Sunday, 26 March 2017

Costs of Emergency Response: Comparing Ambulance in Vancouver with the Vancouver Fire Department.

Image Source: http://www.bcehs.ca/PublishingImages/BCAS_VAN_033012_113.jpg
A while ago I stumbled across this dataset which outlined the call volumes and types of calls which BCAS (BC Ambulance Service) responded to in the lower-mainland. Although I have plans to use this dataset for some future analysis. At an initial glance, what popped out at me was that the fire department responds on average to about 5% of BC Ambulances calls in the entire lower mainland but, close to 50% of calls in Vancouver itself. (in 2014)

This piqued my interest and got me wondering. What is the cost structure of the fire department? what is the cost structure of BCAS?

From a cost perspective, I have always wondered how cost effective it is to send 6 firefighters and the large fire truck to that many calls - both from a wage and capital cost perspective. Keep in mind, both BCAS and the Fire Department are paid for with public funds, just at different levels of government, provincial and municipal respectively.

Now, luckily the Vancouver fire department provides an extremely detailed breakdown of their previous years' activities in each municipal budget, these can be found here.  Unfortunately, BCAS provides a much less detailed public budget, as a result, I have had to do my best, scrounging together information from the above dataset, the BCAS 2014 annual report, which can be found here, and the BCAS 2014 Vancouver demand analysis which can be found here.

Compiling all this information I obtain the following table, which has also been augmented with wage data from workbc.ca



The big disclaimer here is that the BCAS expense data for Vancouver and the Lower mainland is entirely estimated at 25% and 50% based off of call volumes in relation to the provincial level. As such these are entirely arbitrary and may have no bearing on reality, but at least provide an insight into these areas.

While the expenses are estimated, the call volumes and labour information is accurate and obtained from the above-noted BCAS reports.

The second disclaimer is that Vancouver Fire provides their staffing information in terms of FTE, while BCAS provides it in terms of regular full-time, irregular full-time and part-time.

Through hear-say I understand that many of these "part-time" paramedics in Vancouver can, and often do, work more than a full-time schedule. But, at the risk of underestimating, I assign each part-time employee only 0.5 FTE while each full-time 1 FTE in calculating the FTE for BCAS in each region.

Finally, for the per crew information, BCAS generally operates in crews of 2 while I understand Vancouver Fire generally operates in crews of 4. (thank you, Brian, for this update! Also recognizing that Vancouver Fire will operate with as little as 2 for some medical calls. While this changes the number of FTE crew, this does not change the total expenses/call)

Now some discussion of the actual results of the above table.

My first surprise was that only 3% of the Vancouver fire departments calls are actually to deal with fires. Another 25% of their calls are fire inspections, to finish off with 72% of their calls being medical in nature, supporting BC ambulance. That means despite being a fire department (with their budget being about twice the estimated Vancouver BC ambulance budget) they primarily act in a capacity of being first responders to medical calls.

Now in a bit of preliminary research on this topic. I looked into the importance of first-responders, and empirically it appears that having a fast response time, all else equal, greatly increases the viability of the patient. My question then; does society benefit more when the first responder is from the fire department? or given the cost of fire response, would a modified response structure with BCAS be more cost effective and provide the same patient benefit?

Clearly, the Fire Department provides an extremely valuable service, especially in cases of vehicle accidents and hazardous materials. Unfortunately, I have not yet worked out from the above dataset, what percentage of Fire calls are due to hazmat or MVI (Motor Vehicle Incident), or just medical, with the request of a first-responder (Fire) crew. This will definitely, be the area of future follow ups! (followed-up here)

To finish off this post, as it has gotten a little long, If we evaluate the cost per call and the wage cost per call between calls in Vancouver for BCAS and the Fire Department we see that:
  • Vancouver Fire has a wage cost per call almost 8 times larger than BC ambulance.
  • Vancouver Fire has a total cost per call almost 3 times larger than BC ambulance. 
Although this data is already 3 years old and pre-fentanyl crisis, I find it fascinating that most of the news coverage on the crisis comes from the fire department, resulting in calls for more department funding when perhaps a more cost effective solution would be to increase ambulance funding and staffing.

But then again, these observations are just from a quick back of the envelope calculation. Perhaps there is much much more to the story. 

As I said my interest has been piqued and I now have a good chunk of data to pour over. 

Move over real-estate market, I have found a new topic for the next little while.

What are your thoughts? feel free to comment below.

EDIT: In retrospect, this article may seem like I have decided to pick a side in an emergency services battle for supremacy. This is not the case! Rather the above article is purely motivated by my curiosity and surprise based on the results and through this hopefully stir some thought on how these essential services may be provided in a more cost-effective manner!




Thursday, 23 March 2017

#Budget2017

Image Source: https://goo.gl/images/SWCjEH

I was really looking forward to the federal budget, I had big plans to look through it and be able to write a bit of praise, a bit of criticism, and everything between.

Instead ... I am left with not much to write about because there is very little that is actually happening in this budget!

First, the 2017 Canadian Federal Budget can be found in detail here, or summarized fact sheets can be found here.

Thus ... to be nitpicky, a few comments on the budget below:

Apparently, this budget is going to help the middle class (What is the middle class?) - at one point Morneau says:
We’re repairing nearly 50,000 social housing units, to make sure families have a safe and secure place to live.
We’ve lifted 18 long-term boil water advisories in First Nations communities, getting us closer to our ultimate goal of ensuring that every child in Canada has access to clean drinking water.
Ten years from now, our cities, towns, and northern and rural communities will be healthier and better connected.
Our air and water will be cleaner.
This is admirable, the lifting of 18 long-term boil water advisories is commendable! but my issue with this is that - in the first liberal budget, they gave a small amount of money to commission a study on housing affordability, to a degree I was expecting a follow-up to this in this budget, especially since the issue of housing has been dominating local media, especially in Vancouver and Toronto.

"To make sure families have a safe and secure place to live", is that except for families in Vancouver/Toronto? where I am sure we are going to need more than 50,000 repaired social housing units to house a "middle class" which is finding it harder and hard to afford basic shelter.

Okay, given my recent posts on shelter and real-estate, that little rant should have been expected, but there is one area in particular which really struck me, that most in the media seem to be praising.

That is the governments pick of 6 specific industries which it deems worthy to invest in, to further develop our comparative advantage and ability to produce and trade in these fields. While in theory, the process of the government picking "winners and losers" amongst industry can generate comparative advantage and assist an economy - but what happens if we get it wrong? In this case, the government is considering the following 6 industries:

  1. Digital
  2. Clean Technology
  3. Agri-food
  4. Advanced manufacturing
  5. Bio-sciences
  6. Clean Resources.
I mean ... if the politicians actually get things right, this could be good! And really, politicians with all their resources and information must be pretty good at picking winners and losers - just look at the Canadian Aerospace industry and bombardier.

Overall, this is a midterm budget and in the back of my mind, I had low expectations for it. 

At the same time, I kept telling myself that it was a midterm budget and because voters are short-sighted and because to our south we have some interesting politics happening. So perhaps the government will present some serious structural changes (few that they campaigned on, and which Canadians had been asking for) - after all, they have the time to recuperate before the next election if they turned out poorly! 

so maybe it was a well-played wait and see on the part of Morneau, or perhaps it will turn out to be a missed opportunity. 

What are your thoughts on this budget? Much ado about nothing? any parts you liked, didn't like, had hoped to see?





The Langford Budget: There are No Solutions, Only Trade-offs

  Image Generated with Google Gemini I don’t often shift to this perspective on this blog, but today I am putting on my hat as a Langford Ci...