Why American Ambulance Rides Are So Expensive and Unpredictable

He refused to go in an ambulance the first time. He could have refused the second ride. You can refuse transport or medical care at any time as long as you are able to make rational decisions.

As an EMT if you're A&Ox4, alert to time, place, person and event, you make the choices. You do sign a release so we have proof we didn't abandon you, but you make the choice. If we move you without your approval, it's kidnapping or entrapment (not hit me up law arguers). To do that we either need implied consent (minor no parent, not A&Ox4, or Law Enforcement).

My department, a small rural one with a small tax base which happens to cover a lot of injuries because we have 20 miles of dangerous mountain pass freeway and a ski and mountain bike area, only charge for calls if we transport. I think a transport is around $900. Our minimum transport is 37 miles. We scale it down depending on income and type of event. We're not massive sticklers about it. We're just trying to cover wear and tear on big expensive vehicles for all the non-transports, winter driving, equipment, uniforms, training, etc. Most of our "business" comes from "transients" eg folks who don't live there, eg those skiing, hiking, biking, or driving over the pass.

This is also very much not the norm. But should explain a bit about those who do pay are covering those who don't.

We don't want a chilling effect on calling 911 for precautionary stuff. We'd rather show up 99 times and check people out and let them go than miss t […]

> 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.

The author does not understand how private equity extracts money. The high-liability and heavily scrutinized business is intentionally left with little profit: the actual profits are funneled up the supply chain. This is why private equity buys "nonprofit" hospitals - they can now control who that nonprofit buys services and equipment from.

I worked at a company which was doing medical billing for ambulances among other things.

Essentially, the bills are always inflated so when the settlement comes the providers get 20..50%. The crucial procedure is so called "medical coding" where medical notes (sometimes - scrawled on paper with a pencil) are being turned into bills - and that's where additional codes are getting added and more expensive codes are selected. There are books and guidelines on how to do the coding and some automated logic which "fixes" filled forms to bump the amounts a bit.

If the insurance (less frequently - the patient) pays more - that's just a bonus.

Billing itself gets a small fraction of the bill usually amounting to $20..50, they don't profit from inflated bills directly but the clients would select you on the basis of average settlements. Dispatchers also get little fractions. Things are very different when it comes to helicopter ambulances, where the bill could easily get to hundreds of thousands and everyone involved gets a lot. In fact, all the operators prefer to work with helicopters because of that, everyone involved references ground operations as "crap" or so.

Can't say for whole industry but that's what I've seen at one particular place working with several providers/dispatcher companies.

From what I can remember about the ground reality, a $12K bill would mean that they expected to actually get $3..4K.

A typical ground bill for some particular region the company operated at w […]

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 […]

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.

Just a personal anecdote. I was living in China, my father was visiting and fell ill (anemia). We needed to go to the hospital and decided to call an ambulance vs. calling a car because it could enter the gated compound. For a 3 km ride the price difference wasn't even a concern. A car would cost ~$3 and an ambulance ended up about $30.

PS: An average net salary in that city was about $1700/month at the time.

I spent a lot of time in healthcare finance and across most medical service industries the Medicare rate is actually not a loss. It’s a common thing said as it’s not super profitable, but it’s usually not a huge loss. It’s pretty close to what the cost of care should be. It just doesn’t give the extra padding for extremely fancy clinics, hospitals, admin and executive compensation, and often PE investor margin expectations. It’s usually slightly positive on contribution margin and given the volume of Medicare in the mix there’s enough flow through to cover reasonable overhead and perhaps slim margins. But, whenever I see a claim that the true cost of service is 10x over the Medicare rate, it’s a huge red flag there’s some financial shenanigans at play. Saying that Medicare is a loss, leaves the impression that it leaves a huge hole to fill so other payers need to pick up the bag in a huge way. This kind of lazy analysis blindly perpetuates this misconception. If they wanted to add value here, they should have performed a “what should an ambulance ride cost?” type analysis. You have to really strip out costs that are unneeded, excessive, and account for profit margin similarly. There’s no way $13k makes any sense for the service described. We need sensible cost controls in this industry. The industry hands these people blank checks when they can hide behind out of network, etc. It’s still captive price gouging.

Here in Australia, you can be 2,000km in the bush and an ambulance will fly out to you and fly you back to the city for free.

That being said, we also have private ambulance companies here that will sting you for a huge bill if you don't have private ambulance cover.

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".