State governments typically plan activities by connecting private sector groups and greasing the wheels. A lot of money goes to encouraging regular checkups or screenings, but people are less likely to go if they need to take a bus: routes and schedules mean they need to take off more work, and it's easy to just skip and do one of the million other things that need done now (even just unwinding). But a taxi who comes to you is convenient and hard to say "No" to.
So is the claim here that the state is paying for the rides to the checkups? The comment even indicates that the taxi companies structures themselves around the insurance company contracts, which unless the state is paying insurers, doesn't seem to have the state in the loop. I'm confused how the state is supposed to be in this too.
Medicaid is the United States' program for providing health care to poor people. Medicare (for people 65 years and older) is administered by the federal government, while Medicaid is separately administered by each state.
Arizona is a subcontracting state. The state government pays insurance companies to manage the services provided under the Medicaid program; the insurance companies pay the transportation companies to get people to their appointments.
> The comment even indicates that the taxi companies structures themselves around the insurance company contracts
It started out as a taxi company... Then "transportation vouchers" came along, so businesses could get people where they needed to go without having to give people cash for taxi fares.
Over the decades vouchers became a larger and larger part of the taxi company's business. Paper vouchers for drivers became electronic vouchers; pickups and dropoffs are scheduled electronically.
When the Apps came along the taxi company's business of leasing taxis mostly evaporated, so the company got rid of its taxi fleet and now focuses on its transportation contracts ("vouchers").
> I'm confused how the state is supposed to be in this too.
In the comment above I mixed up who pays for what, but ultimately the transportation funds come from the state government and federal government, filtered through the state's subcontracted insurance company.
The reason I asked is because this reads as an indictment of government waste, when actually it was a private company which paid (and presumably selected) transportation vendors.
Interestingly, Arizona seems to have recently changed the rules around that to allow Lyft to service these customers. Personally I find the idea of financing transport for Medicaid patients on the back of IPO funny money a darkly humorous take on the capital gains tax.
My original comment was how the health care system is used to put people to work. It's not really waste, it's a ham-fisted approach to the jobs problem.
One of the passengers I stay in touch with now has a United Health Care [UHC] AHCCCS (Medicaid) plan. They have their primary transportation provider, but if they don't show up she can call UHC and they'll send her trip to Lyft.
It's probably cheaper for UHC to use their primary transportation provider. Lyft provides flexibility and a backup way to get people where they need to go.
