Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 305 posts

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#41

Post by joshvm »

Coming from a country where ambulance usage is free for citizens, it would be interesting to see the stats in Uber cities. The only reason not to call an ambulance here is if you feel it would be unethical (e.g. if you broke your arm and your partner could drive you).

EDIT: That is, I imagine you might be able to see whether Uber provides a better alternative than the local cabs. This still holds in US cities though, why is Uber specifically good? Why don't people consider calling their local cab company, which will still be much cheaper than a $250 ride.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#42

Post by bsder »

Spooky23 wrote: post #10

I’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.

Last time I talked to someone who ran one of these and got out of it, the price is driven primarily by liability insurance.

Uber and Lyft can get away with this because they self-insure and amortize over a much larger customer base.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#43

Post by will4274 »

A relevant personal anecdote - I hit my head earlier this year and gave myself a concussion, but did not realize it at the time. The next day, I began experiencing severe headaches, sensitivity to noise, sensitivity to light, etc. and decided to go to a hospital. I called an Uber.

I'm not sure what I would have done without Uber. I guess I could call a cab, but I don't know that I would have wanted my ride to the hospital to be 30 minutes late, to refuse to turn the music down, and to tell me the credit card reader is broken when I get to my destination and then insist on taking me to an ATM. So I might well have called an ambulance.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#44

Post by flamedoge »

adventured wrote: post #15
switch007 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are paramedics/ambulances so unregulated in the US that it's /not/ a bat-shit crazy idea to suggest Uber Ambulances?

There are a lot of private ambulance services in the US, they're anything but unregulated though as you'd expect with anything in the US medical field (one of the most regulated industries on earth). There's no theoretical reason why Uber couldn't get into the driving side of the business, with human drivers. Their future is in autonomous however, which will never be the ambulance business (it will never be autonomou…

And things like things needed to keep patient alive and breathing

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#46

Post by adrianN »

WWLink wrote: post #36
namelost wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very problematic, e.g. how would you develop such a system? No city is going to allow you to break traffic laws to train an autonomous ambulance. At best you could make one for rural areas. I think the problem is probably AI-complete and would require human-like abilities of abstraction to train.

Once autonomous cars become common enough, and we have a common protocol for communicating between them, I'm pretty sure the cities will be ok with it. The autonomous cars could be instructed to move out of the way for an ambulance to come through and/or stop at intersections, which would actually make things much safer for the ambulance. Shoot, it'd be safer even if the ambulances weren't autonomous - because the ca…

So in a few decades we can start thinking about it.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#47

Post by thaumasiotes »

donatj wrote: post #37
bmelton wrote: post #7

If 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 st…

Six years ago I had something similar to a stoke. I had a relative drive me from work to the ER in outer suburbs because: a) I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance. I put my money where my mouth was on that. b) I knew from previous experience their ER was far cheaper, cleaner and quicker than the one in the cities. Maybe I am just particularly frugal but I had the presence of mind to consider costs wh…

> I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance.

I wish more people realized this was an option. You can't even imagine how common it is to see the claim "medical care is a special market, because if someone is dying, they will pay ANY AMOUNT for care no matter how high".

Sure, if that person is dying and rates their own health infinitely higher than the welfare of their family, maybe. That's not many people.

Incidentally, the same stupid argument also proves that scamming a life insurance policy by committing suicide is impossible. Life insurance companies, in general, do not agree.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#48

Post by throwaway0255 »

I injured myself and needed to go to the ER. The injury wasn't life threatening, but I definitely needed to go to the hospital immediately.

I called an Uber.

I don't have the time or expertise to do the months of legalese and calculus it would take me to understand my insurance policy, so I have no idea how much an ambulance ride would have cost me. $0? $400? $15000? None of those numbers would surprise me. As best I can tell, insurance companies throw a dart to decide whether you're covered or not, and then the healthcare provider makes up some insane number if you aren't.

The Uber got me to the hospital faster than an ambulance would have, for less than $10, and I knew it would cost less than $10.

The injury, though extremely gruesome and painful, only warranted an x-ray, some tylenol, and an ace bandage.

I'm insured. They sent me a bill for over $900. For taking a picture, and giving me tylenol and an ace bandage.

I view insurance as a tax my employers pay to the American healthcare system to be compliant. When I have my end-of-life event, whatever that is, I fully expect a choice between death, and living a little longer in bankruptcy. I'll probably get treated outside the US or choose death.

The system works if your net worth is somewhere above $5 million. For everyone else it's just the mechanism that sends everything you earned back to rich people right before you die.

Or maybe I'm wrong! I hope I'm wrong. The stack of papers is 4 inches high so I'll never know, but I sure hope so.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#49

Post by mysterypie »

will4274 wrote: post #43

A relevant personal anecdote - I hit my head earlier this year and gave myself a concussion, but did not realize it at the time. The next day, I began experiencing severe headaches, sensitivity to noise, sensitivity to light, etc. and decided to go to a hospital. I called an Uber. I'm not sure what I would have done without Uber. I guess I could call a cab, but I don't know that I would have wanted my ride to the hos…

> my ride to the hospital to be 30 minutes late, to refuse to turn the music down, and to tell me the credit card reader is broken

As much as I'd like to stick it to taxis because of their decades of price gouging due to being granted a monopoly, I have not had many bad experiences riding a taxi. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say that less than 5% of my taxi rides were in any way unpleasant other than for the cost. What city or country are you in if I might ask? Are taxi experiences really that bad for most people?

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#50

Post by nvahalik »

throwaway0255 wrote: post #48

I injured myself and needed to go to the ER. The injury wasn't life threatening, but I definitely needed to go to the hospital immediately. I called an Uber. I don't have the time or expertise to do the months of legalese and calculus it would take me to understand my insurance policy, so I have no idea how much an ambulance ride would have cost me. $0? $400? $15000? None of those numbers would surprise me. As best I…

The system works fairly well if you are poor too. I know several people who have walked into and out of the hospital without paying a dime.

It really seems like the middle class gets the raw end of the deal.

Post reply on HN