Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
1–10 of 305 posts
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#2They (uber/lyft) work well for my dog emergencies too.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#3We can view this as either a positive for how Uber works or a negative for how taxi cabs work. If the pervasive means of transportation other than ambulances are unresponsive or expensive compared to ambulances, then obviously ambulances are the choice. One might also drive oneself, get a ride from a friend or family member, or hope that a city bus will be fast enough. An Uber ride could be faster than a ride from friend or family and safer than driving oneself.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#4We can view this as either a positive for how Uber works or a negative for how taxi cabs work. If the pervasive means of transportation other than ambulances are unresponsive or expensive compared to ambulances, then obviously ambulances are the choice. One might also drive oneself, get a ride from a friend or family member, or hope that a city bus will be fast enough. An Uber ride could be faster than a ride from fr…
I took a taxi to an urgent care clinic when I broke my ankle in a bike accident. Would've taken an Uber or Lyft if taxis hadn't been around, but there were a lot of them. Whatever was fastest. I really wasn't worried about saving a few bucks on a ride at that point.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#5I've been wondering about this for a while but, is there a reason why Uber or an alternative cannot/should not get into the Ambulance space, if it were able to get qualified staff.
I feel like Ambulances/Hospitals charge way too much and using the app/tech at a basic level to connect the ambulances with patients addresses may be a good start for everyone and also the increase in supply may reduce costs.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#6I'm curious, this article spins the whole "lower rates of ambulance usage" as a positive thing, but is there enough evidence to say that?
From the article:
_______ 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. _______
Okay they claim the study says "emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster" but decreased usage does not necessarily equal faster response time. It would have been much more solid if they actually looked at the ambulance response time, not just how many are being used. (My skeptical side leads me to think this is because that data-set didn't match their narrative.)
There is also the question of: Is this actually a good thing? Are those 7% less people using ambulances all not having serious health issues? Especially when something is wrong, you are often not a good judge of your own health.
How many people having chest pain thought it wasn't too bad so they called an Uber instead of an ambulance and died on the way to the hospital? Might not have turned out that way if they just called an ambulance in the first place..
Need more data to decide if this is an Uber propaganda piece.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#7If you don't get bogged down in details of the service, I see this as generally net good. For many, ambulance rides are prohibitively expensive, and while I certainly wouldn't be cost-conscious taking an ambulance in the event of a seizure or heart attack, for something like a broken arm, or non-life-threatening ailment, an Uber/Lyft/Cab is a good alternative to trying to drive myself.
Beyond that, I'd like to see statistics on whether people ride-sharing to emergency rooms / urgent care facilities was freeing up ambulances or causing them to sit idle. I suspect it's the former, which would mean ambulances could be more available for more people with more serious conditions, but I could be wrong.
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#8[deleted]
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#9I've been wondering about this for a while but, is there a reason why Uber or an alternative cannot/should not get into the Ambulance space, if it were able to get qualified staff. I feel like Ambulances/Hospitals charge way too much and using the app/tech at a basic level to connect the ambulances with patients addresses may be a good start for everyone and also the increase in supply may reduce costs.
Are paramedics/ambulances so unregulated in the US that it's /not/ a bat-shit crazy idea to suggest Uber Ambulances?
Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage
#10I’d be more interested to see the reduction in medicab or medivan usage.
My father had the misfortune of having a stroke, and transporting him via van is outrageous — you’re talking >$250 for a 15 mile drive, in what amounts to a cargo van with zero service beyond driving.
It’s one of those weird markets where the pricing is driven by the Medicaid reimbursement, which is a price floor.