First aid squads and some local governing bodies have been urging Gov. Jon Corzine to leave a $4 million training fund intact so that volunteer emergency medical technicians do not have to pay for their own training.
The Sayreville Borough Council approved a resolution recently that urges Corzine to continue funding EMT training in part because it is supported by traffic fines and not tax money. The proposed reallocation of the $4 million to the general treasury alarmed area EMTs, who said the move could significantly harm the EMS system.
Dave Josselyn, a first aid squad member in Old Bridge, is among the first aid members who have raised concerns about the loss of the EMT training fund. However, the volunteer ambulance driver said he inquired with state Senate President Richard J. Codey regarding this issue and received a letter back assuring him that funds would be made available for the training.
“It’s going to be a little bit less money available, but it’s supposedly adequate,” Josselyn said.
Josselyn said that he wants to undergo EMT training again himself.
“I’ve been looking to take the EMT course,” Josselyn said. “I don’t have the funds. It’s $800-plus and I do not have the money. I’m fighting for myself and anybody else who wants to take the course.”
Codey said in his letter to Josselyn that there is currently a $1.1 million surplus balance in the training fund, and with an anticipated $2.1 million in receipts for 2010, a total of $3.2 million would be available for training.
“I want to reassure you of our commitment to maintain the availability of funding through [fiscal year] 2011 and beyond,” Codey wrote. He also referred to a bill, which has since been approved by the Senate, requiring that EMTs receive new training every five years, instead of every three. The state Assembly introduced a similar bill on June 15. Codey wrote in his letter that the bill should help to lower the cost of training EMTs, while keeping funds available in the future.
However, Paul D. Roman, the training coordinator for the Office of Emergency Medical Services in the state Department of Health and Senior Services, said the move would lower the quality of care and could be dangerous.
“The quality suffers,” Roman said. “… Studies have shown that those hands-on skills, especially the ones that are medically related, within some period of time your skills degrade.”
Most states require that EMTs be certified every two to three years, Roman said, and extending that period to five years would make it difficult for volunteers to retain essential skills that can diminish if they are not practiced.
Roman, who is a longtime volunteer with the Shrewsbury First Aid Squad, said he thinks the state’s actions were in response to poor economic conditions and are not politically motivated. However, as someone who trains EMTs, he is concerned about volunteers not getting the training as often as they should at a time when new technology requires greater knowledge from EMTs on a regular basis.
Roman said the solution is to increase the 50-cent surcharge for motor vehicle and traffic violations, and he supports the resolution that the Sayreville Borough Council approved. The resolution encourages the governor and the state Legislature to increase the surcharge from 50 cents to $1 per fine. He said that some states with greater surcharges than New Jersey are able to pay for the training of both volunteer and paid EMTs.
“This is life-saving stuff here, and the people paying 50 cents committed an act against the law, and they’re paying for it,” Roman said.
East Brunswick Emergency Squad member Mary Kerslake agreed with Roman’s assessment that increasing the surcharge would likely resolve the funding problem.
“I think he’s probably right,” Kerslake said. “I’m speaking as a liaison to the [New Jersey State] First Aid Council, but I don’t know what my squad’s feeling would be about this.”
Roman said that reducing the requirements for EMTs is not the solution.
“I don’t agree with it,” Roman said. “… You can’t just change the training standards and make them so low that retention is worse than it already is, to save money.”
Josselyn, however, favors making the EMT certification valid for five years.
“I’m for it,” Josselyn said. “It helps budget the money. It slims down the amount of money to educate and train EMTs if you stretch it to the next five years. I was an EMT for 12 years in the late ’80s, early’90s. I know that I can go on any ambulance and most of the time function just like I functioned back in the ’90s.”
He said he sees the need for refresher courses, but wants the state to continue allocating the money for training.
Kerslake said she was glad to hear the state will reallocate funds for training.
“I’m very happy about it, because $3.2 million is a heck of a lot better than nothing,” Kerslake said.
Kerslake has mixed feelings about the Legislature’s decision to make EMT certification valid for five years.
“I think somebody who is a new EMT probably needs it in three years,” Kerslake said. “It depends on how often they ride the ambulance… The more they ride, the more they know. So if you get somebody who does the bare minimum, they probably need to recertify every three years, but somebody who rides often can recertify every five years.”