The geographic setting of an EMS system can have a significant effect on what constitutes an appropriate system design. What might be entirely appropriate for an EMS system serving a predominantly urban area may not make much sense in a rural or wilderness setting, and viceversa.
Urban/suburban
Urban/suburban EMS systems are those that serve communities with high-to-moderate population densities, covering larger areas, and are largely self-contained in terms of receiving emergency departments and key emergency health care resources (e.g. cardiac catheterizations labs, trauma centers).
The higher volumes of patients bring higher potential gross revenues. This creates several financially viable options for the type of organization(s) that provide EMS services and the way in which responses are configured. Thus, it is not uncommon for governmental agencies, private companies, and hospitals to all offer EMS services in the same metropolitan area.
When there are multiple EMS provider organizations serving the same metropolitan area, planning and coordination are critical. Incidents ranging from a serious multiple vehicle crash to a passenger train or aircraft wreck will often require multiagency, multijurisdictional responses, particularly if the incident takes place near a jurisdictional line.
Emergency medical services system designs for urban/suburban areas need to consider how the various agencies in multiple jurisdictions will work together in an operationally and medically efficient manner. Best practices in EMS system design for large urban/suburban areas separate the function of system-level medical oversight from that at a provider agency level. System-level medical oversight, often positioned at a county or regional level, is typically focused on coordination and interoperability issues. It considers issues such as making sure EMS personnel from one jurisdiction have clinical privileges in another when providing mutual aid, and have the same or similar clinical protocols, compatible medical equipment, compatible radio systems, capabilities for data exchange and aggregation, etc. System-level medical oversight might be a county or regional medical director, or it may be provided through a council of the various provider agency medical directors who develop processes to coordinate efforts and come to consensus on multijurisdictional issues. This is something that is also done in some of the better rural and wilderness systems for the same reasons.
One of the biggest drivers of EMS system cost is personnel. Consequently, one of the goals in making the system economically efficient is to maximize productivity, with crews running as many calls as possible during their shifts. There may be limits, however, where crews can become overworked with consequent degradations in quality. In some EMS provider organizations, this is mitigated by reducing the duration of shifts. Governmental EMS agencies in particular will commonly work 24-hour shifts. Without adequate rest during longer shifts, the risk of cognitive errors may increase with consequent loss of clinical quality. There are many ways to address these issues while assuring quality and containing costs, but the system design should recognize this potential and have ways to address it.
Urban and suburban EMS systems will often have emergency and non-emergency ambulance services offered by separate organizations. The emergency ambulance services will tend to be operated by governmental entities providing ALS service. The non-emergency ambulances will tend to be operated as private companies at a BLS or ALS level. This raises two major issues. Is it better to have all ambulances provide ALS service? Is it better to have a single organization provide both emergency and non-emergency ambulance service? These questions are the subject of ongoing debate. Local politics and incumbency of providers will tend to have more influence on this than the theoretical merits from a pure system design perspective. Changes at this level will be difficult to achieve unless there is sufficient political will to do so, which may manifest in response to a severe financial issue, a high-profile case with a bad outcome, or challenges by one provider organization to take over the ambulance duties of the other.
Single versus multiple ambulance service providers
There are economic and philosophical issues to consider when debating if a community should have one or multiple ambulance services.
From an economic perspective, a single ambulance service provider offers potential cost savings by payers only having to support one infrastructure. More than one provider adds the costs associated with duplications of infrastructure that do not add value. For example, a single ambulance service for a community would have one computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. A second ambulance service would require its own CAD. The pricing of ambulance services in that community would need to cover the cost of two CAD systems, without a corresponding increase in benefit. Considering the duplication of all the other elements of infrastructure needed to support an ambulance service, the increases in costs quickly add up.
The economic virtues of competition must also be considered. A single provider has a monopoly, which does not provide natural cost controls or competitive pressure to provide high-quality service in order to preserve or expand market share.
Considering the advantages of single-provider systems and the advantages of competitive pressure to control costs and increase quality, many urban and suburban systems take an approach that can provide a favorable balance. A community can both limit the number of providers and corresponding duplications of infrastructure costs while still providing healthy competitive dynamics. This is achieved by allowing competition for the market rather than within the market.
While the details vary from state to state, a city or county generally has the ability to designate who its ambulance service provider(s) is/are. This is called allocation of ambulance service market rights and is one of the most powerful tools in EMS system design. When allocating market rights, the city or county can attach a wide range of requirements and performance standards that must be met to retain those market rights. A competitive procurement process may be used to decide which provider will be awarded the market rights. That competitive process can allow both governmental and non-governmental organizations to submit proposals. If true costs are considered and the evaluation process is conducted properly, the community can reap the benefits of getting a provider that has had to make a more compelling value proposition over competing organizations and made commitments to meet requirements and standards on an ongoing basis. After the market rights are awarded, the competitive pressure can be sustained by building in escalating consequences for minor to major failures in meeting requirements and standards, which can result in loss of market rights in the most severe of circumstances. Absent any severe failures, from time to time, the community may choose to reevaluate the market by having another competitive procurement process for allocation of market rights. This will compel the incumbent provider to step up its level of service and commitment in an effort to fend off competitors. Competitors will make their best offers in an effort to capture a new market. Either way, the community benefits.
In communities where this approach is not taken, dislodging a well-established ambulance service provider or providers will require significant political will. Such political will is rare and typically arises in response to severe financial problems, a high-profile case with a bad outcome, or an attempt by one provider to overtake the market rights of another. EMS system leaders should be cognizant of this. If there is interest in having a more formal and deliberate process to allocate ambulance service market rights for the benefits cited above, EMS system leaders should be prepared to introduce these ideas into the political conversation in the event that the political will to make a significant change surfaces.
A related issue is the separation of emergency and non-emergency ambulance service. In many communities, the governmental agencies will provide an emergency ambulance service while one or more private corporations will provide a non-emergency ambulance service.
This separation tends to be more common with fire department ambulance services. The organizational culture of the fire department tends to focus on provision of emergency services. Non-emergency ambulance service delivery may be shunned by the firefighters. It is not difficult to find private companies more than willing to relieve the local fire department of the “burden” of that portion of the market. This is because the non-emergency ambulance service market can be quite profitable. It has the distinct advantage of being able to determine ability to pay in advance of service delivery. The emergency market can also be profitable, but carries higher financial risk by not having the ability to determine the ability to pay in advance of service delivery. Because many emergency patients do not have the means to pay and all requests for service received through the emergency system are generally honored, the emergency ambulance service is at higher risk for net losses.