Source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10252098/House-Emergency-Medical-Services-System-Workgroup-Report
Timestamp: 2014-04-23 08:27:58
Document Index: 471261887

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 145', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135']

House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup Report
Report of the House Emergency Medical
Services System Workgroup
For further information concerning this document contact:
Baltimore Area: 410-946-5400 • Washington Area: 301-970-5400
Other Areas: 1-800-492-7122, Extension 5400
TDD: 410-946-5401 • 301-970-5401
The Department of Legislative Services does not discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry,
color, creed, marital status, national origin, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability
in the admission or access to its programs, services, or activities. The Department&#39;s Information
Officer has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements
contained in Section 35.107 of the Department of Justice Regulations. Requests for assistance
should be directed to the Information Officer at the telephone numbers shown above.
House Emergency Medical Services Workgroup
Delegate John L. Bohanan, Jr., Chair
Delegate Marvin E. Holmes, Jr., Vice Chair
Chantelle M. Green
Nicole M. Sandusky
Lisa J. Simpson
Linda L. Stahr
T. Patrick Tracy
Joshua A. Watters
Maria S. Hartlein
Formation of House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup .................................. 1
History of the EMS System ...................................................................................................... 2
Emergency Medical Services System Governance and Protocols.................................................. 3
MIEMSS Governance............................................................................................................... 3
Trauma Triage Protocols............................................................................................................4
Field Protocols .......................................................................................................................... 5
Mode of Transport Protocols .................................................................................................... 6
Protocol Implementation/Field Provider Training.................................................................... 6
Field Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 7
Protocol Change Following September 2008 Accident............................................................ 7
Expert Panel Review................................................................................................................. 9
Helicopter Emergency Medical System (HEMS) Service Delivery Models................................ 10
Maryland State Police Multi-mission Model.......................................................................... 10
Privatized Service Delivery Model......................................................................................... 11
Hybrid Commercial Lease Model........................................................................................... 12
Public Testimony .................................................................................................................... 13
Department of State Police Medevac Operations ......................................................................... 16
Current Helicopter Fleet ......................................................................................................... 16
MSPAC to Assume Department of Natural Resources Aviation Division Missions ............. 16
MSPAC Audit......................................................................................................................... 16
Audit Update........................................................................................................................... 18
Independent Review of Health Emergency Medical Services Programs ............................... 18
Helicopter Base Alignment Study .......................................................................................... 22
Strategic Plan for Helicopter Replacement............................................................................. 24
Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 28
EMS System Governance and Protocols ................................................................................ 28
Trauma Hospital System......................................................................................................... 28
Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Delivery .................................................................. 29
Maryland State Police Medevac Helicopters and Bases......................................................... 29
Establish a Legislative Joint EMS Oversight Committee....................................................... 30
Appendix 1.................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 2.................................................................................................................................... 33
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System
Formation of House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup
In January 2009, Speaker Michael E. Busch formed a 14-member House of Delegates’
Workgroup to explore a range of cross-jurisdictional issues related to the organization, operation,
safety, and efficiency of the Maryland Emergency Medical Services System (EMS System).
Formation of the workgroup was prompted by three recent events: (1) an August 14, 2008
performance audit conducted by the Office of Legislative Audits (OLA) which examined and
identified issues regarding the Maryland State Police Aviation Command (MSPAC) helicopter
maintenance program; (2) the September 2008 crash of the MSPAC Trooper 2 medical
evacuation (Medevac) helicopter resulting in the deaths of three crew members and one patient
and serious injury to a second patient; and (3) the State’s plan to begin replacing its aging
helicopter fleet with the purchase of new helicopters slated for acquisition in fiscal 2010.
The House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup (EMS Workgroup), under
the leadership of its Chairman, Delegate John L. Bohanan, Jr., convened at the beginning of the
2009 legislative session and met over the course of six weeks to take testimony and gather
information relevant to its charge. The workgroup identified a number of issues for study and
organized itself into three separate subgroups so that all issues could be thoroughly vetted. The
subgroups were chaired by Delegates Guy Guzzone, Marvin E. Holmes, Jr., and Richard B.
Broadly, the workgroup’s inquiry focused on whether the system is operating in an
efficient, effective, and safe manner and ultimately whether the EMS System is serving the best
interests of the citizens of the State. Specifically, the workgroup sought to review the events of
the past year that prompted its formation and to evaluate the EMS System’s response.
In large part, the workgroup finds that the EMS System has responded appropriately and
swiftly to issues raised in the 2008 helicopter maintenance audit and to the tragic accident that
occurred in September 2008. Further, the workgroup finds that the helicopter fleet replacement
procurement is proceeding in a manner consistent with the demands of the EMS System and in
the best interests of the citizens who rely on it.
However, the workgroup makes specific recommendations in this report to expedite
safety upgrades; improve field provider training; consider different service delivery options for
the provision of State helicopter maintenance; collect data and formulate final recommendations
on the appropriate number of helicopters and helicopter bases necessary to provide statewide
2                                                                   Department of Legislative Services
EMS coverage; and to study the configuration of State trauma hospitals to ensure that the
number and geographic coverage are optimal for the EMS System.
Most importantly, the workgroup finds that the system must remain dynamic and make
all efforts to respond to technological and scientific advancements in the field of emergency
medical transport and care with evidence-based reforms and with the goal of maintaining
Maryland’s pre-eminence in the EMS field. Many of the issues surrounding EMS reforms and
helicopter procurement are ongoing, and the workgroup feels strongly that continued critical
oversight and evaluation is necessary as the process of responding to these serious issues
History of the EMS System
The history of the State’s EMS System dates back to the 1960s when Dr. R Adams
Cowley established a clinical shock trauma unit within the University of Maryland. At that time,
Dr. Cowley partnered with the Maryland State Police (MSP) to transport patients at no charge by
helicopter from the scene of an injury to a dedicated trauma center. His theory of care revolved
around the “golden hour,” a measure of time within which a severely injured patient’s chance of
survival is greatest if proper medical care is received. The combination of rapid evacuation and
timely treatment of shock resulted in a significant drop in the mortality rate of seriously injured
patients. It evolved into the first trauma system in the country.
The system was formalized in the early 1970s when education programs were
implemented to train first responders and uniform standards of care were developed. In addition,
transportation networks and communication systems were established.                  In 1973,
Governor Marvin Mandel issued an executive order establishing the Maryland Institute for
Emergency Medicine and a Division of EMS. Both entities were subsequently combined into
the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems (MIEMSS).
In 1993, the General Assembly passed legislation establishing MIEMSS as an
independent agency, governed by an 11-member EMS Board. In addition, the 1993 legislation
created a Statewide EMS Advisory Council (SEMSAC), made up of various EMS System
stakeholders. The SEMSAC, now a 29-member council, serves as the principal advisory body to
the EMS Board.
The statewide EMS System in Maryland remains unique in the nation, in that a single
emergency medical services system incorporates all components necessary to respond to
emergency care needs. Uniform standards for the operation of the statewide system are in place
for all major components of the system. This coordinated approach to emergency medical
services across the State helps ensure that the appropriate level of emergency care is available to
respond to each patient care emergency.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                  3
Emergency Medical Services System Governance and Protocols
MIEMSS Governance
Today, the EMS System is a coordinated statewide network that includes volunteer and
career EMS providers, medical and nursing personnel, communications and transportation
systems, nine designated adult trauma centers, almost 60 designated specialty referral centers and
hospital emergency departments throughout the State.
As the agency responsible for coordination of this network, MIEMSS is statutorily
charged with developing and updating a statewide EMS Plan. The plan delineates areas of focus
for MIEMSS over a five-year period. The EMS Plan is intended to ensure effective coordination
and evaluation of medical services delivered in the State. Among other components the plan
includes criteria for the designation of trauma and specialty referral facilities; provisions for
maintaining and enhancing the communications and transportation systems for emergency
medical services; and provisions for the evaluation of emergency medical services personnel
training. Broader goals and objectives for the continued development and operation of the
system are also outlined in the plan.
Maryland’s EMS System is divided into five geographic regions. Each region has a
Regional EMS Advisory Council composed of members who have an interest in EMS. Council
responsibilities are defined by regulation, and council meetings typically cover a range of topics,
including grants, training, EMS policies/protocols, legislation, and communications. Input from
each Regional EMS Advisory Council is provided to the SEMCAC for recommendation to the
EMS Board.
Subject to approval of the Governor, the EMS Board appoints an Executive Director for
MIEMSS who, in turn, is responsible for the coordinating all aspects of the EMS System at the
direction of the board and in coordination with the statewide EMS Plan. Specifically, Section
13-510 of the Education Article provides that the Executive Director of MIEMSS shall:
•      coordinate a statewide system of emergency medical services;
•      coordinate the five emergency medical service regions in the State;
•      coordinate the planning and operation of emergency medical services with the federal,
State, and county governments;
•      coordinate the training of all personnel in the EMS System and develop the necessary
standards for their certification or licensure;
4                                                                  Department of Legislative Services
•      coordinate programs of research and education that relate to emergency injuries and
•      coordinate the development of centers for treating emergency injuries and illnesses;
•      coordinate the development of specialty referral centers for resuscitation, treatment, and
rehabilitation of the critically ill and injured;
•      work closely with public and private agencies, health care institutions and universities
involved with emergency medical services, SEMSAC, and the Medical Management
Consultant Group;
•      administer State and federal funds for emergency medical services in the State;
•      work closely with the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI), which is responsible
for basic training for emergency medical technicians;
•      assure continued improvement of transportation for emergency, critically ill, and injured
patients by supporting the goals of career and volunteer systems throughout the State; and
•      implement all programmatic, operational, and administrative components of the institute.
The 11 members of the EMS Board are appointed by the Governor for four-year terms.
The Governor designates one member as chairman of the board. Each appointed member is
required to have demonstrated interest or experience in the delivery of emergency medical
services and all slots require specific expertise. There are no term limits for EMS Board
members; however, 9 of the 11 current members are serving their first or second term, while 2
members have served on the board since its establishment in 1993. Terms for most board
members have either expired or will expire by the end of calendar 2009.
Funding for the EMS System is provided through the Maryland Emergency Medical
System Operations Fund (MEMSOF), a statutorily established special fund consisting of motor
vehicle registration fee surcharges. The history and ongoing viability of MEMSOF is discussed
in detail later in this report.
Appendix 1 shows the organizational structure of MIEMMS.
A key responsibility of MIEMSS is the development and distribution of Maryland
Medical Protocols for Emergency Medical Services Providers. These triage protocols provide a
system of determining priority and appropriateness of medical treatment, transportation, and
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                   5
place of care in emergent situations. The protocols guide the actions of EMS field providers as
they respond to emergency transport calls and importantly, promote uniformity of care
The protocols are developed by a Protocol Review Committee, appointed by MIEMSS
and made up of the EMS regional medical directors, physicians, nurses, and EMS providers and
are ultimately approved by the EMS Board. All State-licensed and certified EMS providers,
whether public or commercial, are required to function within the scope of practice defined by
the protocols. The protocols are updated annually and efforts are made to limit more frequent
changes so as to simplify dissemination and training. Any EMS provider can propose a change
to a protocol through their medical director’s office for consideration by the Protocol Review
In a regional system of care such as Maryland’s, field protocols provide that more acutely
injured patients are transported quickly to designated trauma centers. In Maryland, the most
severely injured patients are transported to the State’s Primary Adult Resource Center, the
R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center or to the State’s Level I trauma center, the Johns
Hopkins Hospital Adult Trauma Center. Less critically injured patients are transported to
Level II or III trauma centers and some patients are directed to specialty centers based on the
etiology of their injury (e.g., burn victims to specialty burn centers). As originally conceived by
Dr. Cowley, rapid transport of critically injured patients to an appropriately equipped hospital
saves lives. According to the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, the risk of
death is 25% lower when care is provided in a regional Level I trauma center than when it is
provided in a non-trauma center hospital.
Maryland’s field protocols encompass many of the standards developed nationally by the
American College of Surgeons (ACS). The ACS Committee on Trauma published the first set of
field triage criteria in 1986 and has since updated them periodically. The Protocol Review
Committee within MIEMSS reviews all ACS protocol updates for inclusion in Maryland’s field
provider protocols. According to a recent review of Maryland field protocols, there are only
minor differences in the protocols utilized in Maryland and the ACS standards.
In the field, EMS providers classify patients as Category A, B, C, or D based on the
severity of their injuries with Category A being the most severe. This assessment requires EMS
providers to evaluate visible and detectable injuries to patients and also to consider injuries that
are not apparent but are likely to have occurred based on the mechanism of injury. For instance,
a patient who has been ejected from a moving vehicle has a high likelihood of internal injury
regardless of whether the injury can be detected based on outward appearance and immediate
6                                                                   Department of Legislative Services
In July 2008, new trauma triage criteria developed by the ACS were incorporated into the
Maryland protocols. The July 2008 protocol update was based on new ACS criteria that
eliminated certain mechanisms of injury that were found to have a less than 20% correlation with
severe injuries. These mechanisms of injury included automobile rollover with restraints;
vehicle extrication taking greater than 20 minutes; high speed crash; initial speed of greater than
40 miles an hour; and external vehicle deformity. Since adoption, these mechanisms of injury
are no longer employed by the Maryland protocols as indicators of severe injury.
Mode of Transport Protocols
A second and substantive change in protocols adopted by the EMS Board in July 2008,
involved “mode of transport” decisions made in the field and specifically provided that patients
within a 30-minute drive time of the closest appropriate trauma/specialty center shall go by
ground in almost all instances. According to testimony received by the workgroup, the protocol
adoption was the latest in a series of actions by MIEMSS to address potential over utilization of
While there are no nationally accepted standards for making ‘mode of transport’
decisions in the field, there are consensus guidelines that identify the clinical and operational
circumstances under which medical helicopter dispatch is appropriate. Maryland generally
employs these national transport guidelines. Maryland’s EMS System has relied on helicopter
transport provided by the MSPAC since its inception in the early 1970s.
According to the recent Expert Panel Review of Helicopter Utilization and Protocols in
Maryland (discussed later in this report), “[t]he favorable impact of air medical transport on
trauma mortality is demonstrated in a wide variety of studies from around the world. The overall
picture of the data is consistent with a reduction in mortality of between 1 and 10 patients per
100 transports.”
Appendix 2 is the Trauma Decision Tree developed by MIEMSS and used by field
providers to classify patients and determine mode of transport.
Protocol Implementation/Field Provider Training
Typically, updates to the Maryland triage protocols become effective in July of each year.
Prior to the release of the annual protocol updates, or an emergency protocol update, all field
providers must receive training regarding the new procedures. In the past, field provider training
was the responsibility of each local jurisdiction. Recently though, MIEMSS has employed web-
based training videos so that the information provided on new field procedures is uniform across
the State. While training is mandatory for all providers, there is no examination requirement
attached to annual or emergent protocol updates. Rather, field providers’ knowledge of triage
procedures is tested upon re-licensure or re-certification which occurs every two years for
paramedics and every three years for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). Testimony
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                 7
provided to the workgroup by first responders indicates that MIEMSS should consider some
means of confirmation that information contained in the training videos has been conveyed
successfully to field providers.
MIEMSS collects data regarding every scene response by emergency medical providers
across the State. This data is used to inform policy and procedures employed within the EMS
System. The Electronic Maryland Ambulance Information System (E-MAIS) is a web-based
software application that was designed to replace the ambulance/Medevac helicopter runsheet
manually filled out and submitted by pre-hospital providers to MIEMSS after every ambulance/
helicopter transport. E-MAIS is operational in 24 jurisdictions (Allegany, Calvert, Caroline,
Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Kent, Prince George’s, Queen
Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, and Wicomico counties; Baltimore City,
Annapolis, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall
Airport, Martin State Airport, and MSPAC). Prior to the development and implementation of E-
MAIS, commercial, paid, and volunteer EMS providers filled out more than 750,000 paper forms
each year. E-MAIS is more cost-effective and improves the quality of pre-hospital care data, as
well as significantly reducing the amount of time between the occurrence of an EMS call and
receipt of documentation of the call. Despite the improvement, E-MAIS is not as useful as it
could be in providing reports to MIEMSS and the local jurisdictions that could help analyze
performance. Most useful would be a system that would afford flexibility in aggregating and
analyzing data according to the needs of each user. MIEMSS plans to issue a request for
proposal (RFP) later this spring for an upgrade to E-MAIS, but the upgrade is dependent on
Protocol Change Following September 2008 Accident
On September 27, 2008, a MSPAC helicopter (Trooper 2) carrying two women from the
scene of a traffic accident in Waldorf crashed in Prince George’s County, severely injuring one
patient and killing the other along with three helicopter crew members. It was the first fatal
MSPAC accident in over 20 years. Following the crash, questions arose regarding the
appropriateness of the call for helicopter transport for the patients based on the presentation of
injuries at the scene. While the cause of the crash is still under investigation by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an internal review of the pre-hospital response to the
automobile crash that precipitated the helicopter crash revealed that the patients were properly
classified as Category C patients on the ground and were properly routed to helicopter transport
based on the estimated travel time to the nearest trauma hospital.
Prior to the crash of Trooper 2, MIEMSS was engaged in a comprehensive review of the
protocols for determining when a patient should be transported by Medevac helicopter. The
review included an internal review of data from within the State and an external review of
protocols and processes used in other states. However, as a direct result of the crash, effective
8                                                                     Department of Legislative Services
October 9, 2008, MIEMSS changed the protocol for helicopter transport of Category C and D
patients to require consultation with the receiving trauma center before requesting helicopter
transport. Previously, this decision was made in most instances solely in the field based on an
injury assessment and drive time to the nearest trauma hospital.
In the months following the protocol change, there has been a marked reduction in
helicopter scene transport. Trending forward MIEMSS estimates that it could see a 40% drop in
Medevac flights between fiscal 2008 and 2009. However, the reduction has not been
conclusively traced to the protocol change and, in fact, could be more directly attributable to
fewer calls for helicopter transport from field providers. Even before this precipitous change, the
number of Medevac flights flown annually had been steadily declining. According to testimony
received by the workgroup, MIEMSS believes that a meaningful analysis of the data requires
several more months of data collection to take into account seasonal spikes in Medevac missions
Exhibit 1 shows Medevac transports between fiscal 2000 and 2010.
Medevac Transports Before and After Protocol Change
Fiscal 2000-2010
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Est. Est.
Medevac Transports 4,921 5,113 5,384 5,011 5,428 5,409 5,093 4,730 4,367 2,650 2,000
Source: Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                  9
In addition to the protocol change for transport of Category C and D patients, on
October 24, 2008, MIEMSS convened a multidisciplinary, independent panel of seven experts
from around the country to meet and review Maryland’s field triage protocols related to
helicopter EMS transport; review patterns of helicopter utilization for the field transport of
trauma patients; and make recommendations for further review and improvement of the
Maryland helicopter EMS program.             The Expert Panel met in open session on
November 24-25, 2008, and subsequently met in closed session for review of the materials
concerning the accident, discussion, and debate.
A formal report (Expert Panel Review of Helicopter Utilization and Protocols in
Maryland) was issued in February 2009 and contained a number of findings and
recommendations. The report of the Expert Panel praises Maryland’s publicly funded trauma
system as a “long recognized national model” that has “provided the citizens of Maryland with
effective, equitable, and comprehensive access to trauma services.” In addition, the report
indicates that survival outcomes for trauma patients in Maryland meet or exceed the national
norm and cautions that changes made to the current system of triage should not compromise this
Nevertheless, the report also contains a number of recommendations intended to improve
the State’s EMS System. Those recommendations include:
•      establishment of a task force by the EMS Board to determine the optimal number and
distribution of Medevac helicopter assets based on population, geography and current
location and capabilities of existing hospitals;
•      accreditation of MSPAC by the Commission for Accreditation of Medical Transport
Systems (CAMTS);
•      compliance with Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Air
Ambulance Operations Specifications;
•      continuation of MIEMSS’ comprehensive and prospective evaluation of the recent
modifications to the triage process, examining over-triage, under-triage, secondary triage,
time-to-definitive-care, and patient outcomes;
•      comparative analysis of the current indicators of helicopter transport on an ongoing basis;
•      movement toward a system that emphasizes time-driven critical care goals;
10                                                                  Department of Legislative Services
•      utilization review of pre-hospital transport to ensure compliance with established triage
process and criteria; and
•      enhanced oversight of helicopter utilization and compliance with published triage criteria.
Many of the recommendations of the Expert Panel are echoed by the workgroup in this
report and a recommendation for monitoring MIEMSS’ overall response to the Expert Panel
review is contained herewith.
Helicopter Emergency Medical System (HEMS) Service Delivery Models
The workgroup examined alternative service delivery models, including the current MSP
multi-mission capability; commercial provision of scene transports; and a hybrid approach under
which MSP would operate bases while a commercial carrier would provide leased helicopters,
pilots, and maintenance.
Maryland State Police Multi-mission Model
One area of focus for the workgroup related to whether the current multi-mission role of
MSP was the most efficient use of resources. Under current practice, MSP operates a fleet of
11 helicopters at seven bases (previously, 12 helicopters at eight bases before the
September 2008 crash) that are used for accident scene transports, inter-hospital transports
(IHTs), law enforcement, search and rescue, and homeland security. Effective July 2009, MSP
will also absorb the mission of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) aviation unit. The
advantages of the multi-mission method of service delivery include the following:
•      Operational: Pilots and mechanics are only required to learn to operate and service one
type of helicopter. Operations, instruments, and procedures are essentially the same
which improves safety and limits the amount of training necessary;
•      Logistical: Multiple parts inventories are not needed; and
•      Interoperability: One helicopter can be used for multiple purposes without the need to
deploy additional resources. For example, a mission could accommodate a search and
rescue purpose and immediately lead to a medical evacuation to a trauma center.
The disadvantage of a single helicopter is cost, as an airframe must be purchased that is
large enough to accommodate all mission types. A larger helicopter is more expensive to
purchase and to operate.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                  11
Alternatively, the State could choose to operate up to three different types of helicopters
specific to law enforcement, medical scene transport and inter-hospital transports, and search and
rescue. The purchase and operational costs of three differently sized helicopters is much lower
than under the multi-mission model.
The workgroup reviewed the work of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which
prepared an analysis in 1995 of U.S. Army Helicopter Programs at the request of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services. This review examined the multi-mission requirements of the
army’s helicopter fleet, which included attack, reconnaissance, support or utility, and medium
lift. CBO noted that “The multiple types of aircraft in the helicopter fleet saddle the army with a
significant logistics burden…An aviation unit such as an attack battalion might have three
different types of helicopters that it must operate and maintain, which complicates the repair
skills and spare parts that each battalion must maintain.”
To address these logistical problems, the army adopted an Aviation Restructuring
Initiative in 1993. This initiative was designed to equip each unit with only one type of
helicopter, and thus reduce the logistics burden imposed by the need to maintain more than one
Multi-mission Model – Evaluation
•      Safety: MSP plans to request funding for safety and maintenance upgrades to improve
operations including additional co-pilots, paramedics, and equipment to ensure
compliance with CAMTS and FAA Part 135 regulations. MSP flew nearly 90,000 hours
without a reportable NTSB accident prior to September 2008.
•      Cost: The fiscal 2010 MSPAC budget totals approximately $24 million, $19 million of
which is in special funds from the MEMSOF.
•      Coverage: Geographic coverage of the entire State is provided for scene transport, law
enforcement, and other missions. MSP provides most scene transports and a limited
number of IHTs that largely focus on neo-natal and continuation of mission transports.
Privatized Service Delivery Model
Under commercial provision, all HEMS scene transport and IHTs would be provided by
the private sector using private sector assets including helicopters, pilots, maintenance personnel,
flight paramedics, and bases. MSP would continue to require six smaller helicopters at four
bases to provide statewide law enforcement services.
12                                                               Department of Legislative Services
Privatized Service Delivery Model – Evaluation
•     Safety: Commercial carriers are required to comply with FAA Part 135 regulations
currently. Of concern is the NTSB finding that over 200 EMS helicopter crashes
occurred over the last 20 years, with most service provided commercially. Smaller
helicopters used by commercial carriers for scene transport are flown by one pilot.
•     Cost: Citizens would bear the full cost of Medevac operations through direct billing
(offset by insurance reimbursement), although savings could be realized by reducing
motor vehicle registration surcharges currently directed to MSPAC. Ongoing MSPAC
costs would approximate $15 million to operate four bases and six helicopters for law
•     Coverage: Fewer flights occur in more rural areas of Maryland, which may not be
commercially profitable. Coverage is likely to be targeted in high density areas. MSPAC
may be required to continue to provide scene transports in rural areas. Scene only
commercial aircraft will be smaller than current MSPAC helicopters and will have a
slower response time. Basing MSPAC helicopters in only four regions also reduces
response times based on the amount of area to be covered in responding to a call for
Hybrid Commercial Lease Model
The workgroup heard testimony for an operating model under which the MSPAC would
continue to provide operating bases from which a commercial provider would supply leased
helicopters, pilots, and mechanics.
Hybrid Commercial Lease Model – Evaluation
•     Safety: Commercial carriers currently comply with more restrictive FAA Part 135
regulations. However, commercial operations only use one pilot.
•     Cost: Using data from a 2006 Maryland Health Care Commission (MHCC) study, a
consultant estimated commercial billings at $8,000 per flight in 2008 dollars. The actual
amount paid by the State is unknown until a contract is negotiated. Federal law likely
prohibits the State from preventing a commercial carrier from balance billing patients.
Added MSPAC costs would be $15 million to operate six helicopters at four bases. In
lieu of one larger airframe, it was also suggested that MSPAC could purchase less costly
helicopters specific to law enforcement purposes and a second helicopter for search- and
rescue-related purposes.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                13
•      Coverage: If the number of HEMS missions were to remain below 2,500, this proposal
would include service at five bases using EC 135 helicopters designed for scene
transports. Coverage in rural areas may not be commercially profitable and is likely to be
targeted in high density areas. Scene-only commercial aircraft will be smaller than
current MSP helicopters and will have a slower response time. MSP may be required to
provide scene transport in rural areas.
The workgroup held a public hearing on February 16, 2009. The hearing provided
members of the public with the opportunity to comment on whether Maryland’s HEMS scene
transport system should remain a public operation or be privatized. Air Methods testified in
support of a hybrid commercial lease model. Several trauma center nurses and physicians
testified in support of Maryland’s current system. The primary basis of their support was that the
current system provides for uniform care and delivery of services which leads to better patient
outcomes. Members of the Maryland Flight Paramedics Association also testified in support of
keeping the public Medevac transport system. PHI Air Medical, a private carrier, submitted
written testimony in support of the current EMS operations.
Exhibit 2 illustrates a comparison of the estimated operating costs of the three service
delivery models using cost data from the current fiscal year, and the impact of each on
MEMSOF and the general fund.
Comparison of Medevac Service Delivery Models Based on Fiscal 2009 Data
MSP Law Enf.
Costs Only if
Medevac Is
MSP Multi-mission             Privatized           MSP Law Enf./Commerical Lease
Number of Commercial Medevac Missions                                                                       1,700                2,500
Number of MSP Helicopters                          12        10           9                6                     6                      6
Number of MSP Bases                                 8         7           6                4                     5                      5
Personnel Costs                                  $14.7    $14.7        $14.7           $12.1                 $12.1               $12.1
CAMTS 40 EMT-Bs                                 2.3      2.0          1.7                                   1.4                 1.4
Part 135 Ongoing Costs                           0.6       0.6         0.6
40 Co-pilots                                     3.0       2.3         1.5
Base Costs                                         1.5       1.3         1.2                                   1.0                 1.0
Helicopter Operating Costs (MSP Only)              7.4       7.4         7.4             2.7                   2.7                 2.7
Operating Savings from New Helicopters          -1.9      -2.8        -3.3
Commercial Lease                                                                         0.0                  13.5                19.9
Subtotal                                         $27.6    $25.5        $23.8           $14.9                 $30.8               $37.2
MEMSOF                                            22.1     20.4         19.1             0.0                  15.9                22.3
General Funds                                      5.5      5.1          4.8            14.9                  14.9                14.9
Department of Legislative Servic
15-year GO Debt + Interest @ $18.5 Million
Per Helicopter                                 $333.0   $277.5       $249.8          $166.5                $166.5              $166.5
Annual Debt Service                              $22.2    $18.5        $16.7           $11.1                 $11.1               $11.1
Total Operating and Capital Cost                 $49.8    $44.0        $40.5           $26.0                 $41.9               $48.3
$ Value of Registration Fee for Aviation Div.     9.48     8.75         8.18            0.00                  6.83                9.57
Savings                                                    0.73         1.30            9.48                  2.65               -0.09
Adjusted Biennial Registration Fee              $22.00   $21.27       $20.70          $12.52                $19.35              $22.09
Number of MSP Pilots Per Helicopter                2.0      2.0          2.0             2.0                   2.0                 2.0
Number of Commercial Pilots Per Helicopter                                               1.0                   1.0                 1.0
CAMTS: Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Services
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup
GO: general obligation
MEMSOF: Maryland Emergency Medical System Operations Fund
Assumes compliance with Part 135 Regulations, addition of co-pilots, and 40 EMT-Bs (CAMTS compliance).
This option represents a philosophical shift under which the patient would pay the full cost of Medevac transport, of which some costs may be funded by
insurance companies. Flight costs vary. A 2006 Maryland Health Care Commission study estimated the cost per flight hour for commercial carriers, which a
consultant has estimated in current dollars at $7,963.
Commercial carrier provides eight helicopters, pilots, and mechanics. MSP funds eight operating bases and medical personnel in support of Medevac
mission. MSP maintains search and rescue, law enforcement, and homeland security missions at four bases (with six helicopters).
Does not include $415,000 in one-time costs to achieve Part 135 compliance.
Debt costs do not include costs for a flight simulator or additional costs for tools or training.
Air Methods representatives indicate that at 1,700 or 2,500 flights, scene transport service would be provided from five operating bases.
Source: Fiscal 2009 MSP Allowance Data; Maryland State Police; Dept of Legislative Services; Integrity Consulting
16                                                                 Department of Legislative Services
Department of State Police Medevac Operations
Since the early 1970s, MSP has operated a system of aircraft to provide emergency
Medevac services and other flight services to the State’s citizens. While funding for Maryland’s
EMS System is provided from a variety of State, local, and volunteer sources, annual State
budget support for EMS is provided from the MEMSOF. Special funds from MEMSOF support
Medevac and search and rescue functions, and general funds support law enforcement and
homeland security functions. Currently, 80% of MSPAC’s operations are financed via
MEMSOF, and the remaining 20% is financed via the State’s general fund. This ratio is based
on the number of Medevac flights to non-medically related flights.
Current Helicopter Fleet
Medevac operations began in Maryland with a limited fleet of single engine Bell “Jet
Ranger” helicopters. A 1986 crash involving one of these helicopters prompted a review and the
recommendation to upgrade and expand the fleet. The first of MSPAC’s current fleet was
purchased in 1989. The fleet consists of three models of aircraft, several of which have been
modified to meet the latest models specifications. For almost 10 years, MSPAC operated with a
fleet of 12 helicopters and 2 fixed winged aircraft. As a result of the 2008 helicopter accident,
MSPAC now operates with 11 helicopters. The department’s rigorous maintenance schedule and
the retrofits of many of the original models have contributed to a longer than expected lifespan
for certain aspects of the fleet.
MSPAC to Assume Department of Natural Resources Aviation Division
The fiscal 2010 budget deletes funding and related positions for DNR Aviation Division.
In February 2009, DNR and MSPAC entered into a memorandum of understanding whereby
MSPAC agreed to provide support services to DNR for aerial search and rescue as well as law
enforcement. DNR conducted a total of 943 flights between fiscal 2004 and 2008, of which,
689, or 73%, were search and rescue, homeland security, or law-enforcement-related. During the
same four-year time period, approximately 128, or 14%, of DNR’s flights comprised support
missions such as wildlife surveys. DNR advised the workgroup that beginning in fiscal 2010,
support missions will be conducted via a private contractor.
MSPAC Audit
An August 2008 performance audit conducted by OLA disclosed a number of issues
pertaining to the efficiency and effectiveness of MSPAC’s operations. Particularly, OLA noted
that MSPAC’s ability to make informed decisions about Medevac availability and maintenance
was severely hampered by the lack of reliable and comprehensive data systems needed to
manage, track, and assess critical aspects of its operations. The audit also highlighted MSPAC’s
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                               17
While issues such as the replacement of the fleet and protocols used by emergency
responders to request Medevac flights were excluded from the scope of the audit, issues such as
the use and availability of the fleet and the effectiveness and efficiency of MSPAC’s
maintenance and inspection operations were evaluated by OLA. Several of the report’s key
•      Helicopter Use and Availability: OLA found that helicopters were used primarily for the
State’s critical missions (e.g., Medevac), and other uses did not appear to impact
availability. According to OLA, approximately 97% of MSPAC’s missions over the
five-year period evaluated pertained to critical missions. While the audit noted that
helicopter use was appropriate, OLA noted that the database used to track downtime by
section was unreliable. Several of the entries tested did not agree with source documents.
Additionally, downtime was not tracked by helicopter. OLA estimated that for 51 days
during fiscal 2007, less than eight helicopters were in service.
•      Maintenance Operations: While the audit noted that helicopter inspections were
conducted at proper time intervals, the costs for helicopter operations were not tracked
separately nor were actual labor hours spent on helicopter inspections and repairs.
Additionally, no formal process existed for determining whether an outside vendor
should be used for more comprehensive inspections, such as T inspections (required
every 600 flight hours). Lastly, the audit indicated that available features of MSPAC’s
automated inventory system were not used to ensure that critical parts were on hand to
•      Personnel Staffing and Training: According to OLA, given MSPAC’s comprehensive
mission profile and current staffing, the organizational structure appeared to be
reasonable. However, the audit noted that turnover in key management positions
appeared to result in a lack of leadership continuity. Additionally, turnover and overtime
costs for non-management staff pilots and technicians had increased over the five-year
period evaluated. Low salaries and limited advancement opportunities for civilian pilots
and technicians were cited as among the causes for the high turnover. Lastly, OLA noted
that position vacancies have contributed to the command’s overtime expenditures.
•      Golden Hour Managing for Results: The report noted that actual statistics measured by
OLA revealed that the golden hour measure being tracked by MSPAC did not represent
the commonly understood definition of the “Golden Hour,” which is the “time between
the occurrence of the accident to patient delivery at a trauma center.” As such, the
measure tracked by MSPAC should be revised to reflect the measure being tracked by the
command “which is the time between dispatch and patient delivery to a hospital.”
18                                                                    Department of Legislative Services
MSPAC reports that it has taken several measures to address OLA’s audit findings.
Particularly, MSPAC has created a Maintenance Quality Assurance Section to provide oversight
of completed maintenance work. The section is also responsible for conducting internal audits at
regular intervals. Additionally, the department has created several positions to provide
additional staff oversight such as a director of maintenance, chief pilot, and director of operations
position. Lastly, MSPAC reports that its maintenance software system is now being utilized to
its full capabilities to track and store information pertaining to parts and employee labor costs.
Independent Review of Health Emergency Medical Services Programs
Expert Panel Reviews Maryland Medevac System
As discussed earlier in this report, following the September 2008 crash of Trooper 2,
MIEMSS convened an Expert Panel to review EMS protocols and helicopter utilization. Several
of the Expert Panel’s recommendations pertaining to helicopter safety are summarized below.
Regulations and Standards for HEMS Programs
HEMS regulations and standards are a combination of federal (air) and State (medical
transport) requirements with additional voluntary best practice standards articulated by the
CAMTS. FAA governs all of civilian aviation including public use of aircraft. HEMS
regulations are governed primarily in three areas: Part 91 (General Aviation), Part 135
(Commercial Air Taxi), and Part 145 maintenance facilities. Because Maryland does not charge
its patients for Medevac services, MSPAC currently operates under Part 91 of the General
Aviation requirements. In general, Part 135 are more restrictive than that of Part 91 in a series of
areas such as weather minimums and maintenance and documentation requirements.
As the NTSB has recommended that all HEMS patient-related flights be conducted under
Part 135, the Expert Panel also recommended that MSPAC operate under Part 135 standards.
The Expert Panel recognized that a recent audit of MSPAC indicated that the command had
voluntarily adopted a number of Part 135 requirements.
CAMTS is dedicated to improving the quality of patient care and the safety of the
transport services for rotor wing, fixed wing, and ground transportation systems. CAMTS
accreditation is a program of voluntary compliance with standards that demonstrate the ability of
providers to deliver service of a specific quality. In general, while a number of states require
CAMTS accreditation, these standards substantially exceed minimum State licensing
requirements. According to the report, 40% of the medical flight programs in the United States
and Canada are accredited by CAMTS. Significant to the discussions of the Expert Panel in the
review of Maryland’s HEMS were the CAMTS requirement for two medical crew providers and
the incorporation of critical care into the system. While CAMTS accreditation is voluntary and
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                   19
will require significant changes to MSPAC operations, the Expert Panel contends that MSPAC’s
medical operations to patients will be substantially enhanced by the adoption of the self-imposed
CAMTS requirements. The Expert Panel noted that MIEMSS and MSPAC have already taken
steps to evaluate this option.
NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report on emergency medical services operations in
January 2006. The report involved the analysis of all EMS-related aviation accidents that
occurred nationwide from January 2002 through January 2005. During that time period, there
were a total of 55 accidents that occurred; 41 helicopters and 14 airplanes. These accidents
killed 54 people and seriously injured 19. An NTSB analysis of the accidents indicated that 29
of the 55 accidents could have been prevented with corrective actions, including oversight, flight
risk evaluations, improved dispatch procedures, and the incorporation of available technologies.
As a result of the report, NTSB issued several recommendations to FAA.                    The
•      requiring all emergency medical services operators to comply with Part 135
•      requiring all EMS operators to develop and implement flight risk evaluation programs
that include training all employees involved in the operation, procedures that support the
systematic evaluation of flight risks, and consultation with others trained in EMS flight
operations if the risks reach a predefined level;
•      requiring EMS operations to use formalized dispatch and flight-following procedures that
include up-to-date weather information and assistance in flight risk assessment decisions;
•      requiring EMS operators to install terrain awareness and warning systems on their aircraft
and to provide adequate training to ensure that flight crews are capable of using the
systems to safely conduct EMS operations.
MSPAC Update on the Implementation of NTSB Recommendations
MSPAC recently requested, and received approval, from the EMS Board for Part 135
certification and additional safety equipment recommended by NTSB. MSPAC reports that while
the command has a flight risk evaluation matrix, it is in the process of implementing an interactive,
computer-based Flight Risk Evaluation Program that all pilots will be required to complete prior to
each mission. Lastly, MSPAC reports that the command already utilizes formal dispatch and flight
following procedures at Systems Communication (SYSCOM). In accordance with an FAA
20                                                                  Department of Legislative Services
advisory circular, all SYSCOM duty officers were recently trained and certified as Flight
MSPAC Safety Enhancements
As a safety measure, MSPAC recently requested funding from the EMS board for new
equipment (e.g., night vision imaging systems, terrain awareness warning systems, and a flight
simulator). Additionally, MSPAC requested funding to begin the initial hiring of Medevac
co-pilots. MSPAC reports that hiring an additional pilot will substantially increase the safety of
each Medevac flight. While EMS has approved MSPAC’s request for new safety equipment, the
request to add an additional pilot to each flight is still under review.
Fiscal Impact of Suggested Recommendations
In order to achieve CAMTS accreditation, MSPAC must be Part 135 certified and operate
with two medical crew members per flight. As previously mentioned, MSPAC currently
operates under Part 91 of the FAA regulations and with only one medical care provider per
flight. In order to achieve Part 135 certification, MSPAC estimates that it will cost a total of
$415,000 in one-time costs and $645,000 in ongoing costs to achieve and maintain the
certification. MSPAC recently received approval from the EMS Board to make the changes
necessary to be in compliance with Part 135 and is awaiting a determination regarding CAMTS
accreditation. MSPAC estimates that it would cost an additional $2.3 million to hire 40
additional paramedics. Eighty percent of the costs for Part 135 certification and CAMTS
accreditation would be allocated to the MEMSOF.
MSPAC recently requested funding from the EMS Board to purchase new equipment and
to hire up to 40 additional co-pilots. The total cost for these two additional enhancements is
estimated to total approximately $3.6 million. Again, 80% of these costs would also be allocated
to the MEMSOF.
The Future Viability of MEMSOF
The source of revenue for MEMSOF is an $11 annual surcharge on motor vehicle
registrations. In addition to financing the medically oriented functions of MSPAC, MEMSOF
provides funding for the following components of Maryland’s EMS program: MIEMSS; the R
Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center; MFRI; grants to local jurisdictions for the purchase of fire
and rescue equipment and capital building improvements via the Senator William H. Amoss
Fire, Rescue, and Ambulance Fund; and grants and loans to volunteer fire, rescue, and
ambulance companies for the purchase, replacement, or improvement of fire fighting and rescue
equipment or facilities via the Volunteer Company Assistance Fund.
Since the motor vehicle registration fee revenues are not sensitive to inflation, periodic
revenue enhancements and/or alternative revenue sources are needed to keep MEMSOF viable.
At the request of Delegate Dan K. Morhaim, the workgroup received an Attorney General’s
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                           21
opinion regarding the legality of third-party billing should MSPAC become Part 135 certified,
including whether the State could limit such billings to only insurance companies.
HEMS Coverage
According to the final report of the Expert Panel, there are a number of unique
characteristics in Maryland’s HEMS as compared with other areas of the country, including the
organization, coverage, tasking, staffing, and funding of air medical services. MSPAC’s model
is unique to the country as the only statewide and state provided HEMS system.
Maryland is a relatively small State with a mixed urban and rural population. The State
encompasses a very mixed geography and demographic density. Geographic considerations and
rural, low population areas are important components in the need for air medical services.
Exhibit 3 shows a list of the seven bases from which MSPAC currently operates.
According to the Expert Panel report, as evidenced by short flight time durations,
Maryland has ready access to medical helicopters with a significant number of private and public
carriers as back-up transport. While the Expert Panel did not make a specific recommendation
regarding the number of helicopters required in Maryland, the Expert Panel noted that a variety
of factors, including geography, population, and flight trends should be considered when
selecting the number of helicopters for EMS in Maryland.
List and Locations of State Police Helicopter Bases
Operating Base                              Location
1.   Baltimore Section                     Baltimore County
2.   Washington Section                    Prince George’s County
3.   Frederick Section                     Frederick County
4.   Salisbury Section                     Wicomico County
5.   Cumberland Section                    Allegany County
6.   Centreville Section                   Queen Anne’s County
7.   Southern Maryland Section             St. Mary’s County
Note: An eighth base, the Norwood section in Montgomery County, was operated until the helicopter accident in
22                                                                        Department of Legislative Services
Helicopter Base Alignment Study
A helicopter deployment study was conducted by SMART Business Advisory and
Consulting, LLC, (SMART) to review the number and distribution of helicopters and bases
throughout Maryland. The report, as summarized below, was released in February 2009.
In order to build an assessment model, SMART utilized key performance indicators that
would provide a framework to compare how modifications in base numbers, locations, and
helicopter quantities would affect how the State would achieve certain goals. In doing so,
SMART evaluated key indicators such as geographic, population, and call density coverage
across the State as well as scene transport response times.
A key component of the assessment was the helicopter coverage radius that would
provide the best opportunity to meet MSPAC’s goal of transporting a patient to the hospital
within 60 minutes from the receipt of a dispatch for Medevac transport. In reviewing flight data,
SMART determined that this goal has the best opportunity to be accomplished if the “response
time to patient” was within 25 minutes of dispatch. As shown in Exhibit 4, when MSPAC’s
response time exceeded 25 to 30 minutes, the percentage of missions that were completed within
the 60 minute goal fell to 72 and 46%, respectively.
MSPAC 60 Minute to Hospital Goal
Percent of Time 60-minute
Response Time to Patient                                   Goal Is Achieved
Less than 15 minutes                                              96.4%
Between 15 and 20 minutes                                         94.2%
Between 20 and 25 minutes                                         92.0%
Between 25 and 30 minutes                                         72.0%
Over 30 minutes                                                   46.0%
MSPAC: Maryland State Police Aviation Command’s
Source: Maryland State Police Aviation Command Helicopter Trooper Base Assessment February 18, 2009
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                          23
Utilizing both the 25-minute response time and a projected helicopter speed of 130 knots,
SMART developed multiple base coverage scenarios as shown in Exhibit 5. According to
SMART, the optimal base alignment option comprises scenarios 3 and 5. As shown in
Exhibit 6, under either scenario, the amount of overlap is minimized while maintaining nearly
100% of the State’s population and call density coverage.
Geographic Coverage Options
Scenario         Bases           Helicopters                              Description
1                8                  12        Operate all eight sections.
2                8                  11        Operate all eight sections and remove one helicopter.
3                7                  10        Discontinue Norwood section.
4                6                    9       Discontinue Washington and Norwood sections.
5                6                    9       Discontinue Washington and Norwood sections and move
the location of Southern Maryland section.
6                5                    7       Discontinue Washington, Cumberland, and Norwood
7                4                    6       Discontinue Washington, Cumberland, Norwood, and
Salisbury sections.
24                                                                        Department of Legislative Services
Population       Call Density      a Hospital (within
Scenario            Geographic Coverage                     Covered          Coverage            60 Minutes)
Double          Triple
Single        Overlap        Overlap
1        97.7%            48.1%          8.8%             99.1%              98.3%               92.7%
2        97.7%            48.1%            8.8            99.1%              98.3%               92.7%
3        97.7%            37.5%          1.5%             99.1%              98.3%               91.6%
4        94.8%            17.1%          0.0%             91.6%              93.8%               87.7%
5        97.5%            17.1%          0.2%             98.4%              98.5%               89.9%
6        86.0%            17.1%          0.0%             88.5%              92.1%               87.1%
7        72.5%            15.8%          0.0%             80.5%              85.3%               83.7%
It should be noted that the SMART report’s analysis of geographic coverage does not
take into account the amount of time that elapses from the time an accident occurs until the time
that MSPAC is dispatched from SYSCOM. This factor is important since the true measure of
the “golden hour” is the hour between injury and delivery of a patient to a trauma center. If the
amount of time that elapses from the time an accident occurs until dispatch of MSPAC were to
be taken into account, the geographic coverage radius would be diminished, thereby reducing the
amount of overlap present in the SMART analysis.
Strategic Plan for Helicopter Replacement
Exhibit 7 shows when each model was purchased and, where appropriate, when the
model was upgraded to new standards. The life expectancy of the airframes was not certain
when originally purchased; therefore, beginning in the late 1990s, a number of studies were
requested to address the cost, timing, and financing for replacing the fleet. The latest study
prepared by MSPAC was submitted to the legislature on June 1, 2006.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                             25
Medevac Helicopter Models
Year Purchased                 Model        Retrofit Date
1989                   N-1*
1989                    N-1
1989                  N-1M        February 2003
1989                  N-1M        November 2000
1989                  N-1M        October 2002
1990                  N-1M        June 2001
1990                  N-1M        May 2002
1990                  N-1M        November 2001
1994                    N-2
1999                    N-3
*Helicopter is no longer in use due to accident.
The fiscal 2006 capital budget directed MSP and other EMS-related entities to prepare a
report on helicopter replacement. Due to delays, the fiscal 2007 budget also requested a report
on the schedule of replacement and a financing plan. The report recommended replacing all
12 helicopters, maximizing trade-in value by beginning replacement in fiscal 2009. After a
20-year service life, trade-in values drop. Having one airframe also reduces hours for training
pilots and mechanics, can circumvent maintenance overlap problems, and reduce the need for
multiple parts, and safer operations due to standardized emergency procedures.
The General Assembly and the Governor provided funding to replace the existing fleet in
the 2007 special legislative session. Chapter 6 of the 2007 special session provided that a
portion ($110 million) of the revenues from the increased sales and use tax in fiscal 2008 be
directed to the State Police Helicopter Replacement Fund (SPHRF). Chapter 6 also expressed
the intent of the General Assembly that the Governor include sufficient expenditures from the
fund to purchase three helicopters per year from fiscal 2009 to 2012. However, the Spending
Mandate and Revenue Dedication Relief Act of 2008 (Chapter 414 of 2008) modified Chapter 6
to dedicate $50 million, rather than $110 million, to the SPHRF. To replace this funding,
26                                                                  Department of Legislative Services
Chapter 414 also required the Governor to include a total of $70 million for the purchase of
Medevac helicopters in the fiscal 2010, 2011, and 2012 State budgets. These funds may be from
any budgetary fund that receives sales and use tax, and appropriations may be reduced by the
amount of capital debt that may be authorized for helicopters or by any contribution, transfer, or
financing acquired from the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund as authorized by Act of the
The General Assembly’s desire to replace the fleet was further evidenced during the
2008 legislative session when the legislature approved funding to procure the first installment of
three Medevac helicopters. However, due to budget constraints, the Budget Reconciliation and
Financing Act of 2009 authorizes the transfer of this funding to the general fund. In lieu of these
funds, the fiscal 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $40.0 million in general
obligation (GO) bonds for the purchase of two Medevac helicopters. The Administration’s plan
calls for the purchase of eight helicopters to replace MSPAC’s aging fleet between fiscal 2010
and 2014. However, this plan was developed in the absence of any additional information on the
effect that the basing study would have on the total number of helicopters to purchase. It should
be noted that the use of GO bonds is consistent with the recommendation of a joint legislative
committee formed in 2003. Chapter 385 of 2003 created the Joint Legislative Committee to
Study and Make Recommendations about the Structure and Funding of the State’s Emergency
Medical Response System. The committee consisted of four members of the Senate of
Maryland, appointed by the President, and four members of the House of Delegates, appointed
by the Speaker of the House. The final report of the committee was issued in January 2005 and
recommends “the use of GO bonds to finance the replacement of the helicopters.”
A RFP for helicopter acquisition was issued on January 30, 2009. Prior to issuing the
RFP, the Administration considered a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul of the
existing Dauphin helicopters. However, the Administration determined that the SLEP Program
was not cost effective, particularly since the State would continue to operate airframes that
exceed 20 years of use. According to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the
department leading the procurement effort, the RFP response deadline has been extended until
mid-April 2009. The current RFP provides for the purchase of up to 12 helicopters and
addresses safety needs for additional equipment (e.g., terrain awareness and night vision
imaging) and items such as a flight simulator.
It is anticipated that four major manufacturers (e.g., Sikorsky, Bell, AgustaWestland, and
Eurocopter) are likely to submit proposals. MDOT recently advised the workgroup that an
amended RFP will include the option to lease/purchase the helicopters.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                                 27
The continuation of scene transport by Medevac helicopter requires policymakers to
examine several decision points, many of which are articulated above. In addition to the
aforementioned, the following RFP concerns should also be noted:
•      The Replacement Time Frame Is Critical: Chapter 6 of the 2007 special session
expressed the intent that the State purchases three helicopters per year over a four-year
time frame to avoid purchasing more than one version of the helicopter. The legislature
expressed the intent that three ships be bought per year to avoid the problems experienced
with the current fleet. As shown in the CIP, the out-year plan would include the purchase
of eight helicopters over a six-year period. This is potentially problematic if the selected
manufacturer produces more than one version during the procurement period.
•      The Helicopter Base Alignment Study Requires Modification: As previously
mentioned, the SMART analysis does not take into account the amount of time that
elapses from the time an accident occurs until the time that MSPAC is dispatched from
SYSCOM. This data must be factored into the analysis in order to truly assess the
amount of system overlap and geographic coverage across the State. Additionally, the
study does not account for MSPAC’s assumption of DNR missions, including how the
additional missions would impact the use and availability of the helicopters.
•      Helicopter Maintenance Must Be Addressed in the Future: In light of OLA’s 2008
audit findings, the workgroup was particularly interested in ongoing helicopter
maintenance and to what extent helicopter maintenance was a component of the current
RFP. The workgroup has been advised by MDOT that helicopter maintenance will be
considered through a separate RFP once the helicopter manufacturer has been selected for
reasons that include the following: (1) the maintenance decision is an operations decision
that is based on criteria other than the purchase of the helicopter and is likely to include
consideration as to whether maintenance should be conducted in-house versus
outsourcing, or perhaps some combination thereof; and (2) whether maintenance should
be done internally or externally has not been fully vetted by all of the relevant parties in
an effort to determine what impact either alternative would have on the operations of
MSPAC. The workgroup has been advised that helicopter maintenance options could
include a variety of alternatives ranging from a simple exchange of defective parts to a
comprehensive repair and maintenance plan with a guaranteed turnaround time.
28                                                               Department of Legislative Services
The workgroup concluded its work on March 9, 2009, and adopted the following
EMS System Governance and Protocols
The Governor should move to fill expired terms on the EMS Board. Members appointed
to the EMS Board should have the required experience to represent the specific career fields
required under statute. Each board member must be a highly qualified professional and must be
motivated to hold the executive director accountable for the operation of MIEMSS. Due
diligence must be performed by the board in its nomination and appointment of a qualified
Protocol Changes/Expert Panel Recommendations
MIEMSS should respond to the findings of the Expert Panel regarding triage protocols
and helicopter utilization. Its response should include an analysis of national perspectives on
best practices. MIEMSS should report its efforts to the Legislative Joint EMS Oversight
Committee recommended below.
MIEMSS Budget
In its review of the fiscal 2011 budget allowance of MIEMSS, the workgroup requests
the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) to review and make recommendations to House
and Senate budget committees regarding:
•      the number of State vehicles provided to MIEMSS employees and whether the allocation
•      the number of media/public relations positions within MIEMSS and whether those
positions are necessary and serve the best interests of the system.
Trauma Hospital System
MHCC, in cooperation with MIEMSS, should review and evaluate the network of trauma
and specialty referral centers and develop recommendations to improve the current
configuration. Specifically, the report should include recommendations regarding the possible
addition of new trauma centers and/or consolidation of existing trauma centers where
overlapping services exist.
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                              29
Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Delivery
Maryland State Police Multi-mission Capability
The workgroup endorses the continued multi-mission capability of the Maryland State
Police. Use of one helicopter mirrors the trend in the U.S. military to address the logistical
problems caused by having multiple types of helicopters to be operated and maintained.
Moreover, a single helicopter that can accomplish multiple types of missions, such as when a
search and rescue mission then requires a medical evacuation, makes the most efficient use of
Emergent Scene Transport Backup
MSP should continue to coordinate with U.S. Park Police, other states, and commercial
carriers to provide backup scene transport when necessary.
The workgroup finds that the commercial provision of IHTs continues to be appropriate,
although MSP should continue to provide neo-natal IHTs given its unique ability to provide this
Maryland State Police Medevac Helicopters and Bases
The workgroup supports purchase of multi-mission helicopters by MSP due to the
efficiencies this creates. Further the workgroup supports the DLS recommendation and previous
legislative recommendation that the State purchase three helicopters annually beginning in
fiscal 2010, until fleet replacement is complete based on final recommendations for the number
of bases and helicopters to be operated.
MSPAC should immediately pursue CFR Part 135 certification and obtain safety
equipment including (1) night vision capability; (2) Emergency Locator Transmitters; (3) Terrain
Awareness Warning Systems; and (4) a flight simulator for training. MSP testified that the
purchase and use of a flight simulator would save nearly $700,000 annually; therefore, the
workgroup recommends that the purchase of these immediate safety upgrades be funded through
the savings obtained through simulator training versus in-air training.
30                                                                  Department of Legislative Services
MSP should also immediately implement a Flight Risk Evaluation Program to assess all
risks prior to making a flight decision, including review of distance, weather conditions, day vs.
night operations, and pilot qualifications, as well as formal dispatch and flight following
procedures to ensure continuous monitoring and communication with EMS flight, weather
Recognizing the safety improvements inherent in the provision of additional trooper
paramedics and co-pilots, the workgroup recommends that funding for CAMTS Accreditation
and new co-pilots be phased in over a multi-year process to coincide with the delivery of new
helicopters beginning in fiscal 2011 as funding permits.
Updated Base Study
A preliminary basing study demonstrated that a degree of mission overlap exists. While
additional data is required to make a definitive decision, the workgroup finds that for future
basing purposes statewide coverage can eventually be provided with a maximum of seven bases
and 10 helicopters. By December 1, 2010, MIEMSS, in consultation with MSP, should provide
formal recommendations on the number of bases and helicopters necessary to provide statewide
EMS coverage. Recommendations should be based on data collected over a two-year period
from the time of the September 2008 accident, the implementation of new triage protocols, and
the impact of any changes to the existing trauma hospital network. A better measure of response
time should be developed beginning at time of accident rather than at the time of field call for
By October 1, 2009, MSP should evaluate a variety of service delivery options for fleet
maintenance including in-house as is currently the case and the possible outsourcing of some or
all maintenance functions. MSP should also implement all OLA audit findings with respect to
improving and addressing maintenance deficiencies. Irrespective of the maintenance delivery
model, the State’s Medevac system should utilize state-of-the-art maintenance software and
inventory/parts management procedures.
Establish a Legislative Joint EMS Oversight Committee
Issues related to the emergency medical system in the State of Maryland are wide ranging
and complex. The workgroup recommends the formation of a Legislative Joint EMS Oversight
Committee to continue to monitor and provide input regarding helicopter fleet replacement and
implementation of safety upgrades and reforms in response to the September crash of Trooper 2
and the 2008 MSP Maintenance Audit. This committee should be in effect during the term of the
helicopter procurement. The joint oversight committee should be charged with the following:
Report of the House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup                         31
System Governance and Protocols
•      review annual protocol changes for EMS field providers and ensure that training and
examination requirements are adequate;
•      review efforts by MIEMSS to address recommendations of the Expert Panel;
•      receive MHCC/MIEMSS trauma center report;
•      receive a report from MIEMSS on modifications to the E-MAIS or the next generation
system, particularly modifications that promote analysis of system performance; and
•      receive annual report of MIEMSS.
Maryland State Police Medevac Program
•      monitor the procurement helicopter procurement;
•      monitor ongoing safety improvements including pursuit of CFR Part 135 compliance;
CAMTS certification; equipment upgrades; addition of co-pilots; and compliance with
NTSB recommendations (October 2008 and those resulting February 2009 public
hearings on HEMS), flight risk evaluation, and flight following procedures;
•      receive the updated base study from MIEMSS/MSP; and
•      receive MSP maintenance study.
•      examine long-term viability of MEMSOF and develop long- term financing plan for
Org Chart- Key MIEMSS Personnel
and Council Support
Chief Admin Oftrcer &amp;              MIEMSS
Pergonnel Director
Robet Oubans.ky
RobenBass. A{D.FACEP               EHS medlcar Dtroctor ll
Erecuuve Ctrector               EH3 Acrornrlic3&#39; Dlfoctor
RrCFt.&#39;{t At?O&#39;Te. IFO
gtlL,tg FtOc9afe, MO
- iE+is
-(cDAC)                                                                                             i$TiEFi
SYSCOtYt                                                                                     $boke
EMRC                                                                                      Prcgnmt
,a.ro!Frlrrrli                                                                              .r3hrr i&#39;(\ttlg
iPEi{FCl                           I
Fe&#39;&#39;n;t.rr
{GEMSACI
Pr:gnrn
r:.ri. A.i;ey
lcAsAcl
R*garr&#39;,&#39;
*l;nr *brrer
Maryland Medical Protocols                                                                                              When in doubt,take patientto an appropriate
Ma                        for
lnstitute E                               Medical
D CCS lessthan or equalto 8 or SystolicBP lessthan 90 (Adult) lessthan 60 (Peds) Respiratoryrate lessthan l0 or greater than29
I Pelvicfracture                                                                  D Penetrating
injuries to head,neck,or torso
tr Rapidly decliningGCS                                                                                                   (spine)
D Paralysis                                                                       D Open or depressed
D 2 or more proximal long-bonefractures
Transport to Trauma Center or Specialty Center per protocol; alert trauma team; consider helicopter                                                                                                      Assessfor other injuries.
transport if quicker and of clinical benefit (refer to ll GPC I).
trccss-rl                                                                                                                                          O Crush. degloved, or mangled extremitv
E Paralysior vascular ompromise f limb
s                                                                                                                                        E Penetrating                     proximal to elbow or knee
D A m p u t a t i o np r o x i m a lt o w r i s t o r a n k l e                                                                                    fl Combinationtrauma with burns
Evaluate evidenceof mechanism iniurv
Transport TraumaCenter Specialty
to             or           Centerper protocol; alerttraumateam;consider                                                                                                                                impact.
and high-energy
transport quickerand of clinicalbenefit
helicopter       if                            (referto ll GPC0.
tr High-risk auto crash                                                                                                                                         D Rolloverwithout restraint
. I n t r u s i o ng r e a t e rt h a n l 2 i n . o c c u p a n s i t e ;g r e a t e rt h a n l 8 i n . a n y s i t e
t                                                                                           D Auto v. pedestrian/bicyclist                                  (20
thrown, run over, or with significant mph)
. Ejection(partial or complete)                    from vehicle                                                                                                 impact
. Deathin samepassenger                    compartment
. V e h i c l e e l e m e t r y a t ac o n s i s t e n t i t h h i g h r i s k o f i n j u r y                                                              f,l Motorcyclecrashgreaterthan 20 mph
t               d                       w
D Fallsgreaterthan 3 times patient&#39;sheight                                                                                                                      fl Exposureto blastor explosion
Transport traumacenter;alerttraumateam.Patients
to                                                                    within a 30-minute             cirive   time of the closest          appropriate
traumb/specialty        centershallgo by groundunlessthereare extenuating                                      circumstances.           Receiving      TraumaCenter                                                       for
Evaluate other considerations.
l                                                                                                                                  l                             ll
w ih e t h e r h e l i c o p t e r t r a n s p i sro f c l i n i c ab e n e f i t ( r e f e r t o G P C I ) .
M e d i c aC o n s u l i a t i o n r e q u i r e d w h 6 r i c o n s i d e r n g                                         o t
D Age lessthan 5 or greaterthan 55                                                                                                                                                             go
E Burns without trauma mechanism to burn center
D Patientwith bleedingdisorder or patienton anticoagulants                                                                                                     C Pregnancygreaterthan 20 weeks
O Dialysis patient                                                                                                                                             O EMS provider judgment
Consider medical direction and transport to trauma center. Patients within a 30-minute drive tiqre of the closest appropriate
t r a u m a / s p e c i a l t vc e n t e r s h a l l q o b y g r o u n d u n l e s s t h e r e a r e e x t e n u a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . R e c e i v i n g T r a u m a C e n t e r M e d i c a l               Transport according to protocol.
Consultaiion rebuiredwhen consiileling whether helicoptertransport is of clinical benefit (refer to ll GPC l).
House Emergency Medical Services System Workgroup Report, emergency medical services, Emergency medical, fire department, medevac helicopter, Work Group, emergency medical technicians, Emergency Medical Services System, ambulance service, medical personnel
County of Santa Clara Emergency Medical Services System Medical Liability on a Medical Emergency
California Emergency Medical Services Information System
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDING - BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF KERN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ILLINOIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN