We’re all pretending this is an unsolvable problem when really most of the world has solved it by making ambulance (EMS) funding similar to fire and police departments. Somehow in any emergency I’ve seen, all three show up, often EMS before police or fire dept, and somehow that’s a service that has to be supplemented by insurance billings.
The blog mentions it, but it’s one of those obvious things that somehow isn’t solved yet and blows my mind every time it comes up.
> most of the world has solved it by making ambulance (EMS) funding similar to fire...
About 65% of the more than one million firefighters in the U.S. are volunteers, with nearly 19,000 fire departments being run completely by volunteers.
St. John's Ambulance service in Australia is a hybrid of core paid positions and volunteers (varying by region and demand).
In rural Australia most of the fire, ambulance, and emergency response service are volunteer manned and (locally) run, with federal and state assistance for equipment and costs.
Costwise AU Ambulances are either free (if you're a St. John's member - cheap per annum OR if covered by private / work insurance) or (a decade out of date number) a flat fee of $500.
SF EMS is funded partially through the general fund and other bond measures, with additional billing to cover the rest. I believe it’s like $2K for a ride.
I think we are all villains here. Good healthcare coverage is just another status symbol to be attained. If the poor have it then it becomes less of a value. To some degree we are all wired this way and we all
suffer because of it.
>I think we are all villains here. Good healthcare coverage is just another status symbol to be attained.
Seriously? How many conversations have you been in where people were bragging about how good their health coverage is and trying to one-up each other? The extent I've experienced is stuff along the lines of "thank god I had my health plan, because otherwise it would have cost [6 figures]", but it didn't give the impression that they'd be mad if everyone didn't have to suffer that fate.
Government subsidized sudent loan forgiveness is a regressive tax, though, which makes it quite unpopular in the non educated that on average earn less.
Sure, in a given public discussion, lots of people saying that show up. But substantial portion of those are shills, not necessarily people to say but who benefit from the scam. And some people who are paid, public relations people acting on the downlow, etc.
Very much so. We could fix this. We continue to choose not to, and will for some time into the future.
Tangentially (think in systems), much of the US exists off of volunteer emergency services (fire and emt), which is rapidly evaporating. Average age of these volunteers is mid 50s.
> For generations, volunteers have formed the backbone of the nation’s emergency response system. Roughly half of the U.S. population, some 170 million people, live in areas primarily served by volunteer departments. Unpaid firefighters comprise more than 60 percent of all U.S. firefighters, and more than 80 percent of the country’s fire departments are either all or mostly volunteer.
> 4.5 million people lived in an ambulance desert (AD); 2.3 million (52%) of them in rural counties.
Four out of five counties (82%) had at least one AD. Rural counties were more likely to have ADs (84%) than urban counties (77%). Areas with the highest share and number of people living in ADs include the Appalachian region in the South; Western states with difficult mountainous terrain; coastal areas across the U.S.; and the rural mountainous areas of Maine, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington.
Eight states had fewer than three ambulances covering every 1,000 square miles of land area (the Western states of Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Idaho; and the Midwestern states of North Dakota and South Dakota).
> Eight states had fewer than three ambulances covering every 1,000 square miles of land area (the Western states of Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Idaho; and the Midwestern states of North Dakota and South Dakota).
There are some good points above, but I think this one is a distraction. Many of those states on that list have low ambulance densities because they have low population densities.
Have you ever driven through Wyoming or Montana? They have less than 10 people per square mile on average. There are a couple clusters of cities and then miles of empty land.
These statistics need to be based on cities, or at least have population density taken into account. It doesn't compute to set a threshold for ambulances per square mile when the population density differs so much from state to state.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect to have ambulance coverage across the entire United States. There is a lot of land with very few people.
Choosing to live far away from others is also choosing to live far away from help.
If a service is highly variable cost dependent and is unaffordable for the average individual to pay out-of-pocket it is unaffordable for the aggregate individual as well.
It's very often not a choice. But also, those rural areas are often the breadbaskets of the united states. Taking care of our farmers is important.
Trying to frame it as a choice also misses a lot. It technically is, but you have to recognize there's a huge cost in uprooting your entire life and moving to a new location.
We give our farmers absolutely insane subsidies already.
It is not the government’s job to “take care of” anybody.
Everything has a cost, staying has a cost, leaving has a cost. The question is how much should the public be taxed to pay for individuals suboptimal decision-making? Or conversely, why am I subsidizing some billionaires remote horse ranch to have daily Postal Service and an ambulance standing by?
Can I move to the wilds of Alaska and then demand the same level of service as New York City? No that would be ludicrous.
W.Australia has a land area three time that of Texas with the bulk of the 2.9 million in population clustered about the capital city Perth.
In the rest of the state there are volunteer Ambulance services subsidised by state and federal government and a fleet of Royal Flying Doctor air ambulances.
> It is not the government’s job to “take care of” anybody.
That is literally the only job of government. The entire reason we have a government is to serve the citizens in some fashion or another.
Even for most libertarians, they'll view the government in having a role resolving disputes. That is "taking care of" citizens by resolving conflicts.
Subsidizing farmers so citizens continue to have cheap and consistent access to food is a great thing. Right up there with providing clean drinking water, sewage services, and building roads.
There is no reason why this should be a blocker to solving the problem though. 80% of the population still lives in an urban area. You could create a system that works for the majority of the country’s population and then can figure out the rest.
We choose not to, because most consumers of ambulance services don't have to pay for it. So those of us who pay out of pocket for an ambulance, like I did ($1700 to go 3/4 of a mile last year) are a tiny minority.
US EMS quality isn't exactly something to be proud of. It's been private equityified. Just recently (last winter) I nearly lost an aunt because of our stellar EMS system literally doing a transfer from a hospital to a hospice. The company had only one person working, they parked the ambulance next to a snow bank, tried to wheel my aunt up the snow bank, and had her and the bed flip on them trapping them in the snow.
They were super lucky that someone from the hospice just happened to be leaving at the same time they flipped the bed.
Haven't yet seen a developed nation do worse than the US. If you prefer to compare against developing countries only, sure, winning by lowering the bar to the ground is an option.
What metrics are you using for that? The US ranks fairly close to the top for out of hospital heart attack survival, which is a good proxy for emergency medicine in general.
The US also has decent EMS response times. If you adjust for population density, the US has fantastic response times.
As much as I like articles that tries to use economics or finance to explain stuff, the "options" analogy is a bit hamfisted. The article starts off by noting about how ambulance is an "option" for a rescue, but even though the analogy might vaguely work, it's not really needed to answer the question. That can be answered far more simply: "medicare and insurance companies pay them too little, so they have to charge everyone else more". Or, from the article:
>This meant that the payment structure and the cost structure were increasingly mismatched: and so ambulance services had to pay for their round-the-clock readiness by billing for individual rides. [...]
>And notably, the fees that Medicare sets run far below cost. The average ambulance transport costs $2,673 to provide; Medicare pays only about $329 of that. A typical ambulance ride for a Medicare patient, in other words, loses theambulance service thousands of dollars.
> The average ambulance transport costs $2,673 to provide
I think this ignores the 400 pound gorilla in the room. Why does an ambulance transport cost thousands for the operator? This is a short trip in an automobile, essentially a fancy uber ride. At first one might say that's flippant - obviously ambulances are specialized vehicles, and you have paramedics, and they need to get to locations quickly, and so forth, but let's consider those costs.
A new, fully equipped ambulance is about $150k. Of course this is more than a regular car, but by a factor of 5, not 50. Let's be generous and presume the ambulance fully depreciates in 2 years. Typically an ems crew will be two paramedics. Average paramedic wage is about $23/hr. Again, not orders of magnitude more expensive. Then you have liability, both for the vehicle and for the medical treatment; that's about $12k per year. Throw in money for gas and wear and tear, which should be quite comparable to other automobiles, and it costs about $1600 to own and operate an ambulance for 24 hours.
Now the other side of the equation is utilization. Taking the arbitrary example of Philadelphia Fire Department, they have 60 ambulances that handle on average 700 ems calls per day, and approximately 70% of ems calls lead to transport, so that's about 8 transports per ambulance per day. So distributing this all out, the actual cost to the ambulance operator, ignoring overhead, ought to be somewhere around $200.
I'm sure there are some additional costs I haven't included in this back of the envelope calculation, and maybe some of the numbers I pulled off google are off a bit, this should be taken as a very rough estimate. But even if you significantly increase the cost, the medicare payment amount seems quite reasonable to cover the expenses with a healthy profit margin. Unless you want to claim that operating an ambulance is less than 10% of the cost of ambulance transport, and that the estimators with Medicare are absurdly out of touch with reality, whence cometh $2,673?
Given you find this is _normal_ for a six mile ambulance ride: "and $11,670 as a “base rate.”"
What on earth would you consider normal for a helicopter ride from Exeter to London?
That's roughly 150 miles as the crow flies. Pilot, co-pilot and a medic, minimum crew for say 1.5 hours. Each way, so 300 miles of fuel and aircraft lifetime and three hours of crew cost, not to mention ground crew etc.
My dad got that on the firm when the shit hit the fan and he needed to be seen by specialists in the Royal Brompton and Royal Devon and Exeter decided that was his best shot at life. That was 15 years ago.
Anyway, the OP's bill looked pretty normal until the 11,000 base rate nonsense. How can that possibly be justified?
They can't make money on some customers (medicare/insurance), so they have to make up the difference however they can. In practice this means screwing over the people who have assets to seize.
"Medicare pays too little" is based on the "fee for service" model; it only makes sense if you believe the group of people who actually use the ambulance should pay its full cost.
The options model matters: if you model an ambulance ride as a roulette wheel, you only expect to pay if you get very unlucky. If you model it as an option, you expect to pay even if you never use it. The former doesn't imply "everyone else should have to pay for my bad luck"; the latter does. It's effective persuasion.
>The options model matters: if you model an ambulance ride as a roulette wheel, you only expect to pay if you get very unlucky. If you model it as an option, you expect to pay even if you never use it.
There are plenty of services that have high fixed costs but low marginal costs, but we don't use the "options" framing. A movie costs tens to hundreds of millions to make, but otherwise costs very little to deliver. Their price are also fixed, rather than dynamically priced. Yet when a movie bombs, nobody is like "wow I guess they shouldn't have been selling an option for 2 hours of entertainment for $20!". It's a price problem, first and foremost, caused by insurance companies and medicare strongarming them.
I don't think you fully grasped the concept of an option, which is why it isn't illustrative for you; no one is purchasing the right to see a movie regardless of how much it turns out to cost to show. It's the movie maker that would love to buy an option that makes you promise to buy a ticket, even if the movie turns out bad.
>I don't think you fully grasped the concept of an option, which is why it isn't illustrative for you
I perfectly do know what an option is. It's just not relevant to the discussion, or at least not necessary. If you're selling a service that costs $2k of amortized costs to provide for $300, because that's all medicare/insurance companies are willing to pay, that's not a problem because you're offering options, it's an issue because you're charging too little. You're losing money because the numbers simply don't pencil out, not because you sold a bunch of options and sharp jane st traders cleaned you out. In any other situation where you're charging less than what it costs to provide, people just call it "bad business model", not "you're selling options" or whatever.
I tell this story every time ambulance costs come up because it might be helpful to anyone. I once lived in San Francisco in the mid-2010s. In SF, the SFFD operates the vast majority of ambulances in the city. As in, 80%+. I once had the need to go to the hospital urgently and called 911. The ambulance that showed up was SFFD. They transported me and I recovered safely. I then got a bill from them saying that my insurance had refused to pay for it - apparently that insurance company (they're lucky I've forgotten which one, as naming and shaming health insurance people is one of my favorite hobbies) had refused to contract with SFFD, making them "out of network." Yes, an out of network ambulance. And remember, there's at least an 80% chance that an SFFD ambulance will show up, and I've never heard of them offering a menu of ambulance companies to the caller who's likely having a heart attack, bleeding, etc!
So of course, my insurance would only pay some small pittance, if anything, and I was sent a ~$1000 bill. I immediately filed a complaint with the insurance company's California regulator (at the time it was the Dept of Insurance for this one, but it seems most or all now are under the Department of Managed Health Care) since insurance companies are by law obligated to pay at the in-network rate in the case of an emergency (which presumably is why you call an ambulance in the first place). Within 2 weeks I received a letter from the insurance company that all was completely fine and that they'd corrected the situation and paid the bill.
So we have an insurance company which surely knows that law, surely knows what an ambulance is for, but has discovered the "life hack" of having an extremely inadequate network, simply refusing nearly every ambulance claim made in the City, and then only paying the small percentage who know the law and know how to file a complaint. And of course, there's no punishment, the punishment is just having to pay the few times they're caught.
And insurance companies wonder where all that anger (Delay, Deny, Depose, was it?) comes from.
Anyway, practical moral of the story: don't let them get away with doing that if it happens to you or someone you know!
Note: My story is obviously kind of tangential to the actual article which explains why the cost is so high due to everyone who's being subsidized by what they're charging privately-insured patients. However, I have but the world's tiniest violin for those extremely profitable insurance companies who would obviously really like one of their costs of doing business to just go away. Yeah, I'd also like it if I could be paid my full salary, even though I refuse any work I find annoying.
> discovered the "life hack" of having an extremely inadequate network
The article covers this. Ambulance providers are strongly incentivized not to join insurance provider networks, and as a result more than 80% of ambulance rides in the US are “out of network”. So the inadequacy of the network is probably not the insurer’s fault.
Be that as it may, the law in California forbids the insurance company from refusing to pay at the in-network rate in an emergency. As evidence, I'd submit the claim they immediately paid when called out on this.
If the insurance company weren't cynically exploiting people's lack of knowing their rights, they'd at least send a form letter to the patient saying "Please send us whatever proof from the hospital that you had a legitimate emergency and if approved, we'll pay <insert details> percent." Instead, they pay nothing, shove their fingers in their ears, and let the balance bill come to the patient, and hope nobody tells on them.
The only ambulance rides that should be billed like this are frivolous ones, like if someone is rear-ended at 1MPH, are unharmed, and they lay on the ground and fake an injury and demand to be transported to try to support a fraudulent legal case.
But isn't the California law requiring the insurance company to act as a sin-eater here? They seem to be the only people you were frustrated with, even though they are not the ones who charged you $1000.
You don't have to pay them unless they're specific. I got a bill 3 years after being in an accident and I asked them for the documentation they legally have to provide me (itemization, the legal basis, detailed incident record, attempts on their part to contact insurance) of how they arrived at the sum. It's been a year since and they haven't given me anything.
The last thing I want at that time is to have to reason about any of this.
I think I’m realizing that what I cherish about the healthcare system up here is not just that I don’t pay bills, but that I don’t even see a bill. Not that the bankruptcy inducing costs aren’t wretched, but I just cannot even imagine being put into a fucked up bureaucratic hell while my family is in a life altering crisis.
This applies to other things as well - retirement and education come to mind.
Anecdote: my uncle and BIL are auto mechanics. One in the US, the other in Scotland. Similar lifestyles - both own homes, have mechanical hobbies (vintage cars for one, Harleys for the other) - typical working class lives. The uncle in the UK just has much less mental overhead when it comes to major life planning.
Yea I think this is the bit thats easy to take for granted in nations with rational healthcare systems. Not only do I not get fleeced, but at no point does my healthcare feel like economic activity, a transaction, it feels like healthcare and that the provision of it is being done for the right reasons.
Yeah, my family was hit by two ambulance bills in California in 2024, and tried to balance bill us contrary to the law.
It was a really frustrating experience trying to get them follow the law. One of the ambulance companies waited an entire year to even file paperwork and still tried to get insurance and me to pay.
My wife had a miscarriage while we were staying at my Uncle's house in New Jersey. I was going to call 911, but instead, he decided he'd call from his landline. Difference between ambulance being free (because it was to a city resident's home) and costing what would have been $5k or so at least. Wild.
> The most efficient way to fund ambulance services would simply be to pay for the option the way that options are normally paid for: with a premium, collected from everyone the service stands ready to rescue. That’s how it’s done in the rest of the rich world. Some places, like the United Kingdom or Japan, simply fund ambulance services directly out of taxes; others, like the Australian state of Victoria, sell memberships in “Ambulance Victoria,” with unlimited exercise at the cost of about $70 a year per family.
I don’t think that is the entire solution. Right now medical services are just much more expensive in America. Whether it is the average individual paying for them or the aggregate taxpayer individual, we will still go bankrupt if it’s too expensive for the average.
Government coverage is all well and good until the government (really you) is paying way above market rate.
I don’t think we get out of this by trying to regulate medical expenses either. That will just enrich another cadre of lobbyists and lawyers.
Virginia has a long-established local dog license taxes on dog ownership and recently proposed a tax for, among other things, walking dogs. Clearly the liberals have their priorities wrong as usual. But hey you get what you vote for.
Aside from the funding mechanism being a premium that everyone pays, the other part of the motivating story here that seems downright silly is:
- the patient was _forced_ to take an ambulance to another hospital, but not to be treated for anything in particular.
- the post goes into how the EMS system is expensive b/c you need trained paramedics and expensive medical equipment and such -- but sometimes they really do just need to move a patient, not treat anyone in the field or en route. Saying that you pay for the paramedics even when you're effectively just being moved between facilities _also_ seems wasteful.
Yes, we should share the cost. But once we all share the cost, maybe we should try to spend the public dollars effectively by only using ambulances when they're needed, and distinguishing between "transport patient who can't sit upright and buckle a seatbelt" and "try to stop their arterial bleeding as you speed towards the hospital".
I think one of the most aggravating things about interacting with the health care system is losing control of cost/risk/reward tradeoffs. The mandatory transfer and ambulance ride in the linked story are an excellent example. I think I'd have walked out against medical advice in that circumstance, but there is the constant danger of being subjected to similar costs, both monetary and physical, when I am less conscious or at a serious informational disadvantage. The need to bring a patient advocate with you to the hospital whose role echoes both doctor and lawyer is becoming quite serious.
The genius part is that the negotiations that determine how much they can get away with charging completely excludes the consumer. Two for-profit entities, with no mandate to actually provide care, decide how much they should pay each other.
The article explains why; regulators sometimes can't foresee that their decision to consider something fee for service will eventually prevent it from being considered as a communal expense.
I've treated people with panic disorder who, if there were no cost involved, would probably have called an ambulance monthly for suspected heart attacks.
I wonder how countries with universal healthcare coverage deal with the lack of a (dis)incentive here. Maybe they just eat the cost?
Check your insurance to make sure you have transport. It's the same in Switzerland - it's an extra line on your insurance.
My wife and also have Rega. They can't legally call it insurance but if we get injured in, for example, the USA they will send us a private hospital jet to bring us home.
This comment is confusing because it refers to the first paragraph and also assumes when you checked your insurance you didn't find transport there. Since the parent did have transport and good insurance and a second paragraph, it sounds like you're asking "And then do what after your hospital jet flies you home, quit your job and find better insurance?"
I had an ambulance ride on Thanksgiving Day last year. And the punchline was that with my ACA insurance, the "ambulance run" co-pay was $1,200. (Of course my total ambulance bill was around $1,310.)
There was a long period of back-and-forth with calls and website visits, where they were insistently billing the wrong insurance, and so forth. But I'm grateful that I used the ambulance at that point in time.
The key advantage to an ambulance ride is bypassing the Triage Nurse. If you're going to an E.D. and you take a ride-share or a friend drives you, then you'll go to the registration desk and then meet the triage nurse. And the Triage window is pretty good at conserving hospital resources, and de-prioritizing you if your issue could be handled by Urgent Care or your PCP on a weekday.
But if the ambulance gets called to your home, it's a foregone conclusion that you really, really want to go to the E.D. and the ambulance crew will Keystone Kops their way to a successful hospital drop-off. They'll take some vitals and ensure that you're stable, because if you're not, they can save lives, and keep you alive during transport. But if you're conscious then they ask that $64,000 question: "do you want to go to the hospital?"
Once a few years ago, a nurse in a clinic had called 9-1-1 on my behalf and it was actually difficult to refuse a hospital transport. The EMS crew put me on the phone with a hospital attending physician and I had to emphatically refuse transport several times, after being advised of all the risks. (My only issue was elevated blood pressure. C'mon, guys.)
One of the troubles with ambulances is that they are really overkill for many calls. If some homeless dude goes unconscious on the curb, they get called. Some neighbor was going to call 9-1-1 because I laid down briefly near the pool. The ambulance and its crew is highly equipped to save lives and respond to the worst trauma cases: multi-GSW, car accidents at 70mph, etc. But I called them because I had a bad headache. And that's why they got to bill so much: they cost a lot! And I bet that a lot of uninsured deadbeats default on their ambulance bills, and the City gets to eat all those costs.
But the times I've transported myself to the hospital, I kinda got blocked by Triage, and it was for my own good. This last time over Thanksgiving, I had a lot of issues, and isn't it always the way that they hit at the beginning of a holiday weekend? So, it was good I went to the hospital.
But I was flabbergasted that my "co-pay" was 92% of the ambulance bill. I don't know why, but that plan has terminated anyway, so there's no arguing about it. At least, my actual hospital bills were well-covered by that plan.
The piece is actually quite concise, but you're right in the other respect. You definitely didn't read it. Private equity as an explanation is explicitly rejected.
> The standard answer is greed: rapacious ambulance operators, owned by villainous private equity firms, exploit patients at their most helpless. But I don’t think that’s actually what’s going on. Ambulance providers are chronically unprofitable businesses; margins are thin, crews are underpaid, and operators exit the industry every year.
I think the answer is very simple. Regulation. If there was no regulation or very little then anyone could open up an ambulance service and the cheapest costs and the best service would win.
Unfortunately that’s not the case. It’s like day care. Day care is expensive because the government mandates it to be expensive. Otherwise you’d have grandmas down your street would gladly watch your kid but it’s generally not allowed for more than a couple kids.
Same thing with houses. I have half an acre. Could easily put 2 affordable tiny homes on it. Good income for me, cheap rent for someone else, but, unfortunately it’s legally blocked
We’re all pretending this is an unsolvable problem when really most of the world has solved it by making ambulance (EMS) funding similar to fire and police departments. Somehow in any emergency I’ve seen, all three show up, often EMS before police or fire dept, and somehow that’s a service that has to be supplemented by insurance billings.
The blog mentions it, but it’s one of those obvious things that somehow isn’t solved yet and blows my mind every time it comes up.
> most of the world has solved it by making ambulance (EMS) funding similar to fire...
About 65% of the more than one million firefighters in the U.S. are volunteers, with nearly 19,000 fire departments being run completely by volunteers.
St. John's Ambulance service in Australia is a hybrid of core paid positions and volunteers (varying by region and demand).
In rural Australia most of the fire, ambulance, and emergency response service are volunteer manned and (locally) run, with federal and state assistance for equipment and costs.
Costwise AU Ambulances are either free (if you're a St. John's member - cheap per annum OR if covered by private / work insurance) or (a decade out of date number) a flat fee of $500.
A pretty large number of EMS is also volunteers. Basically wherever you have a volunteer fire department, you'll have volunteer EMS (if it's there).
The ambulance that billed me in San Francisco after my accident was run by San Francisco Fire Department.
SF EMS is funded partially through the general fund and other bond measures, with additional billing to cover the rest. I believe it’s like $2K for a ride.
Many fire departments in the US send bills, whether responding to medical emergencies or fires.
But if we fixed it, that might help people who can't afford the ride otherwise. And we cannot have that.
But do they really? Can you point a real, evil villain saying that?
I think we are all villains here. Good healthcare coverage is just another status symbol to be attained. If the poor have it then it becomes less of a value. To some degree we are all wired this way and we all suffer because of it.
I'm not sure I agree. Poor health is not always obvious and your health insurance provider is not conspicuous in most interactions.
>I think we are all villains here. Good healthcare coverage is just another status symbol to be attained.
Seriously? How many conversations have you been in where people were bragging about how good their health coverage is and trying to one-up each other? The extent I've experienced is stuff along the lines of "thank god I had my health plan, because otherwise it would have cost [6 figures]", but it didn't give the impression that they'd be mad if everyone didn't have to suffer that fate.
See everyone who decries student loan forgiveness as an example.
Government subsidized sudent loan forgiveness is a regressive tax, though, which makes it quite unpopular in the non educated that on average earn less.
Sure, in a given public discussion, lots of people saying that show up. But substantial portion of those are shills, not necessarily people to say but who benefit from the scam. And some people who are paid, public relations people acting on the downlow, etc.
Very much so. We could fix this. We continue to choose not to, and will for some time into the future.
Tangentially (think in systems), much of the US exists off of volunteer emergency services (fire and emt), which is rapidly evaporating. Average age of these volunteers is mid 50s.
https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/nfpa-journal/20...
> For generations, volunteers have formed the backbone of the nation’s emergency response system. Roughly half of the U.S. population, some 170 million people, live in areas primarily served by volunteer departments. Unpaid firefighters comprise more than 60 percent of all U.S. firefighters, and more than 80 percent of the country’s fire departments are either all or mostly volunteer.
https://www.ruralhealthresearch.org/publications/1596
> 4.5 million people lived in an ambulance desert (AD); 2.3 million (52%) of them in rural counties. Four out of five counties (82%) had at least one AD. Rural counties were more likely to have ADs (84%) than urban counties (77%). Areas with the highest share and number of people living in ADs include the Appalachian region in the South; Western states with difficult mountainous terrain; coastal areas across the U.S.; and the rural mountainous areas of Maine, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington. Eight states had fewer than three ambulances covering every 1,000 square miles of land area (the Western states of Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Idaho; and the Midwestern states of North Dakota and South Dakota).
> Eight states had fewer than three ambulances covering every 1,000 square miles of land area (the Western states of Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Idaho; and the Midwestern states of North Dakota and South Dakota).
There are some good points above, but I think this one is a distraction. Many of those states on that list have low ambulance densities because they have low population densities.
Have you ever driven through Wyoming or Montana? They have less than 10 people per square mile on average. There are a couple clusters of cities and then miles of empty land.
These statistics need to be based on cities, or at least have population density taken into account. It doesn't compute to set a threshold for ambulances per square mile when the population density differs so much from state to state.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect to have ambulance coverage across the entire United States. There is a lot of land with very few people.
Choosing to live far away from others is also choosing to live far away from help.
If a service is highly variable cost dependent and is unaffordable for the average individual to pay out-of-pocket it is unaffordable for the aggregate individual as well.
There _should_ be some ambulance deserts.
It's very often not a choice. But also, those rural areas are often the breadbaskets of the united states. Taking care of our farmers is important.
Trying to frame it as a choice also misses a lot. It technically is, but you have to recognize there's a huge cost in uprooting your entire life and moving to a new location.
We give our farmers absolutely insane subsidies already.
It is not the government’s job to “take care of” anybody.
Everything has a cost, staying has a cost, leaving has a cost. The question is how much should the public be taxed to pay for individuals suboptimal decision-making? Or conversely, why am I subsidizing some billionaires remote horse ranch to have daily Postal Service and an ambulance standing by?
Can I move to the wilds of Alaska and then demand the same level of service as New York City? No that would be ludicrous.
> It is not the government’s job to “take care of” anybody.
That is actually the only legitimate function of government.
W.Australia has a land area three time that of Texas with the bulk of the 2.9 million in population clustered about the capital city Perth.
In the rest of the state there are volunteer Ambulance services subsidised by state and federal government and a fleet of Royal Flying Doctor air ambulances.
RFD(WA) comes in at ~ $80 million AUD / annum in state support (for better or worse - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-24/rural-gp-slams-royal-... )
They assert to have a "value" to the state of $4.1 billion AUD over 30 years - https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/wa/
> It is not the government’s job to “take care of” anybody.
That is literally the only job of government. The entire reason we have a government is to serve the citizens in some fashion or another.
Even for most libertarians, they'll view the government in having a role resolving disputes. That is "taking care of" citizens by resolving conflicts.
Subsidizing farmers so citizens continue to have cheap and consistent access to food is a great thing. Right up there with providing clean drinking water, sewage services, and building roads.
Why should there be ambulance deserts but not postal deserts?
Directionally, I am also fine with postal deserts or at least different delivery expectations for very rural areas.
But also because Postal Service is much cheaper than an ambulance service?
There is no reason why this should be a blocker to solving the problem though. 80% of the population still lives in an urban area. You could create a system that works for the majority of the country’s population and then can figure out the rest.
We choose not to, because most consumers of ambulance services don't have to pay for it. So those of us who pay out of pocket for an ambulance, like I did ($1700 to go 3/4 of a mile last year) are a tiny minority.
the reverse side of that medal is that in 'most of the world' EMS quality is ass.
US EMS quality isn't exactly something to be proud of. It's been private equityified. Just recently (last winter) I nearly lost an aunt because of our stellar EMS system literally doing a transfer from a hospital to a hospice. The company had only one person working, they parked the ambulance next to a snow bank, tried to wheel my aunt up the snow bank, and had her and the bed flip on them trapping them in the snow.
They were super lucky that someone from the hospice just happened to be leaving at the same time they flipped the bed.
I think this argument is very disingenious for two reasons:
- If you’re comparing to developed nations (or some non developed ones with functioning agencies), the argument doesn’t hold true.
- If you’re comparing to the bottom of the barrel EMS (quality being ass like you said), you’re still not going bankrupt for an ambulance ride.
If you limit it to say the top 20 developed countries how does it look?
Just a quick Google indicates the UK, Germany, US, and Japan all have urban response times in the ballpark of 10 minutes.
And even then they do worse than the average half brained private driver on trauma calls, since for many medical issues speed trumps capability.
Haven't yet seen a developed nation do worse than the US. If you prefer to compare against developing countries only, sure, winning by lowering the bar to the ground is an option.
What metrics are you using for that? The US ranks fairly close to the top for out of hospital heart attack survival, which is a good proxy for emergency medicine in general.
The US also has decent EMS response times. If you adjust for population density, the US has fantastic response times.
UK has had some atrocious response times.
Google is telling me that’s not the case… 7 minute target for life-threatening calls, with 90% actual within 15 minutes.
As much as I like articles that tries to use economics or finance to explain stuff, the "options" analogy is a bit hamfisted. The article starts off by noting about how ambulance is an "option" for a rescue, but even though the analogy might vaguely work, it's not really needed to answer the question. That can be answered far more simply: "medicare and insurance companies pay them too little, so they have to charge everyone else more". Or, from the article:
>This meant that the payment structure and the cost structure were increasingly mismatched: and so ambulance services had to pay for their round-the-clock readiness by billing for individual rides. [...]
>And notably, the fees that Medicare sets run far below cost. The average ambulance transport costs $2,673 to provide; Medicare pays only about $329 of that. A typical ambulance ride for a Medicare patient, in other words, loses theambulance service thousands of dollars.
> The average ambulance transport costs $2,673 to provide
I think this ignores the 400 pound gorilla in the room. Why does an ambulance transport cost thousands for the operator? This is a short trip in an automobile, essentially a fancy uber ride. At first one might say that's flippant - obviously ambulances are specialized vehicles, and you have paramedics, and they need to get to locations quickly, and so forth, but let's consider those costs.
A new, fully equipped ambulance is about $150k. Of course this is more than a regular car, but by a factor of 5, not 50. Let's be generous and presume the ambulance fully depreciates in 2 years. Typically an ems crew will be two paramedics. Average paramedic wage is about $23/hr. Again, not orders of magnitude more expensive. Then you have liability, both for the vehicle and for the medical treatment; that's about $12k per year. Throw in money for gas and wear and tear, which should be quite comparable to other automobiles, and it costs about $1600 to own and operate an ambulance for 24 hours.
Now the other side of the equation is utilization. Taking the arbitrary example of Philadelphia Fire Department, they have 60 ambulances that handle on average 700 ems calls per day, and approximately 70% of ems calls lead to transport, so that's about 8 transports per ambulance per day. So distributing this all out, the actual cost to the ambulance operator, ignoring overhead, ought to be somewhere around $200.
I'm sure there are some additional costs I haven't included in this back of the envelope calculation, and maybe some of the numbers I pulled off google are off a bit, this should be taken as a very rough estimate. But even if you significantly increase the cost, the medicare payment amount seems quite reasonable to cover the expenses with a healthy profit margin. Unless you want to claim that operating an ambulance is less than 10% of the cost of ambulance transport, and that the estimators with Medicare are absurdly out of touch with reality, whence cometh $2,673?
Given you find this is _normal_ for a six mile ambulance ride: "and $11,670 as a “base rate.”"
What on earth would you consider normal for a helicopter ride from Exeter to London?
That's roughly 150 miles as the crow flies. Pilot, co-pilot and a medic, minimum crew for say 1.5 hours. Each way, so 300 miles of fuel and aircraft lifetime and three hours of crew cost, not to mention ground crew etc.
My dad got that on the firm when the shit hit the fan and he needed to be seen by specialists in the Royal Brompton and Royal Devon and Exeter decided that was his best shot at life. That was 15 years ago.
Anyway, the OP's bill looked pretty normal until the 11,000 base rate nonsense. How can that possibly be justified?
> How can that possibly be justified?
They can't make money on some customers (medicare/insurance), so they have to make up the difference however they can. In practice this means screwing over the people who have assets to seize.
"Medicare pays too little" is based on the "fee for service" model; it only makes sense if you believe the group of people who actually use the ambulance should pay its full cost.
The options model matters: if you model an ambulance ride as a roulette wheel, you only expect to pay if you get very unlucky. If you model it as an option, you expect to pay even if you never use it. The former doesn't imply "everyone else should have to pay for my bad luck"; the latter does. It's effective persuasion.
>The options model matters: if you model an ambulance ride as a roulette wheel, you only expect to pay if you get very unlucky. If you model it as an option, you expect to pay even if you never use it.
There are plenty of services that have high fixed costs but low marginal costs, but we don't use the "options" framing. A movie costs tens to hundreds of millions to make, but otherwise costs very little to deliver. Their price are also fixed, rather than dynamically priced. Yet when a movie bombs, nobody is like "wow I guess they shouldn't have been selling an option for 2 hours of entertainment for $20!". It's a price problem, first and foremost, caused by insurance companies and medicare strongarming them.
I don't think you fully grasped the concept of an option, which is why it isn't illustrative for you; no one is purchasing the right to see a movie regardless of how much it turns out to cost to show. It's the movie maker that would love to buy an option that makes you promise to buy a ticket, even if the movie turns out bad.
>I don't think you fully grasped the concept of an option, which is why it isn't illustrative for you
I perfectly do know what an option is. It's just not relevant to the discussion, or at least not necessary. If you're selling a service that costs $2k of amortized costs to provide for $300, because that's all medicare/insurance companies are willing to pay, that's not a problem because you're offering options, it's an issue because you're charging too little. You're losing money because the numbers simply don't pencil out, not because you sold a bunch of options and sharp jane st traders cleaned you out. In any other situation where you're charging less than what it costs to provide, people just call it "bad business model", not "you're selling options" or whatever.
I tell this story every time ambulance costs come up because it might be helpful to anyone. I once lived in San Francisco in the mid-2010s. In SF, the SFFD operates the vast majority of ambulances in the city. As in, 80%+. I once had the need to go to the hospital urgently and called 911. The ambulance that showed up was SFFD. They transported me and I recovered safely. I then got a bill from them saying that my insurance had refused to pay for it - apparently that insurance company (they're lucky I've forgotten which one, as naming and shaming health insurance people is one of my favorite hobbies) had refused to contract with SFFD, making them "out of network." Yes, an out of network ambulance. And remember, there's at least an 80% chance that an SFFD ambulance will show up, and I've never heard of them offering a menu of ambulance companies to the caller who's likely having a heart attack, bleeding, etc!
So of course, my insurance would only pay some small pittance, if anything, and I was sent a ~$1000 bill. I immediately filed a complaint with the insurance company's California regulator (at the time it was the Dept of Insurance for this one, but it seems most or all now are under the Department of Managed Health Care) since insurance companies are by law obligated to pay at the in-network rate in the case of an emergency (which presumably is why you call an ambulance in the first place). Within 2 weeks I received a letter from the insurance company that all was completely fine and that they'd corrected the situation and paid the bill.
So we have an insurance company which surely knows that law, surely knows what an ambulance is for, but has discovered the "life hack" of having an extremely inadequate network, simply refusing nearly every ambulance claim made in the City, and then only paying the small percentage who know the law and know how to file a complaint. And of course, there's no punishment, the punishment is just having to pay the few times they're caught.
And insurance companies wonder where all that anger (Delay, Deny, Depose, was it?) comes from.
Anyway, practical moral of the story: don't let them get away with doing that if it happens to you or someone you know!
Note: My story is obviously kind of tangential to the actual article which explains why the cost is so high due to everyone who's being subsidized by what they're charging privately-insured patients. However, I have but the world's tiniest violin for those extremely profitable insurance companies who would obviously really like one of their costs of doing business to just go away. Yeah, I'd also like it if I could be paid my full salary, even though I refuse any work I find annoying.
Be that as it may, the law in California forbids the insurance company from refusing to pay at the in-network rate in an emergency. As evidence, I'd submit the claim they immediately paid when called out on this.
If the insurance company weren't cynically exploiting people's lack of knowing their rights, they'd at least send a form letter to the patient saying "Please send us whatever proof from the hospital that you had a legitimate emergency and if approved, we'll pay <insert details> percent." Instead, they pay nothing, shove their fingers in their ears, and let the balance bill come to the patient, and hope nobody tells on them.
The only ambulance rides that should be billed like this are frivolous ones, like if someone is rear-ended at 1MPH, are unharmed, and they lay on the ground and fake an injury and demand to be transported to try to support a fraudulent legal case.
But isn't the California law requiring the insurance company to act as a sin-eater here? They seem to be the only people you were frustrated with, even though they are not the ones who charged you $1000.
You don't have to pay them unless they're specific. I got a bill 3 years after being in an accident and I asked them for the documentation they legally have to provide me (itemization, the legal basis, detailed incident record, attempts on their part to contact insurance) of how they arrived at the sum. It's been a year since and they haven't given me anything.
Besides this kind of billing is banned in California now https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...
The insurers just pay the in-network fee and you call it a day.
The last thing I want at that time is to have to reason about any of this.
I think I’m realizing that what I cherish about the healthcare system up here is not just that I don’t pay bills, but that I don’t even see a bill. Not that the bankruptcy inducing costs aren’t wretched, but I just cannot even imagine being put into a fucked up bureaucratic hell while my family is in a life altering crisis.
This applies to other things as well - retirement and education come to mind.
Anecdote: my uncle and BIL are auto mechanics. One in the US, the other in Scotland. Similar lifestyles - both own homes, have mechanical hobbies (vintage cars for one, Harleys for the other) - typical working class lives. The uncle in the UK just has much less mental overhead when it comes to major life planning.
Yea I think this is the bit thats easy to take for granted in nations with rational healthcare systems. Not only do I not get fleeced, but at no point does my healthcare feel like economic activity, a transaction, it feels like healthcare and that the provision of it is being done for the right reasons.
Yeah, my family was hit by two ambulance bills in California in 2024, and tried to balance bill us contrary to the law. It was a really frustrating experience trying to get them follow the law. One of the ambulance companies waited an entire year to even file paperwork and still tried to get insurance and me to pay.
Why didn’t you take an Uber?
My wife had a miscarriage while we were staying at my Uncle's house in New Jersey. I was going to call 911, but instead, he decided he'd call from his landline. Difference between ambulance being free (because it was to a city resident's home) and costing what would have been $5k or so at least. Wild.
> The most efficient way to fund ambulance services would simply be to pay for the option the way that options are normally paid for: with a premium, collected from everyone the service stands ready to rescue. That’s how it’s done in the rest of the rich world. Some places, like the United Kingdom or Japan, simply fund ambulance services directly out of taxes; others, like the Australian state of Victoria, sell memberships in “Ambulance Victoria,” with unlimited exercise at the cost of about $70 a year per family.
So there is a solution.
I don’t think that is the entire solution. Right now medical services are just much more expensive in America. Whether it is the average individual paying for them or the aggregate taxpayer individual, we will still go bankrupt if it’s too expensive for the average.
Government coverage is all well and good until the government (really you) is paying way above market rate.
I don’t think we get out of this by trying to regulate medical expenses either. That will just enrich another cadre of lobbyists and lawyers.
>from everyone the service stands ready to rescue
So compelled health insurance to use an ambulance? You could just as well make it optional and charge people without the insurance the full price.
So everyone's covered unless you explicitly opt-out?
Everyone is covered and you have the ability to pay someone to take on the risk of having to pay for an ambulance.
what happens to the people who don't pay someone to take that risk when they need an ambulance?
But that’s socialism!
Virginia has a long-established local dog license taxes on dog ownership and recently proposed a tax for, among other things, walking dogs. Clearly the liberals have their priorities wrong as usual. But hey you get what you vote for.
Aside from the funding mechanism being a premium that everyone pays, the other part of the motivating story here that seems downright silly is:
- the patient was _forced_ to take an ambulance to another hospital, but not to be treated for anything in particular.
- the post goes into how the EMS system is expensive b/c you need trained paramedics and expensive medical equipment and such -- but sometimes they really do just need to move a patient, not treat anyone in the field or en route. Saying that you pay for the paramedics even when you're effectively just being moved between facilities _also_ seems wasteful.
Yes, we should share the cost. But once we all share the cost, maybe we should try to spend the public dollars effectively by only using ambulances when they're needed, and distinguishing between "transport patient who can't sit upright and buckle a seatbelt" and "try to stop their arterial bleeding as you speed towards the hospital".
I think one of the most aggravating things about interacting with the health care system is losing control of cost/risk/reward tradeoffs. The mandatory transfer and ambulance ride in the linked story are an excellent example. I think I'd have walked out against medical advice in that circumstance, but there is the constant danger of being subjected to similar costs, both monetary and physical, when I am less conscious or at a serious informational disadvantage. The need to bring a patient advocate with you to the hospital whose role echoes both doctor and lawyer is becoming quite serious.
Where I live (NJ) you don't pay if your picked up by a town run rescue squad. But you don't always know who's responding... Such a strange system.
In a market where competition isn't relevant, the price of things is whatever you can get someone to pay for it.
The genius part is that the negotiations that determine how much they can get away with charging completely excludes the consumer. Two for-profit entities, with no mandate to actually provide care, decide how much they should pay each other.
I don't understand why taxes can be used to save property but not a person.
The article explains why; regulators sometimes can't foresee that their decision to consider something fee for service will eventually prevent it from being considered as a communal expense.
Sure you do. Most people don’t own property. Most of the taxes are paid by people who do. And elections are decided by people with property.
Because we like property.
There should be an "Uberlance" - discount emergency pickups by Uber, at Uber prices.
Uber is already “Uberlance”. Most people take Ubers to the hospital unless they are literally dying (and some even then).
I've treated people with panic disorder who, if there were no cost involved, would probably have called an ambulance monthly for suspected heart attacks.
I wonder how countries with universal healthcare coverage deal with the lack of a (dis)incentive here. Maybe they just eat the cost?
Check your insurance to make sure you have transport. It's the same in Switzerland - it's an extra line on your insurance.
My wife and also have Rega. They can't legally call it insurance but if we get injured in, for example, the USA they will send us a private hospital jet to bring us home.
And then do what, precisely? Quit your job and find one with better insurance options?
This comment is confusing because it refers to the first paragraph and also assumes when you checked your insurance you didn't find transport there. Since the parent did have transport and good insurance and a second paragraph, it sounds like you're asking "And then do what after your hospital jet flies you home, quit your job and find better insurance?"
This is amazingly coherent and explanatory article!
the writer really went into depth about the problem and...surprise...the answer is almost embarrassingly simple.
Everyone in the country needs to read this.
I had an ambulance ride on Thanksgiving Day last year. And the punchline was that with my ACA insurance, the "ambulance run" co-pay was $1,200. (Of course my total ambulance bill was around $1,310.)
There was a long period of back-and-forth with calls and website visits, where they were insistently billing the wrong insurance, and so forth. But I'm grateful that I used the ambulance at that point in time.
The key advantage to an ambulance ride is bypassing the Triage Nurse. If you're going to an E.D. and you take a ride-share or a friend drives you, then you'll go to the registration desk and then meet the triage nurse. And the Triage window is pretty good at conserving hospital resources, and de-prioritizing you if your issue could be handled by Urgent Care or your PCP on a weekday.
But if the ambulance gets called to your home, it's a foregone conclusion that you really, really want to go to the E.D. and the ambulance crew will Keystone Kops their way to a successful hospital drop-off. They'll take some vitals and ensure that you're stable, because if you're not, they can save lives, and keep you alive during transport. But if you're conscious then they ask that $64,000 question: "do you want to go to the hospital?"
Once a few years ago, a nurse in a clinic had called 9-1-1 on my behalf and it was actually difficult to refuse a hospital transport. The EMS crew put me on the phone with a hospital attending physician and I had to emphatically refuse transport several times, after being advised of all the risks. (My only issue was elevated blood pressure. C'mon, guys.)
One of the troubles with ambulances is that they are really overkill for many calls. If some homeless dude goes unconscious on the curb, they get called. Some neighbor was going to call 9-1-1 because I laid down briefly near the pool. The ambulance and its crew is highly equipped to save lives and respond to the worst trauma cases: multi-GSW, car accidents at 70mph, etc. But I called them because I had a bad headache. And that's why they got to bill so much: they cost a lot! And I bet that a lot of uninsured deadbeats default on their ambulance bills, and the City gets to eat all those costs.
But the times I've transported myself to the hospital, I kinda got blocked by Triage, and it was for my own good. This last time over Thanksgiving, I had a lot of issues, and isn't it always the way that they hit at the beginning of a holiday weekend? So, it was good I went to the hospital.
But I was flabbergasted that my "co-pay" was 92% of the ambulance bill. I don't know why, but that plan has terminated anyway, so there's no arguing about it. At least, my actual hospital bills were well-covered by that plan.
TLDR: private equity
The piece is actually quite concise, but you're right in the other respect. You definitely didn't read it. Private equity as an explanation is explicitly rejected.
The article argues the exact opposite:
> The standard answer is greed: rapacious ambulance operators, owned by villainous private equity firms, exploit patients at their most helpless. But I don’t think that’s actually what’s going on. Ambulance providers are chronically unprofitable businesses; margins are thin, crews are underpaid, and operators exit the industry every year.
I think the answer is very simple. Regulation. If there was no regulation or very little then anyone could open up an ambulance service and the cheapest costs and the best service would win.
Unfortunately that’s not the case. It’s like day care. Day care is expensive because the government mandates it to be expensive. Otherwise you’d have grandmas down your street would gladly watch your kid but it’s generally not allowed for more than a couple kids.
Same thing with houses. I have half an acre. Could easily put 2 affordable tiny homes on it. Good income for me, cheap rent for someone else, but, unfortunately it’s legally blocked
When you are bleeding out on the street, you don't have time to shop around for the best deal
I would absolutely not tolerate and unregulated ambulance responding to my emergency.
You don’t have to. You do what you want. I’d prefer to hire a company where the workers make more money. Right now they make a pittance.
Someone who's having a medical emergency is certainly in no position to go comparison shopping for ambulance services.
When you get your bill, you could just double that as a tip.