Finding Out about a New Program

["Paul M. Wright, Jr." <pmwright@home.com>]

I was wondering what the response would be to the recent posting requesting
information about a particular air medical operator and it came out about
like I expected (as regards the attitudes - I have no basis to form an
opinion on the quality of the information offered or on the program that was
the subject of the inquiry).  A couple of thoughts came to mind.

First is that there is always some perceived risk in using your real name
when the information you offer about a named organization is less than
positive.  The threat of being sued is real as there are companies that
believe they can threaten and sue their way to greatness and will use any
means available to squelch public disclosure of their dirty linen.  I use my
real name on the Internet in spite of the risk, but that is partly due to
the realization that using an alias is of very limited protection against
the legal discovery process.  Any plaintiff's attorney worth his/her salt
knows just where to find a computer forensics expert when the need arises.
So use an alias if you must, but don't be mislead into thinking it makes you
invisible.

Beyond that, though, is the question of just how DOES one evaluate an air
medical program that wishes to expand into your area?  It is, at this point,
a highly competitive business and one in which the profits go to the program
with the lowest cost structure because, by and large, the revenue per unit
of service delivered is controlled by third-parties.  In the absence of a
market sensitive to quality, competition has the potential to become a race
to the bottom where the survivor is the program that can offer the lowest
costs regardless of quality.  And there is a perceived advantage in
achieving some critical mass in terms of areas served because a successful
financial model is heavily volume-driven (i.e. fixed costs are high relative
to variables).  Not every program that wants a piece of your transport
business is your friend.

Sadly, getting a handle on a program with which you don't have previous
experience can be a difficult process.  Official records (CAMTS, FAA, NTSB,
Better Business Bureau, state regulatory agencies) can and should be sought
out and reviewed.  Sometimes they tell a story, sometimes they don't and
sometimes the story they tell is not particularly accurate.  But you should
start there.

Second, you should ask for references and check them out.  Talk with EMS
providers, hospitals and others with direct experience and solicit their
opinions.  Look carefully for sources of bias that might influence what
you're being told.  Common sources of bias are competitive concerns,
personal relationships, financial relationships and media reports.

Personally, I think it's okay to solicit input on a public forum but the
form of the question is important.  But also recognize that even if you
specifically ask for private responses only (and you probably should), some
will inevitably end up on the forum so keep that in mind also as you
formulate the question.

Consider the two following hypothetical questions that might be posted:

	1. Hey, I hear that AirBlare might be coming to our town.  What can you
tell me about them?

	2. Hey, we were just approached by AirBlare about serving our community.
Are they really the slime-sucking, bottom-feeding, unsafe, incompetent bunch
of dysfunctional leeches that I've heard they are?

**  I hope, I really hope, that there is no air medical program called
AirBlare....

Clearly, the form of the question matters.

Some of what you'll get will be witnessed facts and events, some will be
pointers to other sources of information, some will be quoted statistics and
some will be just plain rumor or folklore.  It's up to you to discern what
is what.

I think that rumors and folklore must be evaluated because often there is a
grain of truth behind them.  But that evaluation MUST include consideration
of the source and a search for bias and also MUST include presenting them to
the program's administration for comment and rebuttal if they wish to do so.
Rumors could well be the work of unethical competitors who are seeding
untruth to obtain an advantage, but they could also be the result of a true
story of which any official record was successfully suppressed by the
program.  It is within my experience to have direct knowledge of bad
behavior for which regulatory consequences were only avoided by wielding an
800-pound legal gorilla.  But even the 800-pound gorilla approach cannot be
100% effective in keeping the information out of the rumor mill and local
folklore.

The sad truth is that not all air medical programs are equal and, frankly,
not all of them should be allowed to offer their services to the public.
And I think those of us who do have some knowledge of the industry have an
obligation to provide accurate information on request and sometimes that
will include offering information that is believed to be accurate but cannot
be proven.  I'm quite comfortable with rumors as a source of information as
long as they are honestly and privately reported only to the inquirer and as
long as a program is given the opportunity to refute those rumors before any
decisions are reached.

regards!

paul


Paul M. Wright, jr.
Mesa, AZ








_______________________________________________
Flightmed mailing list