CAL-NENA Reacts To Ballot Measure To Increase Surcharge

A proposal to increase California’s E911 surcharge to help fund hospital emergency rooms stands to jeopardize public safety and the state’s 911 funding account, according to the state chapter of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA).

In a press release issued by CAL-NENA, the group raised several issues about the upcoming Proposition 67, placed on the ballot and supported by the Coalition to Preserve Emergency Care, a group of firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses and healthcare providers.

According to the California Medical Association (CMA) one of the ballot measure’s supporters, uncompensated emergency care costs reached $635 million in fiscal year 2002, the most recent year for which data is available. That represents an 18 percent from 2001, the CMA said.

The “911 Emergency and Trauma Care Act” would add three percentage points to the state’s existing 911 surcharge, raising an estimated $550 million a year, according to its supporters. Of that amount, 3/4 of one percent would be funneled to 911 purposes. The remainder would be allocated to new or existing state emergency medical accounts to help fund uncompensated emergency room costs.

In an open letter written by Barry Silva, president of CAL-NENA, the group said it met “several times” with representatives from the CMA, and organized a “critical issues” forum, “where the proponents and opponents explained their respective views and answered questions from the membership of CAL-NENA.”

Silva wrote, “In summary, we suggest that the rather complicated provisions of the initiative stand to jeopardize public safety and the legal standing of the State Emergency Telephone Number Account (SETNA).”

He said CAL-NENA carefully considered the protections the ballot measure might provide from raids to help fund other state projects. Yet, Silva said, “CALNENA stands in strong opposition to the initiative.”

Silva listed several concerns that CAL-NENA had encountered while reviewing the ballot measure:

• The ballot measure imposes a 3% increase to the 911 surcharge for emergency rooms and trauma centers, “which are not a part of the 9-1-1 network”

• ”There is no nexus between the surcharge and telephone usage, which will threaten the very existence of the fund if challenged in court”

• Creates a “systemic imbalance” by dedicating a portion of the surcharge to fire first responders, but allocates nothing for law enforcement first responders

• Uses the surcharge funds for doctors, but not for 911 call-takers and dispatchers

In addition, CAL-NENA said the initiative would subsidize private, for-profit businesses, “further jeopardizing the legal standing of the state 9-1-1 fund.”

On a more technical note, the CAL-NENA said the ballot measure would only protect what it called “new” 911 surcharge funds, not the current funds.

In a related move, the Coalition created a new Web site to promote the proposition: www.saveemergencycare.org. Previously, the group had reserved www.save911.org to promote the proposition. The latter site is still active, but the home page is now headlined with “Save Emergency Care. Save Lives,” rather than the previous “Save 911” slogan.

Appeared May 2004, DISPATCH Monthly Magazine / www.911Dispatch.com