[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6148630,"mediaKeyId","5514441-4e189ba47ae1d814d0f4330313fadb46","parentId",5514441,"title","WEMSA urges DPH to reject proposed decision, alleges improper communications and risk of monopoly","audioSeconds",1807,"startMs",202000,"endMs",2009000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5514441-4e189ba47ae1d814d0f4330313fadb46&start=202&end=2009","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5514441-4e189ba47ae1d814d0f4330313fadb46/thumbnail_202000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6148630/Connecticut/WEMSA-urges-DPH-to-reject-proposed-decision-alleges-improper-communications-and-risk-of-monopoly","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6148630-212e5800423aa80c1feb384fa8d85276/orig.mp4?Expires=1770279361&Signature=guhJtmxNvwWuiP9Vr4JTuZn1iPpLujPH7chcqdRIByrS5Owrw3PTh-9lQtJWzWMrqJ1eywQaOdrkWutRVFr5coRt-U1zHw1gPUUHrCXhK8ICPghfBcjqFHQebNZdCTmyPBtNdcM3apcKHe0eYBgg7M7v6zU~vBiRLWsbNxCqZUzn4r3kZqWkx~ugDNWZGf--CnvwLjxIH1KMrzryZl7PDHWsIbNJP003WVDhHkBgbXJHDqqykiZU4qzT~PvWkdoVNbwSgVlHaf6FJXs1tIIjEi6te7yeNXH0GxkdCYHQsDgyTpOhcfolNmt4dqV0Idcr7ROlZNdJ-bosCDgUxBDUVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Department of Public Health","date","2025-07-31T10:49:54.543Z","article","Weathersfield Emergency Medical Service Association attorney Mary Alice Moore Lenhart asked the Department of Public Health’s hearing officer on July 29 to reject a proposed memorandum of decision that would replace WEMSA as the town’s primary service area responder, arguing the proposed decision was “illogical, illegal, and not founded on the substantial evidence in the record.”

Lenhart told Chief Hearing Officer Ryan Burns that the proposed decision, if adopted, would effectively shut WEMSA’s certified emergency service down because WEMSA “only does responses to 911 calls” and would have no reason to operate if Aetna refused to pass calls back to it. She said the record shows WEMSA would lose about 45 jobs and that the decision would accelerate consolidation of ambulance services under large health systems and private-equity–owned companies. “Will you stand up for what is right or give Hartford HealthCare the keys to drive out WEMSA,” Lenhart asked Burns during the hearing.

Why it matters: Lenhart argued the decision raises legal and procedural questions under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act and Connecticut General Statutes §4-181, which governs ex parte communications. She said there were prior off‑record contacts involving the commissioner’s office, town counsel and Aetna that were not placed on the record and that the department therefore bears the burden of demonstrating there were no improper communications.

Town and Aetna counsel disputed Lenhart’s characterization. Arnold Menschel, who represented the town of Wethersfield, said the hearing officer’s proposed decision follows the statutory two‑prong test in Conn. Gen. Stat. 19a‑181f and the state Supreme Court’s guidance that decisions should protect the welfare of residents by providing the “safest, most efficient services possible.” Kim Reinhart, representing Aetna Ambulance, told the hearing officer that the record includes 23 hearing days, live witnesses and hundreds of exhibits supporting the hearing officer’s findings.

Lenhart also challenged the hearing officer’s rulings granting Aetna party status during the hearing, asserting the company had no existing contract or legal right in the town at the time. She asked the department to consider documentary evidence attached to a prior motion for a stay concerning Aetna’s ownership and the pending Prospect Medical Holdings bankruptcy; she argued that evidence should be admitted or the record reopened to reflect financial developments bearing on the decision.

The hearing officer, Ryan Burns, repeatedly cautioned counsel not to relitigate findings made during the hearing and said the current proceeding is limited to whether the proposed memorandum of decision should become the final decision or be modified. Burns closed the oral argument by saying he would render a final decision “as expeditiously as possible.”

Ending: The Department of Public Health will issue a final decision after reviewing parties’ oral arguments, written exceptions and the record; counsel for WEMSA requested that, if the proposed decision is adopted, any implementation be delayed to allow an orderly transition.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Wethersfield, Request to Change Primary Service Area Responder 7.29.30","oneSentenceSummary","Weathersfield Emergency Medical Service Association attorney Mary Alice Moore Lenhart asked the Department of Public Health’s hearing officer on July 29 to reject a proposed memorandum of decision that would replace WEMSA as the town’s primary service area responder, arguing the proposed decision was “illogical, illegal, and not founded on the substantial evidence in the record.”","taxTitle","Department of Public Health, Departments and Agencies, Organizations, Executive, Connecticut","taxId",15791,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6148624,"DPH hearing centers on who can safely provide ALS in Weathersfield and whether implementation should be delayed",1815,2013000,3828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5514441-4e189ba47ae1d814d0f4330313fadb46&start=2013&end=3828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5514441-4e189ba47ae1d814d0f4330313fadb46/thumbnail_2013000.jpg","/articles/6148624/Connecticut/DPH-hearing-centers-on-who-can-safely-provide-ALS-in-Weathersfield-and-whether-implementation-should-be-delayed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6148624-20c0f8576a4fbbbb8a51c0c2287ca602/orig.mp4?Expires=1770279361&Signature=YRoDrFMmngSP0Zir9ra8vlfqD8p1DOb7~uKY6gtbEvX9lA4sBwHvpNaIw8verHkAQv~sePUeRtjEh8ALIX4H3gygENz-a0lbp~f4GR2UeOKAtQ1HbuFhZ2xELLtNSn68fZz17RXhbkujXdsEwn7Ez7FscaNfjk1aqPlAcev3yGNOBsUny~Acf8Rk~5NcJadSJnAnQU-andGvPGqRInjS5~dsDp1H2yx8B7VPQRoimqheqgfWDkcZcXIDUnvMp5Z0V4aavyxuZjF9copZMOVznHJdkfCY1X-FgCvhtJYMZKG~x4c35uelE62KXW8fKqyKAsmysVq965GubB~ex0FJtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Counsel for the town of Wethersfield and for Aetna Ambulance told the Department of Public Health on July 29 that the hearing officer correctly found Aetna’s plan would maintain or improve patient care in the town, citing decades of local experience and evidence on response times and dynamic deployment.

Town counsel Arnold Menschel and Aetna counsel Kim Reinhart described a regional model in which multiple ambulances are posted and dynamically redeployed so one unit moving to a hospital is backstopped by another ambulance moving into its posting. Menschel said the record includes evidence that Aetna historically maintains two to three posting locations in Weathersfield and, regionally, typically staffs 10–12 ALS and 10–12 BLS ambulances so it can scale coverage.

Why it matters: Parties framed this dispute as a life‑and‑death policy question about whether the town’s emergency medical services will have reliable ALS coverage, especially given Weathersfield’s older population and several major highways running through the town.

Aetna and the town pointed to exhibits and testimony in the record showing Aetna’s experience responding to multiple simultaneous calls — counsel referenced an exhibit that tracked hundreds of solo Aetna responses and an exhibit showing instances where multiple ambulances were provided within a short period. Aetna’s counsel also emphasized internal quality‑control practices and a low reliance on mutual aid in the record.

WEMSA’s attorney disputed that the incumbent association could be converted to the same ALS capacity on short notice. Mary Alice Moore Lenhart noted findings in the record that WEMSA does not currently have ALS equipment on its ambulances and lacks an approved procedure for securing controlled drugs, and she said WEMSA has never itself delivered ALS services (it contracted ALS in past arrangements). On that basis Lenhart urged either denial of the proposed decision or, if the decision is adopted, a transition period of at least 30–60 days (she also suggested 90 days or up to six months in argument) to allow orderly redeployment, med‑control approvals and staffing transitions.

Town and Aetna counsel opposed a long delay. The town said dispatch would only need to switch the primary phone number it uses to call responders and argued a short 24–48 hour notice could suffice. Aetna counsel said the company already staffs sufficient resources in the region and that implementation can proceed without lengthy delay; counsel noted the parties have had months of prior notice while the case proceeded.

Ending: The hearing officer closed oral argument and said he would issue a final decision soon. If the department adopts the proposed memorandum of decision, parties indicated they may separately press the agency on the length of any implementation or transition period.
","At oral argument on July 29, town and Aetna counsel argued that Aetna’s regional deployment model better preserves ALS coverage and response times; WEMSA countered that it lacks ALS equipment and med‑control in place and asked for a delayed implementation if the proposed decision is adopted.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

WEMSA urges DPH to reject proposed decision, alleges improper communications and risk of monopoly

DPH hearing centers on who can safely provide ALS in Weathersfield and whether implementation should be delayed