Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly. I was wondering the same thing. I got that two services were competing against each other and nothing more out of it.After reading this, I guess I am left wondering what it is you are trying to say regarding this situation?? How does this relate to job killing? This seems more like a power struggle between two groups about who can provide better service..
yeah, because there aren't examples of horribly run FD based EMS systems....#allEMSshouldbehandledbyfire...
Name one, I dare you! Hahahayeah, because there aren't examples of horribly run FD based EMS systems....
#AllEMSshouldbehandledbymuniciple3rdpartyEMSAgencies
As my chief says, there's no such thing as a non-profit. Though we are tax supported (~60% of the budget), we are always looking to turn a profit. Without his attitude we might not have survived the recession.While I don't work for a public provider, and admittedly all of my experience is with the private for-profit sector, wouldn't it be safe to assume public (third) service agencies may be profit-driven in their own rights?
Doesn't fiscal responsibility play any role in allocations for their respective services?
I can't imagine there are no profits to be made in spite of their reasons for them, even in the public sector. Again, I'd like the OP to share his viewpoints since he's the one who, thus far, has posted such a somewhat misleading thread topic.
in a word? no.... hence the term non-profit.While I don't work for a public provider, and admittedly all of my experience is with the private for-profit sector, wouldn't it be safe to assume public (third) service agencies may be profit-driven in their own rights?
When I worked in NJ, for an urban city, we hemorrhaged money. we spent decent money on our system (decent equipment, decent salaries, jobs besides field provider, grant funded special ops equipment, etc), and we constantly came back in the red. much of our population was on medicaid, or had no insurance, or was undocumented, so we would have to expend funds to treat and transport them, but we would never recoup those losses. Thankfully we were attached to a semi profitable hospital, so we were able to balance out our books. But there was no way we could survive on transport revenue alone (and could have used 4 more units to assist with the call volume, but I digress).Doesn't fiscal responsibility play any role in allocations for their respective services?
I can't imagine there are no profits to be made in spite of their reasons for them, even in the public sector. Again, I'd like the OP to share his viewpoints since he's the one who, thus far, has posted such a somewhat misleading thread topic.
in a word? no.... hence the term non-profit.
profit driven means you need to take a bunch of your money out of your budget and put it towards someone's profit center. money that could be spent on salaries, on equipment, on additional staffed units, etc. When you get tax payer funding, it's more money you can count on to use for operational expenses, and means you don't have to worry about if patient a has good insurance or bad insurance (or nothing at all).
As my chief says, there's no such thing as a non-profit. Though we are tax supported (~60% of the budget), we are always looking to turn a profit. Without his attitude we might not have survived the recession.
All of the non-profits I am familiar with are still profit driven. If they are not profit driven and do not work to get paid then they will go under pretty quickly. You still need money to operate in a non-profit company.in a word? no.... hence the term non-profit.
While that is true to a point, the money needs to come from somewhere. ERs also routinely run in the red, because they have to offer the expensive services to save your life, but there is no guarantee that they will be paid for services rendered. And while the hospital can make up those losses at other departments, EMS doesn't always have the luxury. yes, services need to be rendered regardless of the ability to pay, no argument there, but big picture wise, it's a poor business model to spend $500 on a patient who is going to pay you maybe $15, and you can't get any more out of them (yes, that is a gross exaggeration with made up numbers, but i hope you get the point)And in emergency care, ability to pay is irrelevant (at the hospitals, by EMTALA, and for EMS, usually by state law).
but non-profits are allowed to be in the red when they calculate revenue vs expenses, and if they are too much in the black, they need to distribute the funds, often back into their internal infrastructure or to their employees.
My boss in particular is quite peculiar based off of the fact that as for-profits stand, he wholeheartedly invests tons of money into the reputation of his company, its service model, and in turn, it's image; we literally have gotten a fleet of new ambulance all but 1(?) year since I've been here. He would be the (thankfully) rare former, and not the latter.would your boss rather spend 100,000 on putting an additional (non-required) unit in service, or taking that 100,000 as additional profit for a year well done?