Was selection bias accounted for?
If advanced ambulances are sent to the really horrific problems and basic ambulances to the basic problems then a result like "more people die near the advanced ambulances" is going to a consequence of the selection not the service. This conclusion could (in the lack of understanding that makes up the large majority of politicians) result in more harm being done to the general welfare instead of current levels of good.
There seems to be an additional selection bias implied by the article. It appears they are only counting live bodies that make it to the hospital.
ALS should be able to get more borderline patients to the hospital which later die while with BLS they are more likely to be declared dead either
at the scene or before they reach the hospital and therefore not counted towards that number.