FD's billing for services?

[f19 4]

Fire Departments Charge for Service, Asking Accident Victims to Pay Up

Victims, Insurance Companies Complain Fire Departments Are Double-Dipping for Services Paid by Taxes

By SARAH NETTER

Feb. 4, 2010

It came in the mail less than a month after Darline Fairchild watched her family's home go up in flames -- a bill for the nearly $28,000 it cost the fire department to extinguish the blaze.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fire-department-bills-basic-services-horrify-residents-insurance/story?id=9736696

Edited February 9, 2010 by Chris192
Compliance with source copyright

[Guest USAFvet]

Billing for a private home structure fire is a tough sell.

Repetitive false alarms could be a must, particularly for commercial

spaces.

[TR54 239]

Bad News all the way around. People are reluctant to call the FD as it is. Can you amagine if they were going to get billed for money they don't have. Residents would end up paying with their lives.

Even billing for activated alarms is poor when life safety is involved. Case in point - A Store manager reset the alarm bells with customers inside. He told them "It goes off all the time , just keep shopping " Then he meets the FD at the door still claiming it was a malfuction. It was not - fire in the restroom. Criminal simply criminal. :angry:

[Guest]

I don't mind ambulance billing, but I definitely don't like billing for fires or rescues. Maybe false alarms if they get out of hand, but I am a fan of having people pay a 'registration' fee with alarm systems, where if you have one you pay a yearly fee and that includes a couple false alarms and lets the FD know who has AFA's and will have keyholder information.

[Lucifer 6]

How about billing for mandated inspections?

[helicopper 1,050]

How about billing for mandated inspections?

Aren't inspections already paid for in the form of taxes?

[f19 4]

I don't post much on this sight, but I do visit it and read all the time. But when I came across this article I had to share it on here to see what others think of this. I totally agree with TR54--- I feel this is not good for the fire service at all. There has to be smarter ways to go about this.

Maybe fines on the spot for having no, or non working smoke/fire alarms... Blocked entrance/exits over crowding etc... But to bill people for. Working at structure fires is crazy...

What if the tables were turned and now the home owner sends a bill to the FD for opening up a wall at an electrical fire, water damage to carpets/ floor.......dirty carpets!! It could snowball into really bad things for everyone!

Just my opinion

[aviator70 16]

These are services taxes should cover already. Now they want us to keep payng taxes, but pay fees also???? What do taxes pay for these days????

[64FFMJK 21]

Fire calls I don't think should be billed for however what about MVA's.

How many MVA's did you have then look at how many of those were tax paying residents of the district vs. people driving through the district?

I don't sugest sending bills to people only insurance companies.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Sounds kind of retro, billing for fire services. Maybe they should study their history a bit and learn about the fiascos that occured regularly when "Fire Insurance Wall Plaques" determined who might or might stop at your working fire to extinguish it!

UNION - Pyports, Church Street, Cobham - Lead mark - On rear of house overlooking lawn, not visible from public road. This mark is stamped 27663. Unfortunately the records of the Union have been lost and it is not possible to trace the issue of the insurance. It dates, however, from about 1770.

[helicopper 1,050]

Fire calls I don't think should be billed for however what about MVA's.

How many MVA's did you have then look at how many of those were tax paying residents of the district vs. people driving through the district?

I don't sugest sending bills to people only insurance companies.

This has already been beaten to death in EMS circles. You can't bill just insurance companies and you can't bill just non-residents. It's either all or none. The degree to which you pursue collections is a gray area but you can't just tell people who live in town to ignore the bill you send them.

The notion that "people" don't get billed when you charge insurance companies is also flawed logic. The insurance company is just going to pass the fees along to you via increased premiums or surcharges or other means. They're not going to risk losing their profits because of claims.

If services are already paid for by taxes, why bill?

[PEMO3 523]

To answer the question if services are paid by taxes why bill the answer is simple: to keep taxes down for the majority at large. While it is unfortunate that someone would need the services of either EMS or FD, those services do not come without an expenditure. While the cost could be nominal, say to cover the speedy dry on a fluid spill or the foam used and not include the cost of manpower it should be an avenue that is explored especially in an age when municipalities are trying to hold the line on tax hikes and cutting what they see as fat but agencies see as cutting to the bone. That added money, while maybe not millions could offset some expenses and actually make those budget cuts less painful. Most homeowners and automotive policies will cover fire department related expenses associated with a claim.

[antiquefirelt 994]

This has already been beaten to death in EMS circles. You can't bill just insurance companies and you can't bill just non-residents.

FD's billing for responses is very different from the EMS billing issues. The rules that pertain to EMS come directly from the Medicare program and only apply to those who bill Medicare. FD's all over the country can and do bill for certain responses, such as MVA's.

It's almost a moral issue. Can you do your jobs effectively with the money the taxpayers provide? If the answer is no, then this is one option departments consider. Almost every FD that provides Haz-Mat response that I know, bills for it. Many FD's justify billing for MVA's due to the fact that a huge percentage of those involved likely don't pay taxes in their district. The problem is they do pay taxes at home and people from our town travel through theirs. But, I know my Chief was involved in an MVA and his insurance company expected to be billed for the response by the responding FD (they do not bill). It seems they anticipate a $500 bill for fluid loss recovery so it may be tied into DOT and haz-mat as well?

The issue is looking at why you need to bill for responses and determine if you are trying to do too much for what you're given? Are you not explaining your funding needs to those who pass your budget? Or are the taxpayers so strapped for cash that anything that passes costs to the "system" users is palatable to the taxpayers?

[M' Ave 1,466]

You cannot bill for F.D. services. It's just that simple. That cost of fire operations is expensive, too expensive to bill on an occurrence by occurrence basis. People pay taxes to have this essential service available to them should they need it, even though most never will.

It's like insurance. The public safety sector is the best and cheapest insurance you can buy. In NYC, Fire/EMS is valued at about $300.00 per person. Not bad. What do you pay in car insurance?

[efdcapt115 1,511]

You cannot bill for F.D. services. It's just that simple. That cost of fire operations is expensive, too expensive to bill on an occurrence by occurrence basis. People pay taxes to have this essential service available to them should they need it, even though most never will.

It's like insurance. The public safety sector is the best and cheapest insurance you can buy. In NYC, Fire/EMS is valued at about $300.00 per person. Not bad. What do you pay in car insurance?

If Mayor Bloomy could bill for emergency services, he'd have credit card swipers in all patrol cars and fire engines faster than you can say Bloomberg News Corporation.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Of the FD' I know of that "bill for service" it's only haz-mat response or the fluid recovery at MVA's. Cannot and should not are too far different things. Maybe in NY you "cannot" but in many places in the USA, you can and some do. I did read about a full subscription FD still in existence in Alaska in the Fairbanks area. You no pay, you no get nothing more than rescue or exposure protection of paying members property and stopping of wild fires.

While I'm not a big fan of billing for services, it's not unlike billing for EMS where taxpayers foot the bill for the ambulance and staff. Every dollar taken in, is used to offset the actual cost of doing business, thereby reducing the tax burden. In no way should some dept's bill for services that they're adequately funded for and keep the money for "extras". The user fee concept is used in numerous facets or municipal government, as well as many other levels. Water usage fees, public sewage fees, pay-per-bag trash disposal, fees for copies at city hall, you name it. All things the taxpayer is paying for, and then paying extra again, except in most cases the user fee offsets the budget.

Edited February 10, 2010 by antiquefirelt

[Guest USAFvet]

Possibly this should be discussed separately for full time city and volunteer rural/suburban departments.

Let's also identify costly and careless abuses first.

What first comes to mind for me is repetetive false alarms in commercial spaces.

I remember years ago that a FD just west of St. Louis, MO would mail billings

after 3X false alarms in a stated time period from commercial buildings.

What are your thoughts?

[ny10570 745]

At what point do we stop bending over backwards to make due with less and we start cutting back on services? Every time we maintain our level of service after a "devastating" cut or develop a new revenue stream that becomes the new status quo. We will not get any credit for this when the economics of it all improve.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Possibly this should be discussed separately for full time city and volunteer rural/suburban departments.

Let's also identify costly and careless abuses first.

What first comes to mind for me is repetetive false alarms in commercial spaces.

I remember years ago that a FD just west of St. Louis, MO would mail billings

after 3X false alarms in a stated time period from commercial buildings.

What are your thoughts?

In NYC we can and do write summonses to property owners for alarm systems that go off repeatedly. Most of the time this bill is just turned over to the alarm company. While we do do this, it's rare. If we go to your house or place of business for a false alarm for the 5th time in a day, there has to be some recourse. This, however, isn't billing for services. It's a penalty for having an alarm system that continues to call on the resources of an agency needlessly. There has to be some penalty for repetitious summoning of 5 emergency vehicles to respond and the danger and waste that entails.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

I know that In CT, Westport FD bills non-residents for MV fires/accidents. I am not sure of the total but I know you will get a bill if they come to you and your a non resident. Also, in Pleasantville, the Fd is supposed to bill for false alarm repeaters. It is my understanding that this policy is very relaxed and not often enforced, but when it is, the town receives the money. The FD never gets it...probably why we do not care to charge repeaters. Billing people for structure fires seems slightly wrong.

[FFLieu 70]

Property taxes should be able to cover the bulk of the operations cost for an FD. I think charging for a structure fire or another "act of God" is incongruous with the overall idea that a resident pays for that protection already. Charging for an MVA, to me, seems to be a pretty slippery idea. For instance, what if the MVA involves one or more taxpaying residents of the district? Wouldn't they have already paid for that service, similar to that of the structure fire example? And, technically, I believe that if an MVA involved a commercial vehicle of some sort, charging for that could be construed as an interference with inter/intrastate commerce and could be a violation in and of itself. I think the only charge for service should be for repetitive false alarms - let's say after the second - that pose a significant risk to the public in that an engine company had been dispatched and wouldn't necessarily be readily available for a true emergency occurring at the same time.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Here's FD billing taken to the extreme: http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/ind-family-billed-nearly-28k-fire

One might ask what their taxes pay for in this instance. But again, the American public has accepted "pay to play" or "user fees' as a viable solution to declining tax revenue...

[Bnechis 3,961]

Property taxes should be able to cover the bulk of the operations cost for an FD. I think charging for a structure fire or another "act of God" is incongruous with the overall idea that a resident pays for that protection already.

I agree, property taxes should cover, but what happens when they do not? If it costs $1 and the tax is $0.99 what other option is there? Also most property insurance policies include payment for FD salvage and closing up a building.

Charging for an MVA, to me, seems to be a pretty slippery idea. For instance, what if the MVA involves one or more taxpaying residents of the district? Wouldn't they have already paid for that service, similar to that of the structure fire example?

And what if they only paid a portion? If we are not being funded to the level needed, then we may only be funded to be available to respond, not to actually operate at an incident.

What if the owner of the vehicle already paid the insurance company to cover the cost of emergency response? Many insurance policies have that coverage included and we all pay them for that potential.

And, technically, I believe that if an MVA involved a commercial vehicle of some sort, charging for that could be construed as an interference with inter/intrastate commerce and could be a violation in and of itself.

Under Federal EPA CERCLA / SARA Title III the spiller is responsable for all costs associated with hazardous material spills, this includes oils, gas, and every other automotive fluid. This even covers admin. and legal costs.

A couple of years ago Getty Oil spilled a gasoline tanker on main street in NR on a weekend. The city of NR incurred costs of well over $38,000 in overtime and supplies used. We tied up the entire FD plus call back of 20+ ff's for the day (we had flammable vapor in 100's of buildings, including COSTCO & they sued and gasoline all the way to Long Island Sound), PD had to bring in doz of officers as did DPW/Sewers & Drains. We used all of our foam and absorbants. We billed them, they offered to replace our supplies, but not pay the OT. We advise if they didn't pay as required by law we would see them in federal court and our lawers were alread on the clock (they get to pay that too), they paid....It not like they did not know the law.

I think the only charge for service should be for repetitive false alarms - let's say after the second - that pose a significant risk to the public in that an engine company had been dispatched and wouldn't necessarily be readily available for a true emergency occurring at the same time.

Alarm fees are not about FD not being available to another call, they are about making it cheaper to fix a faulty system, than to have the FD come back over and over and charge each time.

[ny10570 745]

PFD does not bill for false alarms. They can forward chronic false alarm locations for the village building inspector to issue a violation. This is a corrective action and not revenue generator.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ny10570

[antiquefirelt 994]

PFD does not bill for false alarms. They can forward chronic false alarm locations for the village building inspector to issue a violation. This is a corrective action and not revenue generator.

This may be the biggest misnomer about billing for false calls. People seem to think it's revenue stream whereas it's all about correcting the problem. Too often it's cheaper and easier for the owner/super to just nod their head to the FD officer then go back to their lives without ever lifting a finger. The fees need to inflict a little sting to ensure they find keeping the system maintained and trouble free is cheaper than doing nothing. Our previous chief would not hear of billing for multiple false calls as he felt it might cause the same slumlords to disconnect the systems, and with no true inspection program or the staff to have one, these units and their occupants would be even less protected. Over time technology and true inspections driven by some of these false calls has lead our FD to eradicate most of the frequent fliers of this nature.

Again, what happens when your FD does not get adequate funding? Do you decrease service levels? Probably you do without ever making it a big deal. Do you increase the risk to your personnel? Do you have another bake sale? Why not recoup some of the money insurance companies are billing for to cover anticipated costs from the responding services? While it's not the best option, it seems to be a valid way to cover the bases. Far better than doing even more with less, and increasing our risks, while never showing the public the loss.

[FFLieu 70]

And what if they only paid a portion? If we are not being funded to the level needed, then we may only be funded to be available to respond, not to actually operate at an incident.

What if the owner of the vehicle already paid the insurance company to cover the cost of emergency response? Many insurance policies have that coverage included and we all pay them for that potential.

OK, I don't understand this, maybe because it's still a tad bit early in the morning and I haven't had my second cup of Joe yet. So if I wreck my car on I-95 within the confines of New Rochelle, you're going to bill my insurance company (and ultimately me, since I don't have and have never heard of that kind of coverage to begin with) for your services?

[Bnechis 3,961]

OK, I don't understand this, maybe because it's still a tad bit early in the morning and I haven't had my second cup of Joe yet. So if I wreck my car on I-95 within the confines of New Rochelle, you're going to bill my insurance company (and ultimately me, since I don't have and have never heard of that kind of coverage to begin with) for your services?

We do not bill for MVA's, but we did the reasearch into all forms of billing. Those who bill for MVA's generally bill $500 per. For us that works out to only about $7,000 per year and alot of paperwork for it. We do bill for Hazmat which the average bill for a large spill is $40,000 - $70,000 (which is only about 10% of the total clean up cost, which would double if we didn't stop the flow and start the clean up prior to the clean-up companies arrival).

[antiquefirelt 994]

OK, I don't understand this, maybe because it's still a tad bit early in the morning and I haven't had my second cup of Joe yet. So if I wreck my car on I-95 within the confines of New Rochelle, you're going to bill my insurance company (and ultimately me, since I don't have and have never heard of that kind of coverage to begin with) for your services?

It may not be a specific line in your policy, but another anticipated cost that the carrier builds into their basic coverage. They are in the business of figuring the costs and charging an amount that ensures that they'll make a profit over the total number of claims per period. They seem to excel at this I might add.

[antiquefirelt 994]

We do not bill for MVA's, but we did the reasearch into all forms of billing. Those who bill for MVA's generally bill $500 per. For us that works out to only about $7,000 per year and alot of paperwork for it. We do bill for Hazmat which the average bill for a large spill is $40,000 - $70,000 (which is only about 10% of the total clean up cost, which would double if we didn't stop the flow and start the clean up prior to the clean-up companies arrival).

We had a very similar experience. It seemed like a potential way of covering shortfalls, but it the end the amount recouped would not be worth the added paperwork and time. Our haz-mat responses are all billed for either directly or through the LEPC when the call is outside our municipal boundaries.

Similarly we have billed for rescue services beyond the "routine". Two of these were for tech rescues in one industrial occupancy outside our municipal boundaries and the third was ordered by the court for criminal stupidity (for lack of the official charge)when a kid doing donuts drove into a quarry 80 feet down from the roadway and lived to pay the bill! Both responses to the industrial site ended up with significant issues to equipment that required replacement due to the materials present and their long term effects on on PPE, harnesses, rope gear, etc.

Edited February 18, 2010 by antiquefirelt

[Bnechis 3,961]

Another advantage of having an up to date billing system is during a disaster. 2 years ago we had a significant flooding event, that generated hundreds of thousands in OT (FD, PD & DPW) plus other costs to the city (Damaged property & contract items; like generator rental and EMS provider cost [we increased the number of units during the storm]).

Westchester County asked us to get them our estimated costs within 5 days and finals within 2 weeks so they could forward them to SEMO & FEMA (to get to the minimum $$$ for a federal disaster declaration) I forwarded our final costs within 1 hour of the request (city cost was over $400,000)and we got our check 1st in NYS. SEMO Region II liked the system so much that they have offered it to everyone in our region (they asked us 1st).

We have also used this to recover costs when we have sent members to federaly declared disasters in other regions. After responding to flooding in Delaware County, we sent a bill to cover our OT costs (knowing it would be paid for by FEMA). the local Vol. FD chief almost stroked out when he saw the bill and he called. You could hear him yelling from across the room through the phone. Till we re-explained that the attached letter said we did not expect them to pay it, just as the IC he needed to sign that we performed the work list it and hand it to the SEMO/FEMA PAC/PAL team that was working out of his fire station. We are always willing to go help and we would never consider billing a dept for that, but the system is designed to cover these type of incidents and in that case why should our community have to foot the bill for multiple days of OT and other costs (Fuel, Food, Housing etc.).