Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:54:08.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emerging Organizational Structures in the Ambulance Industry in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Richard A. Narad
Richard A. Narad*
Affiliation:
California State University, Chico, California
*
*Department of Health and Community Services, California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929–0505USAEmail:RNARAD@CSUCHICO.EDU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This analysis seeks to identify emerging forms of organizations in emergency medical services (EMS) in the United States, to provide examples of them, to relate them to changes in healthcare generally, and to apply a classification scheme. Public policy issues related to these new forms of organizations and lessons from other areas of the healthcare system are identified.

Recent changes in the healthcare system in the United States have been marked by modifications in the structure of organizations that provide and pay for health services. New forms of organizations and alliances among existing organizations have emerged in an effort to improve the efficiency of the services provided and to improve organizations' market positions.

Reflecting increased competition within EMS and the demands of the changing health-care delivery system, several types of organizations have begun to emerge in EMS that resemble those occurring in health care generally. These include forms of horizontal integration, such as consolidated ambulance services and various models of ambulance service networks; and forms of vertical integration, such as demand management programs and public-private joint ventures. The ultimate end might be complete integration with a carve-out of all non-scheduled care.

Although changes in EMS organizations result largely from marketplace decisions by sellers and purchasers, this does not mean that there is no public policy role. While new organizational forms may increase the ambulance industry's efficiency, public policy makers must be concerned about quality and access as well. Some policy responses will promote marketplace changes, others will accept them generally, but will seek to correct problems, and a third group will attempt to restrain the market.

Keywords

ambulance servicesantitrust lawseconomic competitioneconomicsemergency medical servicesemergency medical services systemregulationsregulatory program
Type
Special Reports
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 57 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Zelman, W: The Changing Health Care Marketplace, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
2.Blaul, R, Julihn, M: California Fire Service EMS Platform, 1995.Google Scholar
3.Rakich, JS, Longest, B, Darr, K: Managing Health Services Organization. 3rd ed.Baltimore: Health Professions Press, 1992, p 326.Google Scholar
4.Finegan, J: Strength in numbers. Inc. Magazine. December 1995, pp 94–95.Google Scholar
5.Goldsmith, JC: Can Hospitals Survive? Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1981, p 107.Google Scholar
6.Jones, Don (industry analyst, formerly of MedTrans): 10 predictions for 1997. Shaping EMS for the 21st Century (annual conference of the Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association of California). San Diego, CA. 28 May, 1997.Google Scholar
7.Welcome to American Medical Response. World Wide Web: http://www.amr-inc.com.Google Scholar
8.Rural/Metro, Inc.: Locations. World Wide Web: http://www.rural-metro.com/who/where/index.html.Google Scholar
9.Paul, Verrochi, quoted in Finegan.Google Scholar
10.Laidlaw Inc.: American Medical Response to Manage Medical Transportation for Kaiser Permanente Members Nationwide (press release). World Wide Web: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981211/amermedic1.html. 11 December, 1998Google Scholar
11.Gately, E: Rural/Metro to Lay Off 17 at Corporate Office. Scottsdale Tribune. 03 July, 1998, p A3.Google Scholar
12.National vs. Local EMS. Management Focus. 1998;13(1):1.Google Scholar
13.Kongstvedt, P: Essentials of Managed Health Care, 2nd ed.Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1997.Google Scholar
14. Are MSNs the answer? Management Focus. 1997;12(2):1,3.Google Scholar
15.Roe, L: Small ambulance firms rally around new network. Atlanta Business Chronicle. 15 June, 1998. World Wide Web: http://www.amci-ty.com/adanta/stories/061598/newscolumn7.htmlGoogle Scholar
16.Federal Trade Commission: Letter from Robert E Leibenluft, Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition, Health Care Division to John A. Cook, Esq. 30 January, 1997. World Wide Web: http://www.ftc.gov/WWW/opa/9701/mhrpr.htmGoogle Scholar
17.Federal Trade Commission: Letter from Robert F. Leibenluft, Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition, Health Care Division to Shawn M. Lyden, Esq. 30 January, 1997. World Wide Web: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/adops/ohio.htmGoogle Scholar
18.Federal Trade Commission: Letter from Robert F. Leibenluft, Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition, Health Care Division to Timothy C. Cashmore. 22 December, 1997. World Wide Web: http://www.ftc.gov/WWW/bc/adops/aims.fin.htmGoogle Scholar
19.Rural Metro Corp: Quarterly Report (SEC form 10–Q), 14 February, 1997Google Scholar
20.EMS Insider. 1997;24(3):5.Google Scholar
21.Garza, MA: AMR Northwest helps Kaiser manage EMS care. Journal of Emergency Medical Services. 1996;20:84.Google Scholar
22.Skeen, DT. AMR/Kaiser program proceeds in Portland. World Wide Web: http://www.laidlaw.com/laidlaw/healthcare/studies.htm.Google Scholar
23. Telephone conversation with David Fuller of American Medical Response, Portland. (14 January, 1999).Google Scholar
24.Alameda County EMS District: Request for Information. December 1998.Google Scholar
25.Alameda County EMS District: An update report by the EMS Council to the Board of Supervisors on the Future of Emergency Medical Services in Alameda County. July 1998.Google Scholar
26.Helander-Daugherty, Kris, Alameda County EMS District (personal communication); 03 January, 2000.Google Scholar
27.Rustand, Warren, quoted in Rural/Metro Corporation: Rural/Metro Corporation Announces $9 Million in New Contract Activity (Company Press Release). 24 July, 1998. World Wide Web: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/980724/ruralmetr1.html.Google Scholar
28.Cromwell, C: Paramedics to ride with firefighters. Saratoga News. 17 January, 1996. World Wide Web: http://metroactive.com/papers/saratoga.news/01.17.96/paramedic.html.Google Scholar
29.City of San Diego, Fire and Life Safety Services: City of San Diego's Redesigned EMS System. 28 May, 1997. World Wide Web: http://www.firesafe.com/sdfdems1.html.Google Scholar
30.Rural/Metro partners with Fire Department. EMS Insider. 1997;3.Google Scholar
31.Companies to package emergency services. Modern Healthcare. 04 August, 1997, p 17.Google Scholar
32.U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: EMS Agenda for the Future. August 1996, p iii.Google Scholar
33.Federal Trade Commission: Letter from Robert F. Leibenluft, Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition, Health Care Division to John A. Cook, Esq. 30 January, 1997. World Wide Web: http://ww.ftc.gov/WWW/opa/9701/mhrpr.htm.Google Scholar
34.Narad, R, Gillespie, W: Public vs. private: Separating facts from values. Prehospital Emergency Care 1998;2:196–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Narad, RA: Economic regulation of ambulance services in California. Prehospital Emergency Care 1997;1:253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Quoted in Companies to package emergency services. Modern Healthcare. 04 August, 1997, p 17.Google Scholar
37.California Emergency Medical Services Commission: Position paper on EMS and managed care. 1996.Google Scholar