Public Aid Pays for Taxi Rides in IL

IMHO why should IPA recipients in IL get free taxi rides for dialysis? Now other IPA recipients are up in arms wanting the same for nondialysis reasons. Where does it end with Medicaid payouts?

My solution: medical transportation where many IPA patients can share a ride for a fee to and from appointments if needed. WTF, they can afford cigarettes, booze, cell phones (of not on the program that gives them away free), and rides to and from elsewhere, such as grocery stores. Not ALL recipients spend on these things, but its my observation that a fair % DO.

How long before Medicare recipients get the same perks? :confused:

I don’t know the details, since you didn’t post any links, but on the face of it, I’d rather pay for their taxi rides than pay for their ER visits when they can’t go for dialysis.

Yes. It’s so much better if they can’t get the taxi ride and thus reduce the surplus population.

They should just stay home and practice free, safe, centuries-proven alternative medicine.

I don’t know about you, but I’d hardly call a taxi ride a “perk” these days.

Anyway, I’m sure a deal is cut with the taxi companies and the whole thing is pretty cost effective.

Agreed, please post a link. I tried Googling and only came up with this thread, an old discussion on allnurses that doesn’t provide a cite, and some questionable taxi driver ads that don’t seem to mention it once you click through.

Yeah, I’m sick of all those people with major kidney failure living like kings! If only they understood what real suffering is like!

One of the women that I work with had a son born with a congenital heart condition. It gradually worsened to the point that walking the five blocks to the bus stop was not good for him. He needed a doctor’s note to be able to use the service and have it covered. There were a couple of times where the standard van service wasn’t available and they were given vouchers for cabs.

Why the hell shouldn’t transportation to and from doctors visits for people with certain conditions be paid for? If standard insurance would pay for it, why shouldn’t medicare or medicaid?

From CHOP regarding transportation:

I, too, would like to see some sort of a link before I get all stabby about the entitled and inconsiderate renal patients.

I expect the majority of patients prefer to arrange their own transportation.
But people too disoriented and weakened by dialysis to drive shouldn’t be on the road.
Medical transport cost a fortune compared to a public taxi.
I’m not familiar with the program in Illinois, but if it save resources and money I don’t see a reason to complain.

Forget about the cigarettes, booze, and cell phones. These people usually have shoes. If they can afford shoes, they can walk.

No way. Those streets come out of my taxes, you know!

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services

Trips must be pre-approved.
Use an approved transport company.
Only for certain conditions:renal dialysis, behavioral health services, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and physical therapy.
Provided in the least expensive mode (I assume this means they combine trips or use vans for multiple patients when appropriate)
You can make standing orders for ongoing treatments (e.g. every Tuesday and Friday at 8 am)

Sounds like a real money sink :rolleyes:

I’m sure that there is a deal cut. The taxi companies probably pay politicians and bureaucrats money under the table. I live in Illinois.

OK. Are you willing to raise funding to make this possible?

Those conditions sound fine to me, too. I suspect it’s a cost-savings for the state over risking letting those conditions go untreated and the patients’ conditions deteriorating and requiring even more expensive interventions.

Massachusetts has a similar program. It is a cost saving measure. If a patient can’t get a ride to their psychiatric appointments, they will end up costing the state thousands of dollars for inpatient care and ambulance rides. I’d imagine the same thing happens when you can’t get to a dialysis appointment.

If you’ve ever seen a person after dialysis, you don’t want them driving, nor do you want them on public busses passing out.

It’s conceivable this is a cost-saving measure. It may well be cheaper than establishing a medical transport van service, using ambulances, increasing bus routes, and/or emergency room admissions.

In a well-run state or local government, someone would have done some cost-benefit analysis on these alternatives and pitched the best choice to decision makers. Are you sure that’s not the case here?