EMSA has gone to court to try to extract $16 million that it says it’s owed from its ambulance service provider, American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc.
The dispute is over a clause in its contract that was also part of a separate, unrelated 2017 Anti-Kickback/False Claims Act civil lawsuit involving EMSA, an acting, Texas U.S. attorney and a different ambulance company.
EMSA claims in its lawsuit filed Wednesday in Tulsa federal court that AMR has failed to pay EMSA over $16 million it owed from excess profits the company made dating back to November 2015.
“While we regret having to take legal action against AMR, we must act in the best interest of the Oklahomans we serve, which includes being fiscally responsible with patient and taxpayer dollars,” said Wiley Williams, chairman of the EMSA Board. “EMSA’s number one priority remains to provide the highest quality emergency medical care possible, and I want to emphasize that this lawsuit will not result in any interruption to EMSA’s services.”
People are also reading…
EMSA claims AMR owes it $16,039,895 under a “Gain Sharing” clause in its contract with AMR.
The clause, according to the lawsuit, provides for AMR to pay EMSA any profits that exceed 10% in a fiscal year.
The lawsuit claims AMR should have made payments to EMSA under the Gain Sharing clause of its agreement for the past four years.
The Emergency Medical Services Authority, a public trust, has contracted with AMR since 2013 to provide emergency and nonemergency services in the Tulsa and Oklahoma City metro areas. AMR staffs EMSA-owned ambulances and provides management services, under its contract with EMSA.
The Gain Sharing clause came to light in a 2017, when the then acting-U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Texas claimed EMSA officials had a secret, unwritten agreement with another ambulance provider to pay EMSA any profits that exceeded 12% of gross revenues.
The U.S. Attorney claimed EMSA tried to legitimize the arrangement in 2012 when it added language that described the profit cap to an existing contract with Paramedics Plus, which had the contract with EMSA for ambulance services at the time and through September 2013.
“The law prohibits paying kickbacks, such as those alleged in this lawsuit, in order to gain access to Medicare and Medicaid funds,” then-Acting U.S. Attorney Brit Featherstone said at the time in written comments referring to the deal with Paramedics Plus LLC.
A spokeswoman for EMSA said the profit-cap contract model was never found to be unlawful.
“The current Gain Sharing cost-plus provision outlined in the contract does not run afoul of any federal or state statutes,” said Debbie Schramm, president of the public relations firm Saxum.
“This structure was part of the bidding process when EMSA’s RFP was issued, and included in AMR’s response and proposal. This provision remained in the contract during renewal negotiations with AMR.”
AMR could not be reached for comment.
EMSA settled its lawsuit with the U.S. government in 2018 for $300,000, while maintaining its innocence.
Prior to voting to accept the settlement at the time, Williams, a member of EMSA then, too, said the settlement makes “no determination” that a profit cap arrangement with the ambulance provider — which was at the center of the government’s kickback allegations — was illegal.
Then-EMSA Chairwoman Jan Slater also said at the time in 2018: ”We truly believe that the government would, if they truly felt it was inappropriate or an illegal kickback, that they would have included that in some kind in the settlement.”
Featured video
Aerial view of property at 31st and Peoria, where there is a plan for a mixed use development.
