To the Editor:
The Dec. 15, 2021 piece detailing increased ambulance transport rates feels cut off at the end [“We’ve never gone to court,’ EMS director says of collecting pay for transport,” The Altamont Enterprise, Dec. 14, 2021]. 

Paying for emergency medical services is fine. Guilderland EMS expertly secured my safety as recently as two weeks ago.

Raising rates periodically is fine. I also take no issue with someone who refuses post-accident transport after sustaining “just an abrasion” having to pay for on-site assessment by EMS, assuming that EMS was called to the scene appropriately.

I do incidentally wonder whether EMS Director Jay Tyler’s defense of the hardship program by asserting “We’ve never gone to court” to pursue an unpaid bill would be more persuasive if it included the final phrase “or to collections.”

What prompts me to write, though, is Tyler’s mention at the close of the piece that the new EMS policy of charging the same for refusal of transport as would be charged for (Basic Life Support) transport itself is justifiable because “It’s an easy one to get.”

Should we really face this charge in the public sector simply because we are easy marks for it? Surely there’s a stronger case to be made for a charge subject to public approval. Either the piece cut off Tyler's complete explanation of said case, or he might wish to explain more carefully. Thank you.

Andy Alpart

Guilderland

Editor’s note: The story included Director Jay Tyler’s explanation that insurance companies are billed for ambulance services.