Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Department of Public Health - Office of Emergency Medical Services/Ambulance Inspections

MARCH 13, 2000 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published MARCH 13, 2000 Audit covers fiscal year 1997 – fiscal year 1998 Under A. Joseph DeNucci · 1987–2011

In plain English
The auditor found that the state office overseeing ambulances was not inspecting many ambulance services on time, was not checking whether fixes were actually made, and was not monitoring some contracts closely enough.
source
“Our review of OEMS indicated that OEMS was not meeting its regulatory mandate of performing an annual licensing review of Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance services and a biennial review of Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance services.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor report on selected activities of the Department of Public Health's Office of Emergency Medical Services, especially ambulance inspections and contract oversight during fiscal years 1997 and 1998.

“The scope of our audit included an examination of OEMS activities during fiscal years 1997 and 1998.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors wanted to see whether OEMS was running its programs effectively, meeting its goals, and properly overseeing ambulance licensing and contracted services.

“Our overall objective was to determine whether OEMS’s program objectives were being met and expected results were being achieved in the most efficient and effective manner.”
Why it matters

Ambulances carry patients in emergencies, so weak inspections and follow-up can affect public safety and public confidence.

“Emergency services, which provide vital life-saving treatment and transport, must have the total confidence of the public.”
What's in it for me?

If you or someone you love needs an ambulance, this report matters because some vehicles with serious problems were still being used before inspectors found them.

“It should be noted that, up to the point of inspection, these vehicles were in operation and transporting patients.”
The bottom line

The auditor concluded that the inspection program needed more support, better follow-up, and real enforcement when ambulance services failed to fix problems.

“However, without adequate internal support from DPH, the Ambulance Inspection Program is in danger of becoming meaningless and ineffective.”
What happens next

The auditor recommended more staffing, verification that ambulance companies correct violations, and penalties such as fines or suspensions when they do not.

“In addition, OEMS should ensure that ambulance service providers that fail inspections implement their corrective action plans and should fine or suspend those providers that do not do so, in accordance with 105 CMR 170.710.”
Why it's significant

The findings were broad: in the auditor's test, most ambulance services reviewed were not inspected before their licenses expired, and some were still operating with expired licenses.

“Specifically, we noted that 191, or 74%, of the 259 tested ambulance services were not inspected prior to the expiration of their license and that 68, or 26%, were inspected on a timely basis.”
Jargon, unpacked

BLS means Basic Life Support ambulance service, and ALS means Advanced Life Support ambulance service; the report says ALS services needed annual license reviews and BLS services needed reviews every two years.

“A license shall remain in effect for a period of 12 to 24 months, at the discretion of the Department.”
Identified in this audit - source-verified
$1,207

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

OEMS did not inspect ambulance services on time and did not verify corrective action plans.
public safetylicensing/inspectionsinternal controls

Why it matters: Ambulances with expired licenses or uncorrected safety deficiencies could continue transporting patients, reducing public confidence in emergency services.

Standard: 105 CMR 170.710 and ambulance service licensing and inspection requirements under 105 CMR 170. ( 105 CMR 170.710; 105 CMR 170.710; 105 CMR 170.510; 105 CMR 170.510 )

3 recommendations
  • DPH should adequately staff the Ambulance Inspection Program.agency: agreed
  • OEMS should verify that failed ambulance service providers implement corrective action plans and fine or suspend providers that do not.agency: agreed
  • OEMS should explore alternative inspection procedures.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In its response, DPH concurred with the result and indicated that additional resources would help to alleviate the problems noted."
OEMS did not adequately monitor vendor and consultant contracts.
procurement/contractsvendor oversightinternal controls

Why it matters: Inadequate monitoring allowed unallowable consultant reimbursements and contract overruns.

Standard: Operational Services Division procurement guidance and grant reporting requirements for regional EMS councils. ( 815 CMR 2.00; Part B, Section 2, of the grant application )

3 recommendations
  • OEMS should monitor all consultants and contractors against contractual obligations using site reviews, desk reviews, and monthly funding reviews.agency: partially agreed
  • OEMS should recover unallowable consultant travel reimbursements.agency: partially agreed
  • OEMS should stop paying for consultants to attend professional conferences.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In its response, DPH stipulated that the 1998 regulatory changes which permitted a grant application and review process to be developed would allow DPH to reinforce its efforts for more appropriate monitoring and oversight of the regional councils."
OEMS employees were certified or working as EMTs while OEMS regulated EMT certification and ambulance services.
licensing/inspectionsinternal controls

Why it matters: The arrangement created a potential conflict of interest because employees had access to certification staff and worked for services regulated by OEMS.

Standard: Chapter 268A, Sections 4 and 23 of the General Laws. ( 105 CMR 170.900 through 105 CMR 170.930; Chapter 268A, Section 4 of the General Laws; Chapter 268A, Section 23 of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • OEMS should follow State Ethics Commission rulings and keep decision documentation at OEMS and DPH’s legal office.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In its response, DPH stated that in June 1999, it received a report from the State Ethics Commission indicating that there appeared to be no conflicts of interest among OEMS staff."

Verified dollar findings

Improper payments identified $1,207

Money paid out that the audit found should not have been - overpayments, unallowable and nonreimbursable charges, improper claims.

$1,207 - unallowable expenses
Recovered / repaid $2,091 not in headline

Funds recovered or repaid to the Commonwealth.

$1,402 - recommended recovery
$689.10 - recovered reimbursement
Other identified $195 not in headline

Identified dollar findings that do not fall in a named band.

$195 - membership dues