The antithesis to American medicine
 

As a canadian, I have no issue with a higher tax rate to cover emergency medical transport in any means, ground or by air.
to me that's an affordable insurance. One day I may require it.
what I have a problem with is the use of taxpayer money for non emergency patient transfers. That's my can of worms.

By that logic, if we have a critically ill patient in ITU in hospital A who needs an elective (ie next day, not emergency, but planned) interhospital transfer to hospital B for specialised treatment not available locally you have a problem with it? Secondary planned interhospital transfers have been proved by peer reviewed publications to reduce mortality by over a third and to be cost effective. There is no equivalent evidence for primary emergency transfers.

I am not reopening the debate about the benefit of HEMS, merely pointing out that if the public, insurers or politicians decide what health care is and is not available / paid for we may get a poor service. In a war the generals plan the battle to achieve the aspirations of politicians. Healthcare, available to all, should be provided based on scientific evidence of need and benefit as supported (not dictated) by the medical profession. HEMS is healthcare and no exception.

I suspect GreyhorizonHeli you are not discussing secondary transfers but primary movement of people who dont justify HEMS, but my argument in the previous paragraph still applies

I have preached for Years that HEMS Operator's Mission Statement should clearly state......"We are in business to provide safe, efficient, medical transportation.".

Nothing to do with "saving lives".....unless it is just a by-product of the use of advanced protocols and equipment as part of the service provided to the Patient.

If more HEMS Crews bought into that concept far fewer of them would avoid the pitfall of seeing themselves as denying there Grim Reaper his harvest and thus Heroes.

In this case....I pretty much agree with RadGirl about the value of helicopter patient transfer if appropriate protocols are used to determine the need for transfer by aircraft.


That being said....I have seen the ill or injured that were approaching death be loaded up and transferred to another medical facility purely to prevent harm to the Mortality Rate for the facility requesting the transfer.

I have also transported a lot of folks that had no medical necessity for transport involving the sophisticated equipment and special training enjoyed by our Medical Crews.

At one location we were the transport method of choice for Federal Prison Inmates for security reasons and not medical reasons.

IMHO Radgirl...if you arent on the cusp of death, then my taxpayers money shouldnt fund your expensive taxi.
show me a critical patient for ailment A, and having elective surgery B the day after. Doesnt make sense that my dad who suffered a heart attack on monday, would still do his scheduled hip replacement on tuesday.

But he might need transport to a medical facility equipped to do his Triple By-Pass Surgery to fix that sick heart......would that be okay with you?

That's obvious poor planning to not take him there in the first place in the first helicopter ride.
but poor planning aside, if hes still in danger of dying, then yes. However, if hes stable, then a ground transfer could be a more viable option cost wise.

Totally agree this is unacceptable in medical terms.