FireMedic65 Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 I'm leaning more towards billing everyone who requires rescue at least something. Why does every other industry in America charge for services rendered but EMS/Fire does not? If you honestly cannot pay like many in america then that can be taken into account but you should expect to be billed for services. Agreed. If my roof needs repair.. I have to pay to get it fixed. If I get a flat tire, I have to pay to get it fixed. If some asshat gets lots in the woods.. they should have to pay for being looked for.
Eydawn Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 Ruff- I'm not picking a fight either, I'm defending a professional position in an emphatic manner. ;-) Medical helicopter expenses are billed to the patient- that's the air EMS company billing for care provided. Nowhere did I indicate that medical helicopters are expected not to charge- if the patient requires one, they will be paying for one. Search helicopters are often provided by the military. They have to log flying hours, which are paid for ANYWAY. It is much more productive for them to get those hours flying out on an active search. They have to fly- no matter what. So when we request help, surprise! They get to fly and be useful, instead of just flying randomly to log hours. http://www.nasar.org/nasar/downloads/No_Bill_for_SAR_Position_Statement_-_NASAR_4-2009.pdf Please take a look at this... Also, please explore the links here: http://www.mra.org/drupal2/content/charge-rescue As far as the analogy of the driver who gets hurt, driving is an everyday occurrence, and most accidents statistically happen in areas with very rapid EMS response. You will pay for the ambulance care, and the ER care, if you are a SAR rescue as well. The problem is that most SAR responses occur in non-typical geography, AKA not the city street. Responders who are delayed in responding to an auto accident on a city street (or even a county road) are not exposed to greater danger as a direct result of the delay. Responders who go into the field to rescue someone in the wilderness ARE exposed to greater danger if the response is delayed as a result of someone fearing a bill. A stupid while driving is different than a stupid while hiking- most people hike much more infrequently than they drive. We value the safety of our responders more than being paid for the work we do. It's that simple. There is a direct correlation between charging for SAR and increased risk to responders. By taking this position, you are going to cause ripples... willing to bob along for a little? Do you do SAR? Do you know anyone who currently does SAR? If not, then please don't clamor for SAR to be paid. Unless you are DIRECTLY AFFECTED by whether or not SAR is paid, please don't insist upon it. It is a choice that has been made by the INTERNATIONAL Search and Rescue community. Unlike EMS, where it is your primary bill-paying gig, SAR is a volunteer profession. None of us does SAR as a career. It is a side volunteer opportunity. Do you want to insist that all homeless advocacy volunteers be paid? People doing homeless advocacy choose to do so and choose not to be paid... does it make any difference to YOU, as an individual, if they choose to do it for free? Most SAR teams are not providing EMS care except for interim stabilization before handing a patient off to a professional, paid agency. SAR providing medical care is not contributing to the anti-EMS education issue... as the primary focus of SAR is locating individuals and getting them TO professional care, not providing primary EMS care for a region. As far as FireMedic65's statement that a rescue rope never being used for a rescue again after it has been used, what world do you live in, haha? We inspect all of our equipment after every mission, and equipment is retired as necessary, but it is certainly not thrown out after every single rescue. That would be wasteful, ridiculous, and definitely make it impossible to function on a volunteer basis. As far as the one freebie stupid statement- most people never need a second rescue. That statement more indicates that if we have to come fish your ass out AGAIN for the same or similar dumb mistake, you're going to be charged because you can't indicate that you just didn't know any better... the primary concern here is RESCUER SAFETY. Ruff, I'm not surprised that you and the fellow on the airplane didn't part as friends... there's a reason he was vehemently attacking the idea of charging for rescue. See everything I've stated above. Sure, there's whackers in every gig, SAR included... but you'll find the non-whacker types among us just as much in support of not charging. Wendy CO EMT-B
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 12, 2010 Author Posted July 12, 2010 Ruff- I'm not picking a fight either, I'm defending a professional position in an emphatic manner. ;-) I respect you for that. NO fight here either Medical helicopter expenses are billed to the patient- that's the air EMS company billing for care provided. Nowhere did I indicate that medical helicopters are expected not to charge- if the patient requires one, they will be paying for one. I also did not infer that the medical helicopter was free. I was questioning the cost of the search helicopter not the medical helicopter because I don't believe in the article I read that medical helicopter transport was needed. All I am saying is that as a responsible hiker or explorer I would expect that the person rescued would be expected to pay for part of the bill. I truly truly respect your and your groups dedication to rescue. The reason why the guy and I didn't part as friends was not because our positions were so different but that he became nasty and got personal with me. As a matter of fact, he brought up that he was a search and rescue guy (his shirt and coat had quite a few decals so he was glaringly out there as a SAR member). I simply asked him if his SAR group billed those who they rescued. I did go out and read the position statements you posted and yes, I understand where those statements come from but I believe that you should be able to recoup the costs of your time and effort in some way. I also do not truly buy the argument that someone will wait to call if they think a bill is involved. Those are the types of people who will delay calling anyway. I know that we will never agree on this conversation and I'm not taking the stance that you should charge, I'm just questioning the no charge thought process. I understand that searching and rescuing someone is the one of the most humanitarian of things out there but I question the refusal to even consider it. I expect a bill for everything else, I do take comfort that if I ever become a dumbass or get to use my freebie stupid card that people like you will be there to pick my sorry ass up off the trail and whisk me away to definitive care but I personally would be wondering where the bill was.
Eydawn Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 And then you could donate, and recompense the team because you understand the work that goes into it... Charging for rescue HAS been considered. It's been thoroughly considered, argued over, and firmly rejected. Where do you think those policy statements came from? It's not worth the risk, in the general SAR community, to have people NOT CALL until way too late. Wendy CO EMT-B
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 12, 2010 Author Posted July 12, 2010 And then you could donate, and recompense the team because you understand the work that goes into it... Charging for rescue HAS been considered. It's been thoroughly considered, argued over, and firmly rejected. Where do you think those policy statements came from? It's not worth the risk, in the general SAR community, to have people NOT CALL until way too late. Wendy CO EMT-B I'm not arguing the point of the policies and where they come from. I'm sure people smarter than I had a hand in them. If it's not worth the risk, in the general SAR community to have people NOT CALL until way too late, then is it worth the risk, in the general EMS community to have people NOT CALL until way too late either. By that logic, EMS and Fire should be free too. I think we have killed this horse and I've already reached out to you in a PM. I think we can continue to debate this there even though my pm gave more background to you. And if I indeed needed SAR then I would send some amount after I realized that you were not going to bill me.
Eydawn Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 EMS and Fire don't face additional risk to the RESPONDERS from people waiting to call. In most cases. SAR does. It's not the risk to the patient that we're worried about here (of course we worry about the patient...) it's the risk to US. As it was put in my earliest training.... MA1. My Ass FIRST! Wendy CO EMT-B
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 12, 2010 Author Posted July 12, 2010 EMS and Fire don't face additional risk to the RESPONDERS from people waiting to call. In most cases. SAR does. It's not the risk to the patient that we're worried about here (of course we worry about the patient...) it's the risk to US. As it was put in my earliest training.... MA1. My Ass FIRST! Wendy CO EMT-B I misunderstood you in your earlier post. I read your response that it was not worth the risk ot the patient. I totally understand the risk to the providers. The patient is secondary. I do believe that. My safety 1st.
Eydawn Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 That's the whole point!! The nature of SAR is such that the RESPONDERS are at more risk the longer the person has been lost or injured. Sure, the patient is also screwed... but as put earlier, it takes WAY more resources the longer something has gone without attention. Without fail. Wendy CO EMT-B
spenac Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 Yes absolutely you should charge. There are expenses even to volunteer agencies. In fact the person should be paying the lost wages and other expenses of each volunteer. They took off work to save you least you can do is repay them. Plus by billing the SAR can invest in more and better equipment for future rescues. Way to often we here of SAR not having what they need to do the job right so bill the people then buy what you need. It should not be up to each person to buy what they need or for tax payers to support it.
Richard B the EMT Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I have vague memories of an article, in JEMS, on some fool lost their kayak carrying their supplies in a river, called for assistance on their cell phone, primarily due to lack of water. Lack of Water, in the middle of a river! Perhaps understandable, as the person had no inkling of if the water was safe to drink or not. This individual was fined and billed for the "Rescue". I say: charge and fine those who do something stupid that results in need of rescue, or ask for help when they don't truly need it. For actual accidents, those who "truly" need assistance and/or rescue, bill them directly, or their insurance carriers, just like you'd bill for an ambulance response for more mundane calls.
Recommended Posts