Reply to "industry-informed perspectives on the benefits of rideshare-based medical transportation".

The authors of "Rideshare Transportation to Health Care: Evidence From a Medicaid Implementation" respond to a letter to the editor.

Rideshare transportation to health care: evidence from a Medicaid implementation.

OBJECTIVES: Some managed care companies are testing rideshare services as an approach to providing transportation to health care for Medicaid enrollees. The objective of this study was to assess whether more rideshare transportation to health care was associated with improved self-reported ride experiences and fewer late/failed passenger pickups for Medicaid enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed a random sample of Medicaid enrollees in a northwestern US state on their experiences with nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) in the past year. We linked survey responses to administrative data on NEMT utilization from the state's transportation broker to obtain an objective measure of rideshare utilization. METHODS: We used bivariate tests and multivariable logistic regressions to examine associations between enrollee perspectives on the quality of and access to health care and rideshare use, defined as none, some, or many NEMT trips through rideshare services. RESULTS: More than 35% of respondents received NEMT from rideshare services at least once. Perceptions of the ride experience, driver, and vehicle did not differ based on the proportion of rideshare trips received. Having more rideshare trips was associated with reporting late and failed pickups. In multivariable regression, the statistical significance held for failed pickups. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that rideshare to health care programs can meet similar goals of quality compared with traditional NEMT services but may have implications for health care access for Medicaid enrollees. Future evaluations need to include the perspectives of enrollees and explore potential differences among different Medicaid subpopulations.

Longitudinal appraisals of family caregiving for people with disabilities enrolled in Medicaid managed care.

Objective: To longitudinally examine the impact of public family support on appraisals of caregiving burden, satisfaction, and self-efficacy among families of adults with disabilities.Background: Little research exists on family support and the family experience within Medicaid managed care across disabilities and longitudinally.Method: Illinois Medicaid managed care enrollees with disabilities and their family members completed surveys over 2 years. Only families and enrollees who lived together were included (N = 182 pairs).Results: Family members with more unmet family support needs had increased caregiving burden and decreased satisfaction and self-efficacy. Family members providing more unpaid care reported higher burden. Black family members had significantly lower burden, and parents had significantly lower satisfaction and self-efficacy. Family members of enrollees with intellectual and developmental disabilities had higher self-efficacy.Conclusion: Family support is important to caregiving appraisals.Implications: There is a need for including family needs for services within assessments for services and within policy.Implications for rehabilitationFamilies provide a substantial amount of care for their family members with disabilities.More family support for family caregivers of people with disabilities is related to better caregiving appraisals within Medicaid managed care.Family caregiver support needs should be taken into account within policy and service assessments.

Restraint, Restrictive Intervention, and Seclusion of People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Restraint, restrictive interventions, and seclusion are hotly contested practices with inconclusive evidence of their effectiveness. Because the use of restraint and seclusion on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is controversial and its effectiveness doubtable, this study was conducted to explore if and how they were permitted in Medicaid HCBS 1915(c) waivers, the largest providers of long-term services and supports (LTSS) for people with IDD. To do so, 111 fiscal year 2015 IDD waivers from across the nation were examined to determine if and how states permitted restraint, restrictive interventions, and seclusion. Findings revealed an overwhelming majority of waivers permitted the use of restraint (78.4%) and restrictive interventions (75.7%). A smaller proportion (24.3%) allowed the use of seclusion.