Why American ambulance rides are so expensive

Article URL: https://davidoks.blog/p/why-american-ambulance-rides-are

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48853091

Points: 310

# Comments: 458

Hacker News 讨论

310 points · 458 comments · 查看原帖

grogenaut
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 t
gruez
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 theam
chmod775
> 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.
pshirshov
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 differ
mstaoru
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.
xp84
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 att
arjie
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.
conductr
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 hug