Slashdot Mirror
Cities With Uber Have Lower Rates Of Ambulance Usage (npr.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Many potential emergency room patients are too sick to drive themselves to a hospital. But an ambulance can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars without insurance. This where a popular ride-sharing app can step in, while also freeing up the ambulances for those who need them most. With demand for ambulances decreased by available Uber drivers, emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster while also applying necessary treatment on the way to the hospital, according to a new economic study from the University of Kansas: "Given that even a reduction of a few minutes can drastically improve survival rates for serious conditions, this could be associated with a substantial welfare improvement." The study investigated ambulance rates in 766 U.S. cities from 43 different states. Taking into account the timelines of when Uber entered each city, the researchers found that the app reduced per capita ambulance usage rates by around 7 percent.
Uber must be rejoicing over this "free advertising."
You see, when it comes to "ride sharing" all media talk about is "Uber," "Uber" and more "Uber."
It's as if the other more than 10 ride sharing companies/services just do not exist!
A lot of Emergency Visits that someone would ask for Uber would be a problem that isn't life or death, but can't be put off for the next day, and such conditions may make it unsafe for someone to drive themselves.
Extreme Pain, If they are on Meds that makes it unsafe for them to drive, or physically unable to drive. The ambulance is often overkill transpiration for a lot of cases. And with people taking uber to get to the hospital, can make sure the ambulances that are on standby can be closer by to handle a real emergency.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"But an ambulance can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars without insurance. "
I'm European and I can't believe my eyes.
First, here _everybody_ is insured, even the bums living under a bridge.
Second, an ambulance ride costs around 150$ if some uninsured foreigner ordered one.
I guess you're doing it wrong.
An ambulance ride can cost $1000 even if you have insurance.
An obvious question is "why Uber". Compared to the cost of an ambulance, a Taxi is still dirt cheap.
Because most places you can expect a good hour wait for a taxi. Taxi service has always been piss-poor, much of that being due to the medallion system. It is one of the few real examples of bad regulation. As much as Uber consists of a bunch of criminals and scumbags (The executives, not the drivers), the industry they are disrupting is far worse.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Presented with a transportation option previously depressed by the city overlords
So these cities refused to allow taxis to operate prior to Uber? I doubt it. Even though they may be more expensive than Uber, they would still be far cheaper than an ambulance ride. So is Uber truly the savior of humanity this study wants us to believe, or are there maybe other factors that they missed/ignored in their effort to show Uber in a good light?
In a country where not all Emergency visits are life threatening, but the patient cannot drive. We don't need a Semi truck to move a single chair. We don't need an ambulance to move every person who needs to go to the ED.
It is about efficiency. And saving resources for those who need it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We have Socialized medicine in the United States, We buy insurance. where we pay for everyone on that companies healthcare.
You don't, really.
See, with socialized health care, there isn't a company involved. There's a government-run health organization which exists to serve people, not to make a profit. How you pay for it isn't key. How the services are delivered is.
I know there's a hypothetical where it's asked, "well, what if I want to pay more for service which is even better" and it's not a horrible question, but it presupposes that the baseline health-care is sub-par, which is - in most cases - not the case. Yes, here in Canada we've had periods where emergency-room wait times have been excessive, but with triage, true emergencies are handled immediately while "I've got a cough" is back-burnered. As it should be. And yes, there are occasions where some specific procedures are back-logged, and patients are even sometimes shuttled to our nearby American neighbors because they needed to be. But by and large, the vast, vast, majority of us are cared-for properly, promptly, efficiently, and... with disregard for the depth of our pockets.
"Oh no... he found the
Add to these the people who have just had a medical procedure that they have been instructed not to drive themselves home from. If you have no second driver in the family and you live in a place where taxi service is sparse and expensive, you will tend to fudge on the instructions and drive anyway. Ridesharing can improve public safety here too.
I'm pretty sure the doctors, nurses, medical equipment manufacturers, drug manufacturers, disposable sterile supply manufacturers, various supply distributors, etc. are all part of some sort of organization (even as small as a family) that expects to turn a profit.
The healthcare system in the US is not cost effective, private (about 2/3 of our healthcare costs are paid by the government), nor particularly "better" than any other reasonable alternative. The US government pays more per-person for healthcare than the Canadian government. If we switched to the Canadian system right now, at the same billing rates, our government spend on healthcare would go down.
The US healthcare system is a very sizable chunk of the economy. Telling all the US doctors, manufacturers, distributors, medical lawyers, etc that they will only get paid what people in, say Canada or Germany, make in the equivalent jobs would unfortunately create a sizable drop in our overall economy. At root, this is why we're not able to actually fix things.
From finnish point of view, where ambulance costs something like 20-30 Euro (rest paid by the government), you get not only the unit but trained personnel. These people can quickly assess the nature of your medical emergency and treat it on site when possible. Many smaller traumas or sudden bouts of illness benefit significantly from quick identification and application of correct treatment.
As a result, here you call an ambulance, and they'll often arrive, diagnose and treat the problem and leave you treated, because there's not even a need to visit the ER in the first place. The "mobile ICU" can handle the problem on site and leave patient in acceptable condition for him to be able to remain at home. At the same time if problem is actually serious, they can bypass the queue at the ER because they already performed medical triage and can provide ER doctors with relevant information about specifics of the problem.
Which is results in savings for the entire system as it becomes more efficient overall. People with problems that don't need a visit to ER do not use ER resources. People who need to be treated ASAP before they condition worsens, and costs a lot more money to treat get to go past the queue of "I am drunk, tripped and fell and I need a few stitches" people. Something very important in country with fully socialized medical system, where efficiency of medical treatment of everyone is a key factor to the entire system continuing to exist.
But what if you can't drive? I recently had kidney stones and live alone. I had to take an ambulance.
Actually I probably would have not gone Uber as I was pretty sure I was dying. Kidney stones are way worse than gall stones.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust