QUINCY — Quincy City Council members approved a contract increase with the city’s EMS provider April 1, but not before a discussion of ambulance transports, availability and profitability.  

The council voted 5-1 to approve the increase with Columbia EMS, a privately owned service. Council member Jeff Spence voted no. 

The city will pay about $340,700 per year for EMS service under the terms of the amended agreement. City Administrator Pat Haley said that’s a 16.5% increase over the previous contract. 

Emergency services in Grant County Fire District 3 and the city are the focus of a study commissioned by GCFD 3 with the involvement of the city and Columbia EMS. Eric Nickel of Fitch & Associates, the company conducting the study, cited the situation in the Quincy Valley as an example of the challenge nationwide. 

“The business is radically changing,” Nickel said. “The fees are very challenging. The revenues are very challenging for these systems and these operators.”  

During the contract discussion, Spence asked about transports between out-of-area medical facilities and what that would mean for coverage in Quincy. Spence said he thought the contract, as it’s worded, might leave the city without adequate EMS coverage in the case of an out-of-area transport.  

Columbia EMS owner Leslie Siebert said there’s some confusion about that in the current economic environment. The city’s contract sets a standard for coverage – a relatively high one, in her opinion – and imposes a penalty if it’s not met, she said. 

“If we decide to take a transport from an area outside this location, we’re taking the risk of not meeting (the target in the contract) and taking a significant hit to our service fee,” Siebert said. 

“We would be knowingly taking that risk. If Samaritan (Hosptial) or (Columbia Basin Hospital) called us for a transport, we would have to (consider), ‘Is that worth it for us?’ And usually it’s not. Almost always it’s not,” she added. “I think there’s a little bit of a misconception around us chasing transports for profit – it's not profitable. It’s not what people think. We analyze this stuff all the time – we field those phone calls.” 

She too asked for some clarification, she said.  

“We need to have this conversation about inter-facility (transport). My specific question is, ‘What is the city’s tolerance?’’ she said. 

The case of transport from Quincy to a hospital with a higher level of services is different, she said. In those cases, the care needed isn’t available in Quincy.  

“That is an emergency,” Siebert said.