The examples cited by griffothefog and Bertie Thruster are some of the many anecdotes (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way) that are told about HEMS work. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence base does not conclusively support these findings at the present time - how you measure/judge effectiveness plays a large part in the value you lend to HEMS operations.
As funding follows proven treatments (which in the UK is decided on by NICE), HEMS will never get Government backing whilst it remains an uncertain entity. The cynic in me would say, why should the Government pay for something it gets for free, especially in these times of austerity? I'm fairly sure that if SAR could be funded by local donors, the Government would be delighted in not having to sign a costly contract...
What amazes me about UK HEMS is the overall lack of national organisation. Individual charities have been known to squabble over geographical fund raising boundaries with publicly aired grievances over collecting practices. HEMS operators have sprung up in each county in the UK but are they best placed to serve the local population or are they a product of convenient placement to fit within said geographical boundaries? Why is there no over arching structure on a national basis?
Some may suggest this is just wishful thinking, but you only have to look at the RNLI to see that a charitable organisation can run a hugely successful nation-wide operation. Further more, their annual income generation allows for the funding of an enviable training facility to hone the skills of their staff/volunteers and some advanced technology on their boats. Surely it is not outwith the realms of feasibility for HEMS to emulate this?
Rant over... for now!
Simon