Debate in the River Valley over whether the 11 towns who support – and benefit from – Med-Care Ambulance Service should renew the service for another 10 years seems hung on the wrong issues.

Whether the growing service needs a new building, or if the construction is being properly financed are important conversations for the community to have. But an equally important, but neglected conversation is the one highlighting Med-Care’s successful regionalizing of ambulance service.

As schools and towns in Oxford County look toward regionalizing services, Med-Care has been there. If anything, towns served by Med-Care should be asking how they might regionalize, following Med-Care’s lead.

And while there is plenty of discussion about the $2 million for Med-Care’s proposed facility, there’s too little discussion over how much Med-Care has saved towns by providing a central, efficient ambulance service.

We are pretty confident this savings could exceed $2 million.

The cost of providing emergency medical care and transportation prompted many towns and hospitals to drop the ambulance business long ago. Even hospitals also dropped ambulance services as loss leaders.

Given the region’s aging population and trends in emergency medicine, it’s unlikely that demand for service will decrease in the River Valley. Most residents engaged in the Med-Care debate agree on this. Four towns must still vote on whether they will back Med-Care, or not.

In weighing this decision, we recommend looking beyond the simple price and funding issue.

Is the building Med-Care wants in the right location to best serve the region? Would this facility allow for easy and rapid access to a medical helicopter, which are called to the most serious trauma incidents and medical emergencies?

Voters also need to consider what would replace Med-Care, if the service doesn’t muster the financial and political support it needs to continue.

Some argue towns could return to providing ambulance and rescue services. A volunteer service is the best option of those, but given struggles by many Maine volunteer departments to find volunteers, this option could be unrealistic.

Or at least unreliable.

Andover, which rejected Med-Care’s proposal, has sent requests for proposals to several other ambulance services, looking for options other than Med-Care. Yet none are near to Andover.

Is this really a better option?

The best course is having Med-Care and its opponents work toward compromise for the political and financial support the service needs. Voters should also honestly examine their portion of the $2 million building cost.

Is it too much to ask, when signs show the need for the service will only grow?

In the worst-case scenario, Med-Care’s authority to operate could cease at midnight on June 7.

The questions then will not be about construction costs or financing. It will be much more important.

The question would become who fills the void.