on Tuesday, November 2 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at your polling location, you may vote by absentee ballot. Absentee ballot request forms can be downloaded here and must be returned by October 26, 2010.
This year, for the first time, you may cast your vote at any one of the Early Voting Centers in the County between Friday, October 22 and Thursday, October 28 from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. (except Sunday, October 24). I urge you to consider joining the thousands of County voters who will be taking advantage of this highly efficient means of carrying out our civic duty.
Sincerely,
Ike Leggett
County Executive
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The Ambulance Fee Cut List
As both the Post and the Gazette have reported, County Executive Ike Leggett has proposed a list of budget cuts to offset possible repeal of the ambulance fee by the voters. The council seems unlikely to adopt any cuts prior to the fate of the ambulance fee referendum is known, but this is the first blueprint of what may happen if the fee is rejected.
The newspapers have quoted extensively from Leggett's transmission memo, but these sentences are worth repeating. "I have asked those whose actions have made these service cuts necessary; what expenditure reductions or revenue increases would they suggest to offset the loss of $14.1 million in continuing and growing revenues each year to the County budget?" Leggett wrote. "I previously posed this question to some Councilmembers back in August, but I am still waiting for a response."
Following is a list of all cuts recommended by the Executive in the event that the fee is repealed.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Volunteer Fire Fighters Claim Victory on Ambulance Fee
The Volunteer Fire Fighters have sent out the following press release celebrating the success of their endorsed candidates and claiming victory in electing enough of them to repeal the ambulance fee. Following is their statement from earlier today.
Candidates Endorsed by MCVFRA Win Big in September Primaries
Rockville, MD.—Eleven of the 13 candidates endorsed by the Montgomery County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association were winners in the September 14, 2010 primary elections, with another race too close to call. "The success of our candidates is not surprising given how much voters care about the County's fire-rescue system, including the important role played by the more than 2,000 active in our County," said Marcine D. Goodloe, the Association's president. "We are also pleased the candidates that came out forcefully against ambulance fees and have been very supportive of volunteers were so successful," Goodloe added.
During the campaign, Craig Rice, the winner in the District 2 Democratic primary, pledged to oppose ambulance fees if elected. “I oppose the ambulance fee, would have opposed it on the Council, have signed a petition to send it to referendum, and will vote to repeal it in November” wrote Craig Rice in the Association’s questionnaire. Rice fills the seat of the retiring Mike Knapp, an ambulance fee supporter. Hans Riemer, the successful challenger for one of the four at-large Council seats, also came out forcefully against ambulance fees during the campaign. “A resident who needs to call an ambulance clearly is in a difficult situation and the County should not pass fees directly on to these individuals. Passing these fees directly on to non-residents is wrong for the same reason, and because many of these callers work in Montgomery County and support our economy. Revenue recovery passed directly to patients is an idea I cannot support” wrote Hans Riemer in the Association’s questionnaire.
Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Nancy Navarro, and Valerie Ervin – all of whom oppose ambulance fees -- ran unopposed or, in Berliner's race, won handily by a very wide margin. Councilmember Andrews has also pledged to submit legislation to repeal the ambulance fee if the Association’s suit fails in court. "We deeply appreciate their past support and look forward to supporting them in the November elections," said Goodloe.
If these candidates are successful in November, six of the nine County Councilmembers will be on record as opposing ambulance fees.
The full results of the candidates endorsed by MCVFRA:
Council District 1: Roger Berliner (Won)
Council District 2: Craig Rice (Won)
Council District 3: Phil Andrews (Won)
Council District 4: Nancy Navarro (Won)
Council District 5: Valerie Ervin (Won)
Council At-Large: Hans Riemer (Won)
District 14 Senate: Rona Kramer (Too close to call))
District 14 House: Anne Kaiser (Won); Craig Zucker (Won); Bo Newsome (Lost) District 17 Senate: Jennie Forehand (Won)
District 19 Senate: Roger Manno (Won)
District 19 House: Ben Kramer (Won)
In making its endorsements, MCVFRA looked at the candidates' positions on issues of importance to MCVFRA members, including their stands on providing adequate funding and support to maintain and improve the County's fire-rescue system, strengthening the partnership between the County and the 19 community-based volunteer fire-rescue departments, and fostering the role of volunteers in the fire-rescue service. MCVFRA also looked closely at the candidates' position on the imposition of ambulance fees, which MCVFRA strongly opposes.
For the first time, the volunteers created the Volunteer Fire Helmet Ballot which is a custom, die-cut, red fire helmet listing all the candidates the volunteer’s support that was widely received and praised by both the public at large and candidates. These ballots were passed out weeks before the election as well as at many of the polls on Election Day. “We are very pleased at the reception our Volunteer Fire Helmet Ballot received. The public supports their volunteer fire and rescue providers and care about our issues. They overwhelmingly supported our candidates” said Eric N. Bernard, executive director of the MCVRA. “The public knows that we are there protecting them in many ways – not just when the 911 call comes in” he added.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Hopkins Contrast Mailer Misleads on Ambulance Fee
Council District 1 challenger Ilaya Hopkins has released this contrast mailer asserting that incumbent Roger Berliner supported the ambulance fee “as part of 2010 budget.” That’s true, but it’s also misleading.
Berliner has voted twice against the ambulance fee in full council session – once in 2009 and again in 2010. Berliner did vote for the most recent county budget that included the ambulance fee (over his opposition), but so did two other Council Members who voted against the fee: Nancy Navarro and Valerie Ervin. All three have been endorsed by the Volunteer Fire Fighters, who are the biggest opponents of the ambulance fee in the county.
We’re not saying Berliner is perfect. His record, along with that of almost every other council incumbent, has some problems. But when a candidate includes a misleading criticism along with more legitimate points, it undermines that candidate’s entire message. So it is with this mailer.
Monday, August 23, 2010
MoCo Board of Elections Rejects Ambulance Fee Referendum
The Montgomery County Board of Elections has ruled that petition gatherers seeking to overturn the ambulance fee have not submitted enough valid signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Following is their press release.
Board of Elections
Montgomery County, Maryland
Contact: Kevin Karpinski, 410-727-5000
For Immediate Release: August 23, 2010
EMS PETITION – BILL NUMBER 13-10
On August 3 and 4, 2010, a Petition was filed with the Montgomery County Board of Elections, seeking to bring to referendum Bill number 13-10, commonly referred to as the “Ambulance Fee Bill.” Under the Montgomery County Charter, in order for a Petition sponsor to have a local Bill placed on the ballot as a referendum question, the Petition must contain the signatures of five percent (5%) of the registered voters in Montgomery County, Maryland. Fifty percent (50%) of the required signatures must be filed within seventy-five (75) days after the Bill becomes effective, with the remaining fifty percent (50%) due within ninety (90) days after the Bill becomes effective. In this case, 15,366 valid signatures that meet the requirements of Maryland Election law had to be filed on or before August 4, with the remaining fifty percent (50%) due on August 19, 2010.
In conformity with the State Board of Elections’ policy on Petition verification and the Maryland Court of Appeals’ 2009 decision in Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, the Montgomery County Board of Elections has completed its verification of the first petition submissions filed on August 3 and 4, 2010. The Montgomery County Board of Elections verified 13,021 valid signatures that met the requirements under Maryland Election law. Because the petition does not contain the minimum number of required valid signatures, the Petition sponsor has been advised that the Montgomery County Board of Elections cannot certify the Petition to be placed on the General Election ballot in November 2010.
# # #
Friday, May 28, 2010
Consequences of the Budget, Part Five
Budgets have political consequences. This one was no exception. Here are a few things that stand out.
1. Dominance of the Bond Rating Agencies
In our very first blog post, we labeled MCEA the “800-pound gorilla of MoCo.” No more. Now the county has three 800-pound gorillas: Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch. When the rating agencies began issuing warnings on the county’s AAA bond rating, the County Executive and the council immediately moved to increase the size of the energy tax hike, grab more money from furloughs and the school system and boost next year’s reserve from 5% to 6% of the general fund. One aggrieved labor leader compared the county to a third world country having to deal with the IMF. For years and years, the Post, taxpayer groups, conservatives and others have howled in the wind about fiscal discipline while the council regularly approved budget increases in the upper single digits (or more). The rating agencies have successfully bullied the elected officials into spending restraint – at least, for now.
2. The Unexpected
There were a number of surprises this year. First, Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg flipped her vote to yes on the ambulance fee, allowing it to pass 5-4. In explaining her change of mind to the Gazette, she said, “We no longer have the luxury of leaving insurance money on the table.” Well, if the ambulance fee was nothing more than insurance money, why not support it last year or the year before? The volunteer fire fighters are now vowing to unseat everyone who supported the fee, adding to Trachtenberg’s LONG list of enemies.
Second, long-time business allies Nancy Floreen and George Leventhal supported the energy tax against loud outcries from their friends. Floreen told them, “At this point we have to raise this revenue… We have no choice.” Leventhal said, “We’re in a box. We need the revenue... We’re faced with a lot of really hard choices.” All the Council Members wound up favoring an increase of some kind, though they disagreed on the amount and the final hike was a compromise.
Third, former Board of Education members Ervin and Navarro turned a lot of heads by taking on both the school system and the school unions. Ervin was out front early in supporting school furloughs and voted with Navarro and Trachtenberg in favor of them in the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee. That quickly became the position of the entire council. School officials and school union leaders were sorely disappointed with both women, whom they expected to defend them. One such official accused them of “hypocrisy” by pointing out the contrast between rhetorical statements about protecting kids and demands for teacher furloughs. Another official said that both women had “alienated” some in the school unions. This level of rage coming from the schools proves once and for all that neither Ervin nor Navarro can ever be characterized as servants of Jerry Weast or labor.
3. Sticking Together
The council was under intense pressure from all sides during the crisis. But rather than pull them apart, it actually pushed them together. Your author has heard multiple stories of Council Members who were barely on speaking terms with each other now being bosom buddies! None of them felt they had many choices, and all were battered and hardened by the abusive emails they received. (The ones containing grammatical errors that were sent by teachers provoked some gallows humor about the need to invest more in teacher training.) At the end, the Council Members had no one but each other. This may not last, but it was a unique moment during this term.
One benefit to this is that it becomes harder for endorsing organizations to differentiate between the incumbents. Labor is displeased with furloughs, but every Council Member supported them. Business is displeased with the energy tax hike, but every Council Member except Phil Andrews voted for it. (Andrews wanted an even steeper levy on business customers.) Every Council Member voted for the budget except Andrews and Knapp. Andrews voted against it because of the ambulance tax, while Knapp is displeased over “one-time solutions.” Unless an endorsing organization thinks it can take out seven or more incumbents, there’s not a lot to work with here.
One outraged observer sputtered, “A majority of this council is determined to appear united and unanimous out of a perceived need for incumbents to circle the wagons for the September primaries. That means that the majority will follow the minority to achieve the goal of unanimity. It is about them and their careers, not the taxpayers.” That’s fine, but what are you going to do about it?
4. Common Interest
The Council Members are not the only ones with common interest. The business community was hammered by the energy tax. County employees received no raises and some were furloughed. Non-profits and immigrants will endure large grant and service cuts. The smart growth community is constantly defending the Ride On system from route eliminations and schedule cuts. This is all going to continue.
The common enemy that all of these groups have is not the County Executive or the County Council: it’s the lack of economic growth. In our “Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region” series, we demonstrated that Montgomery County has lagged behind Fairfax and much of the rest of the region in population, employment and real wage growth for decades. That hurts the business community by limiting profits. It hurts county employees by limiting the tax base. It hurts the non-profits, the poor and the immigrant community by limiting services. And it hurts the pursuit of smart growth by limiting revenues necessary to build transit projects. Whether they know it or not, their interests are all intertwined. In the end, just like the politicians, all these groups have is each other. Only if these communities work together in pursuit of economic revitalization will MoCo’s long, slow fall come to an end.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Council to Leggett: Don't Count on Ambulance Fees
In the following letter to the County Executive, seven members of the County Council asked him not to include ambulance fee revenues in his forthcoming FY 2010 budget. Leggett's ambulance fee proposal has met with heavy opposition and the council has not yet decided its fate.
March 5, 2009
County Executive Isiah Leggett
101 Monroe St., 2nd Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Dear County Executive Leggett:
The County Council will continue to work closely with you, Executive Branch staff, and agency leaders to best address the extraordinarily challenging FY '10 Operating Budget. To accomplish this, it is crucial that the Council and the Executive Branch work from the same revenue assumptions in the budget - and that those assumptions are grounded in reality.
Last year, you assumed revenues from ambulance fees in your proposed FY '09 Operating Budget. The Council removed those assumed revenues because the Council had not yet considered the legislation proposed by you to establish ambulance fees. In November, 2008, the Chief Administrative Officer communicated to the Council President that unless the Council passed an ambulance fee prior to your budget submittal, this fee would not be included in your FY '10 Operating Budget. Given that the Council has not approved ambulance fees and is not likely to do so prior to final action on the budget it would be unwise to assume such revenues in the FY '10 Operating Budget. We therefore assume, given the prior communication, that this will not be included in your FY '10 Operating Budget.
Working closely together, we will develop and approve and FY '10 Operating Budget that protects essential services and the safety net, while balancing the budget by reducing spending in the wisest and fairest ways possible.
Sincerely,
Phil Andrews
Roger Berliner
Valerie Ervin
Nancy Floreen
Mike Knapp
George Leventhal
Duchy Trachtenberg
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Footnote on Ambulance Fees
The Washington Post reports that the County Council's Public Safety Committee voted unanimously to block County Executive Ike Leggett's proposal to impose ambulance fees. Marc Korman explained the proposal in June.
The interesting point here from a strictly political viewpoint is the composition of the Public Safety Committee: Chairman Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich and Don Praisner. Council Members Andrews and Elrich were largely aligned with Mr. Leggett on growth issues in the 2006 elections. Furthermore, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Elrich and Mr. Leggett all endorsed Mr. Praisner in the 2008 special election and contributed money to his victory. And yet, Mr. Leggett was unable to advance a high-profile initiative through a committee that was stocked with his political allies. Is this an isolated event or does this hold broader meaning?
Update: My sources tell me I misinterpreted the committee's action. They say what the committee did was to postpone - not block - the ambulance fee proposal to provide more time to evaluate it. We'll see if it will indeed come up again.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Understanding the Proposed Ambulance Fee
From Marc Korman:
On June 10, the
What Is Being Proposed?
The
So Who Would Pay?
If you are not a County resident the legislation would require you to pay regardless of insurance. But for County residents, who would pay depends on the meaning of the term “available insurance coverage.” Based on the public rhetoric, the fee would be invisible to patients because it would be entirely dealt with through insurance companies. But does “available insurance coverage” mean the fee will only be assessed if an insurance company will fully cover it? What if an insurance company requires a co-pay from the patient for the ambulance service? What if the use of the ambulance, and the required payment, leads to increased premium costs for the patient? The answers to these questions are not self-evident from the
What Does It All Mean?
If you listen to the critics, the
The fear that patients will not get the healthcare they need is valid. But the ambulance proposal would just ameliorate, not create, the existing problem with the private sector driven healthcare status quo. Due to the extreme costs, even those with insurance must still self-ration care to avoid increased premiums or paying the full cost of care while meeting their high deductible. The conservative approach to healthcare, market driven proposals like Health Savings Accounts, only worsen the problem by making those in need even more sensitive to the cost of care. People should be aware that healthcare is costly, but they should also not be dissuaded from seeking needed care.
When it comes to the insurance companies paying the bill, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Insurance companies have proven themselves quite capable of making money despite increased healthcare costs. If the County Council manages to keep the fee from being charged against those who do not receive 100% ambulance coverage from their insurers, we will likely either see fewer health insurers offering that benefit (health insurance plans are not national and can be tailored for specific locations) or an increase in premiums.
What Can You Do?
Given the complexities of the issue and the County’s real healthcare and budgetary needs, the
