Responses to report 2607

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees and identifies LEMSA Policy 4010 as containing the standard.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement with a checkable named policy, but no added explanation of delay measurement.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F4; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F5; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F6; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F7; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F10; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F11; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F12; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F13; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F14; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F15; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F16; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F17; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F18; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Partially agrees: safe alternative care may reduce demand and sometimes delays, but staffing, beds, acuity and throughput also matter.

Audit analysis

Clearly disputes a one-to-one causal inference with specific mechanisms; provides no identified study or dataset.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F20; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F21; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F22; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F23; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F25; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F26; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees and says the county standard is now in the 2026 CCRMC APOT Reduction Protocol.

Audit analysis

Identifies a checkable revised protocol; no separate explanation or independent confirmation of implementation.

Response says

Agrees and says the 2026 protocol now contains activation criteria.

Audit analysis

Named revision offers a checkable basis but does not reproduce or independently verify those criteria.

Response says

Agrees, citing Health and Safety Code Section 1797.120.6 as limiting CCCEMSA’s authority to review hospital protocols.

Audit analysis

Gives a finding-specific statutory rationale for nonreview; interpretation is attributed, not a legal ruling.

Response says

Partially agrees with $1,062,715 balance but says accounts include fines and fees budgeted for LEMSA, not uncommitted reserves.

Audit analysis

Identifies the accepted amount and disputed composition/use with March 2026 accounts and FY2025–26 budgeting as traceable basis. Formal F30 itself does not use the word reserve.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F31; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Promises partial implementation through internal improvement work; cannot commit to an outside consultant by April 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Explicitly distinguishes internal resource prioritization from the proposed consultant; future external expertise is conditional.

Response says

Will not implement now because fines support LEMSA operations; remains under evaluation.

Audit analysis

Current refusal is explicit despite possible future reconsideration.

Response says

Claims implemented through continuous policy evaluation and local strategies; Triage to Alternate Destination remains in development.

Audit analysis

Retains implemented label without claiming future TAD program is already operating.

Response says

A3 is evaluating non-EMS transport options and will complete a final recommendation by April 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Deliverable is an evaluation recommendation, not completed vehicle deployment.

Response says

Claims implemented through ongoing funding exploration for PES; notes fiscal constraints.

Audit analysis

Claim concerns exploration, not funded expansion or construction.

Response says

Will not redirect fines now because they support LEMSA; later allocations remain under evaluation.

Audit analysis

No uncommitted reserve or funded expansion is inferred.

Response says

Claims protocol update approved and finalized June 30, 2026.

Audit analysis

Identifies a dated document action; substantive compliance is not independently verified.

Response says

Declines notification, citing Section 1797.120.6 and asserted lack of hospital-protocol review authority.

Audit analysis

Explains refusal through agency statutory interpretation, not an independent ruling.

Response says

Declines hospital notification for the same asserted lack of statutory review authority.

Audit analysis

Reasoned refusal; does not establish whether notification necessarily requires approval authority.

Response says

By April 1, 2027 LEMSA will present reporting proposal to Emergency Medical Care Committee for an advised approach to Board reporting.

Audit analysis

Promises advisory-committee consideration, not immediate quarterly standing Board reports.

Response says

Agrees that prolonged offloads reduce ambulance availability; describes deployment, mutual aid and added resources since 2021.

Audit analysis

Specific operational explanation and dated expansion figures engage the proposition without independently proving outcomes.

Response says

Agrees with 14% transport growth; says unit-hours grew 31% and ambulances 33% over the same period.

Audit analysis

Identifies period-specific volume and capacity assertions; agreement is not evidence that performance improved.

Response says

Agrees for selected eligible patients; says data through June 2026 show 35% redirected and describes exclusions and clinical review.

Audit analysis

Defines limited scope, named program, dated data and safety conditions rather than universal diversion capability.

Response says

Will analyze Nurse Navigation expansion using outcomes, safety, resources and APOT impact; conclusions ready by November 21, 2026.

Audit analysis

Specific analysis criteria and date; no commitment to expand regardless of evidence.