Respectfully, not an apples to apples comparison.
1- Schools (and school districts) are mandated, though the quality is debatable. EMS is mandated too, but not the way schools are.
2- School districts in rural settings receive HEAVY subsidies from both the state and federal government EMS has not since the 1980s when Reagan shut that down. (Still love the man though!!!)There are no subsidies for EMS. This is not a local issue, but a state/Federal one, and cannot be pinned on the locals "not thinking EMS is important". Interestingly enough, most of these agencies subside ONLY on donations, so someone thinks their important.
3- By contrast, EMS is a mandated service for every county to provide , but unfunded by either the state or federal government, a fact we all are of aware of here, nor does the mandate say the county has to provide good EMS.
Ironically, many of these rural EMS agencies would get more money if they simply bought an old fire engine, added the words "Fire and Rescue" to the end of their name, and applied for SAFER grants.
I AGREE THAT AS A NATION THIS COUNTRY PUTS FAR TO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON EMS IN COMPARISON TO FIREFIGHTING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT...but thats a federal issue. And its not just funding, but minimum standards (when will degrees become mandatory for medics dammit!!!), legislation, and other forms of support too. But thats not the focus of THIS thread.
The focus of THIS thread, as I read it, is some feel that the use of ECAs on the ambulance is an EPIC FAIL. Usually (making assumptions here) this is by people with little of no frame of reference to the challenges and start realities of some parts of thsi country. Everywhere is not California, Dallas, New York, or Saint Louis. You dont have a trauma center in every state (Ex. There is no LEVEL I TRAUMA Center in Idaho, ANYWHERE). You dont have taxing districts, or first responders, or even law enforcement when you need it.
My point was to provide a frame of reference. RIGHT OR WRONG, these services are serving isolated pockets of humanity with populations less than some of our apartment complexes. There are seem fiscal realities that go with that situation.
In these unique situations, staffing an ambulance is a challenge, and using ECA's so you can have an EMT in the back is a victory in some parts of the country. I was curiosu and did some basic research....Looking at the population base of the community mentioned in the OP, the population density, and the median income, this is likely one of those situations.
Is it ideal, no. But stomping our foot and demanding that somehow things change wont help it. Demanding that we put more money in the situation and have "Paid" EMTs wont help either when there is no money to put in there.
I work with these rural EMTs on many occasions (well nto the rural EMTs mentioned in the article, but here in ID). Sure there are some things that could be improved on. IMHO, the limited $$$ could be stretched way farther with regional cooperatives. But the independent spirit that has kept these communities alive in the face of significant adversity often gets in the way of cooperation. But this is true in many rural communities and even urban ones, not just in Idaho.
So my point is that if my service chose to staff ECAs to scrape an extra $$, it would indeed be a fail. But for these communities its not a matter of scraping a dollar, its about getting bodies in the door, and hooked on EMS, so you can get them on to be EMTs later. Other than the use of the term "driver" (which we all universally hate) this is a community EMS trying to recruit and keep their ambulances staffed and on the road. SO, best of luck to them.
Again, respectfully Submitted.
- Steve