The rate and extent of disease.
Medical care provided en-route between two medical facilities, usually between a local community hospital and a regional trauma center or other specialty center.
Helicopter air ambulance providing emergency medical services.
A medical caregiver with BLS level training.
An arrangement of medical, public health, and public safety resources to prevent occurrences of emergency illness and injury and to mitigate the impact of such occurrences which can’t be prevented. May be local, regional, state, or national.
A ground ambulance providing a level of medical care higher than ALS, staffed with specially trained nurses and paramedics.
The most basic level of medical care provided in an ambulance, usually by First Responders and EMT’s.
A more advanced level of medical care provided in an ambulance, usually by paramedics.
Maintaining the resources necessary to respond with an air ambulance to an emergency is a complex and costly undertaking, much like that of fire departments and hospital emergency departments. The high fixed costs of maintaining a response infrastructure are necessary in order to be ready to serve.
This is especially problematic in maintaining rural emergency care services. Recent studies from the Capitol Area Health Roundtable and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have highlighted that current reimbursement does not adequately support the cost of maintaining services.
Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft cost millions of dollars to purchase or lease, operate, house and maintain. Highly trained crews available on a 24-hour/7 days per week basis, and the infrastructure which governs, trains, funds, supports, and links them and their service to the EMS system, are also expensive.
As few systems are publicly funded, maintaining the availability of this essential resource inevitably translates into a single patient mission charge that seems expensive in comparison with a lower-priced ground ambulance for the same mission. It has proven a mistake, however, to make such an isolated comparison and to equate the lower charge with cost-effectiveness and the higher charge with costprohibitiveness. In the managed care push of the mid-1990’s, air ambulance service was interpreted by some in this way, as an expensive system contributing to the high cost of health care. They postulated that the industry would shrink and require redesign. That did not happen and, as the value of air ambulance service is increasingly demonstrated, reimbursement for air medical services has actually improved and services have expanded in response to other changes in the healthcare system.
At least one carefully constructed economic model comparing helicopter versus ground EMS has been crafted. It demonstrates that on a system level (that is, funding a system of air ambulances versus a system of ground ambulances covering the same large geographic area and volume of calls), the cost per patient transported would be $4,475 for the ground system and $2,811 for the air system (1991 dollars). A cost-effectiveness study of helicopter EMS for trauma patients by Gearhart and colleagues concluded that such service is, indeed, cost-effective. In looking at the cost per year of life saved by 500 emergency medical interventions, another researcher found the average to be $19,000 (e.g. clot-busting medication treatment for heart attack is $32,678; kidney dialysis is $40,000). That study estimated paramedic ground EMS to cost $8,886 per year of life saved while the Gearhart paper establishes a comparable figure for medical helicopter use of $2,454.
As increasingly difficult decisions about apportioning health care dollars in our aging society are faced, air ambulance service should not only be considered cost-effective in its current roles, but may increasingly serve medically isolated populations in new ways.
Children are very resilient patients who often do not show signs of a severe illness or injury until they are close to death and then suddenly deteriorate. When this occurs, they require access to neonatal and pediatric intensive care units, which are becoming increasingly limited. Therefore, the care of these neonates, premature infants, and young children is another primary use of Air Ambulance and Medical Flights, with the speed and higher level of care provided en route by an air medical team.