Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION 

FOR DIALYSIS PATIENTS 

,atiSXM7C2S “b% 

* 

g

:

* 

% 

>+ % -g

%g> 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

AUGUST 1994 

OEI-03-90-02132 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIGS Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECITONS 

The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

This report was prepared in the Philadelphia regional office under the direction of Joy Quill, 

Regional Inspector General and Robert A. Vito, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Project 

staf~ 

REGION 13EADOUARTERS 

Nancy J. Molyneaux, Project Leader Hugh Hetzer, Program Analyst


Laura M. Shafron, Intern


Myra Reichel, Intern


For additional copies of this repo~ please contact the Philadelphia Regional Office at 

(800) 531-9562 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To identify non-emergency transportation services and sources of financial assistance to 

cover transportation expenses for patients going to kidney dialysis in a sample of eight 

cities. 

BACKGROUND 

In previous work, we found that many dialysis patients do not meet Medicare coverage 

guidelines for ambulance transportation. As part of its response to our findings, the 

Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has planned research on alternative 

forms of transportation for dialysis patients. The information in this report is provided to 

assist HCFA as it pursues that research and formulates policy in this area. 

The HCFA explains in the Medicare Carriers Manual that no payment for ambulance 

transportation may be made in any case in which some means of transportation other 

than an ambulance could be utilized without endangering the individual’s health, whether 

or not such other transportation is actually available (section 2120.2.A.). The Manual 

also states that a person receiving outpatient dialysis is not ordinarily ill enough to 

require an ambulance (section 2120.3 .J.). While Medicare does cover transportation 

services in limited circumstances, transport in a vehicle other than an ambulance is not 

covered. 

Most persons with kidney failure go to dialysis facilities for treatment rather than 

dialyzing at home. These patients must travel to the facilities an average of three times 

per week. A small number of these patients use ambulances to go to and from dialysis 

at a very high cost. 

A recent Office of Inspector General report (Ambulance Transpotiahon for ESRD 

Beneficiaries: Medical Necessi~ OEI-03-90-02130) found that many ambulance transports 

to dialysis did not meet Medicare’s medical necessity guidelines. The study found many 

of these patients could have been transported safely by other means. However, it was 

not clear what types of non-emergency transportation were available or whether nonemergency transportation was physically and financially accessible to patients going to 

dialysis. The HCFA staff asked us to find out what we could about transportation 

semices for dialysis patients. 

We obtained information from transportation coordinators in 18 dialysis facilities in eight 

cities. These respondents identified 37 non-emergency transportation providers and 16 

organizations which provide financial assistance for transportation expenses from whom 

we gathered further information. 

i 
FINDINGS 

~ampotiation appeam to be avaikble in most of the sampled cities. 

Patients use a number of different types of vehicles to travel to dialysis. These include 

cars, taxis, wheelchair vans, passenger vans, and buses. According to dialysis facility 

respondents, approximately one-quarter of their patients come to dialysis in privately 

owned cars. 

Transportation seems generally available in most of the sampled cities. Dialysis facility 

respondents in five of the sampled cities thought that there was enough transportation 

available for people going to dialysis. Only an estimated 20-22 of the nearly 2000 

patients treated at the facilities in our sample occasionally missed treatments due to lack 

of affordable transportation. Thirty-four out of 37 transportation providers did not have 

waiting lists for patients who needed transport to dialysis. 

Financial &tance for tran.yxntation expenses was aiko generally available. 

Financial assistance for transportation expenses comes from a variety of sources. These 

include Medicaid in all States, and in some places State kidney programs, the American 

Kidney Fund, Area Agencies on Aging, the American Red Cross, and the National 

Kidney Foundation. 

Howeve.q reqxmdknts did ident@ probkms in some locations for some patients. 

In one of the eight cities in our sample dialysis facility respondents felt there were not 

enough transportation services at all for people going to dialysis. In two other cities 

respondents did not think there were enough transportation services for certain people or 

in certain areas. 

Respondents from all sampled cities also identified other barriers to access. Three 

problems were frequently mentioned: long waiting times, costs for patients not eligible 

for financial assistance, and lack of physical assistance to patients using the services. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on this limited review, we draw several preliminary conclusions about nonemergency transportation for dialysis patients. We offer these to HCFA as it conducts a 

more substantive effort to examine access to transportation for dialysis patients. 

First, it does not appear that lack of access to alternative forms of transportation is a 

central explanation of our data indicating inappropriate use of emergency transportation. 

In most of the sampled cities, alternative forms of transportation seem generally 

available. 

ii 
Second, successful approaches to developing a network of transportation options seem to 

exist. More in-depth review of the five cities where respondents reported quite favorably 

about the availability of transportation might provide good lessons for other localities. 

How did such networks come to exist? How are the problems which were identified in 

other cities addressed? 

Third, some problems might merit further examination: locations where access problems 

might exist, special access problems for certain populations, and problems of long waiting 

times and lack of physical assistance that might apply more generally to all dialysis 

patients. These are areas that HCFA may wish to pursue further in its research planned 

on this subject. In addition, non-urban populations (who we did not examine) may also 

merit further examination, since such areas may pose different challenges or represent 

unique issues. 

... 

111 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCHON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Availability oftransportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Financial assistance for transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Problems with transportation services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

APPENDICES 

f% Sample ofcities . . . . . . . ..o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4-1 

B: which provide assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE


To identify non-emergency transportation services and sources of financial assistance to


cover transportation expenses for patients going to kidney dialysis in a sample of eight


cities.


BACKGROUND


In previous work, we found that many dialysis patients do not meet Medicare coverage


guidelines for ambulance transportation. As part of its response to our findings, the


Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has planned research on alternative


forms of transportation for dialysis patients. The information in this report is provided to


assist HCFA as it pursues that research and formulates policy in this area.


The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) explains in the Medicare Carriers


Manual that no payment for ambulance transportation may be made in any case in which


some means of transportation other than an ambulance could be utilized without


endangering the individual’s health, whether or not such other transportation is actually


available (section 2120.2.A.). The Manual also states that a person receiving outpatient


dialysis is not ordinarily ill enough to require an ambulance (section 2120.3 .J.). While


Medicare does cover ambulance transportation services in limited circumstances,


transport in a vehicle other than an ambulance is not covered.


Most persons with kidney failure go to dialysis facilities for treatment rather than


dialyzing at home. These patients must travel to the facilities an average of three times


per week. A small number of these patients use ambulances to go to and from dialysis.


A recent Office of Inspector General (OIG) report (Ambulance Transpofiation for ESRD


Beneficiaries: Medka/ Necessizy OEI-03-90-02130) found that many ambulance transports


to dialysis did not meet Medicare’s medical necessity guidelines. The study found that


many of these patients could have been transported safely by other means. However, it


was not clear what types of non-emergency transportation were available or whether non-


emergency transportation was physically and financially accessible to patients going to


dialysis. HCFA staff asked us to find out what we could about transportation services for


dialysis patients.


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY


This report focuses on transportation of patients to and from dialysis treatments in


vehicles other than ambulances in a sample of eight cities.


Respondents were selected from the sample of eight carriers and 277 end stage renal


disease beneficiaries used for two previous OIG studies (Ambulance Transpotialion for


1 
ESRD Beneficiaries: Medical Necessily OEI-03-90-02130 and Ambulance Transpotiation for 

ESRD13eneficiaries: Payment Practices 0EI-03-90-02131). We chose one city in eachof 

the eight carrier areas where the most sample beneficiaries were dialyzed in1991. A 

total of 70 beneficiaries of the 180 who were transportedto dialysis by ambulance were 

dialyzed inthese cities (See Appendix A). Sixofthe sites selected were large 

metropolitan areas and two were small cities. We did not examine rural areas. 

Since transportation arrangements are often coordinated by dialysis facility social 

workers, we contacted a total of 18 dialysis facilities in the selected cities. We 

interviewed them to determine what types of non-emergency vehicles were used to 

transport patients to their facility, the names and addresses of non-emergency 

transportation providers, and whether financial assistance was available for transportation 

expenses. 

We then contacted 37 non-emergency transport providers identified by dialysis facility 

respondents to determine what types of non-emergency transportation they offer, what 

physical assistance they provide to non-emergency patients, and the cost to patients for 

transportation. 

Finally, we contacted 16 organizations and agencies which provide financial assistance for 

dialysis patients’ transportation expenses. Respondents included representatives from 

private kidney organizations, Area Agencies on Aging, State Medicaid agencies, and State 

kidney programs. 

2

FINDINGS


TRANSPORTATION APPEARS TO BE AVAILABLE IN MOST OF THE SAMPLED 

CITIES. 

Patients use a number of different types of vehicles to travel to dialysis. These include


cars, taxis, wheelchair vans, passenger vans, and buses. According to dialysis facility


respondents, approximately one-quarter of their patients come to dialysis in privately


owned cars. Another 30 percent come in wheelchair vans. Most of the remainder come


by taxis, public buses, or buses with wheelchair lifts. Only a very small percentage come


to dialysis in ambulances.


Based on responses from dialysis facility staff, availability of transportation services does


not appear to be a problem in most of the cities covered by our review. Dialysis facility


respondents in five of the sampled cities (Detroit, MI, Fremont, CA Miami Beach, ~


New York City, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA) thought that there was enough transportation


available for people going to dialysis. Limited problems were reported in two


communities (Elizabethtown, KY and Brighton, MA), and a general unavailability was


reported in one city (Houston, TX).


Only an estimated 20-22 of the nearly 2000 patients treated at the facilities in our sample


occasionally missed treatments due to lack of affordable transportation. Thirty-four out


of 37 transportation providers did not have waiting lists for patients who needed


transport to dialysis.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO PATIENTS 

GOING TO DIALYSIS. 

Financial assistance for transportation expenses comes from a variety of sources such as 

Medicaid, Area Agencies on Aging, State Kidney Programs, the American Kidney Fund, 

the National Kidney Fund, and the American Red Cross. A range of organizations or 

agencies offers financial assistancelfor transportation expenses in each city in our 

sample. See Appendix B for a breakdown of resources by city. 

Medicaid 

Transportation services are covered for Medicaid-eligible dialysis patients. Medicaid 

regulations state that all Medicaid agencies “will ensure necessary transportation for 

recipients to and from providers” (42 CFR 431.53). Medicaid rarely pays for ambulance 

service but will cover other vehicles such as wheelchair vans, taxis, and in some cases 

privately owned cars. Medicaid was cited by 25 of 37 transportation providers as the 

*We included the provision of free or discounted services as a form of financial 

assistance in describing some organizations. 

3 
primary source of financial assistance. All of the dialysis facility respondents also 

indicated Medicaid as a source of financial assistance for transportation expenses. 

Americans with Dkabilitia Act 

Some dialysis patients who qualify as “transportation disabled” would be eligible for 

transportation services under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

12101-12213). Regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

require that “each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide paratransit 

other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of 

service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system” (49 

CFR 37.121). 

or 

While the ADA does not directly provide financial assistance to disabled patients going 

to dialysis, it does stipulate that fares for paratransit sefice “shall not exceed twice the 

fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare...on the entity’s fixed route 

system” (49 CFR 37.131). This would limit costs for disabled dialysis patients to no 

more than a few dollars each way. 

Area Agencies on Aging 

Area Agencies on Aging can be another source of financial assistance. In half the cities 

we selected there were transportation services specifically for the elderly. Two of these 

providers serve persons who are 60 or older. One provides services to those who are 62 

or older and handicapped. The fourth only serves persons 65 or older.

State Kidkey RT2grams 

Two State kidney programs cover some transportation expenses for dialysis patients 

the sampled cities. One program will provide up to $350 per month to cover both 

transportation and drug expenses. Another State program contracts with other 

organizations to coordinate transportation services. These organizations must also 

provide matching funds for transportation. Both State kidney programs require coin 

payments which are determined by the patient’s income. In one program, nearly 84 

percent of dialysis patients had incomes below the level required for co-payments in 

1993. 

American Kidnqy Fund 

The American Kidney Fund will provide up to three $200 grants per year to cover 

expenses related to a patients’ kidney condition including transportation costs. However, 

they do not provide financial assistance for transportation services on a routine basis. 

Patients must apply for a grant each time they need assistance. Patients’ needs for 

financial assistance is determined on a case by case basis. 

National Kidney Foundation 

4 
Local chapters of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) are another source of financial 

assistance in some areas. Branches of the NKF in three of the eight cities selected 

provide financial assistance for transportation expenses. The NKF reimburses for taxis, 

paratransit (wheelchair van), mileage for personal auto use, and gives emergency funds 

for special one-time situations. 

Patients must not be eligible for funding from any other source, such as Medicaid, in 

order to receive financial assistance from NKF. The level of funding varies in each area. 

For example, the NKF in one area will provide a patient who is not eligible for Medicaid 

with $50 a month for transportation expenses. Other NKF offices do not set limits on 

monthly funding. 

American Red Cress 

In two cities, the American Red Cross provides not money but free transportation to 

dialysis patients. In one city, however, sefices are limited to patients referred by a social 

worker at a facility the Red Cross serves. In both cities, the patient had to be unable to 

afford any other means of transportation in order to qualify for Red Cross services. 

DiaZysisFacilities 

In some cases, dialysis facilities will pay for a patient’s transportation. However, this is 

only on a sporadic, emergency basis. None of the dialysis facilities we contacted provided 

financial assistance for transportation expenses on a regular basis. Even the emergency 

financial assistance facilities give may come from another source such as the American 

Kidney Fund. 

HOWE- RESPONDENTS DID IDENTIFY PROBLEMS IN SOME LOCATIONS 

FOR SOME PATIENTS. 

As mentioned earlier, dialysis facility staff in three cities said there were not enough 

transportation services for dialysis patients. In two cities, the problems reported were 

limited: one said there needed to be more transportation for those not eligible for 

Medicaid or elderly sexvices and another said only particular counties were affected. In 

one city, dialysis facility respondents said there were not enough transportation services 

at all for people going to dialysis. 

Respondents from all sampled cities did identify other barriers to access. Three 

problems were frequently mentioned: long waiting times, costs for patients not eligible 

for financial assistance, and lack of physical assistance to patients using the services. 

Long waiting times was the problem mentioned most often. According to dialysis facility 

social workers, patients often must wait a long time to be dropped off at the facility and 

then again later to be picked up after treatment. If a patient is late for her or his 

scheduled dialysis treatment it sometimes means that treatment will be shortened. This 

can lead to other medical complications. 

5 
Cost was the second most common problem mentioned by dialysis facility social workers. 

Patients outofpocket costs for transportation vary. Inmanycases, aperson eligible for 

Medicaid pays nothing. Inother cases, dialysis patients pay bemeen.75-$30 each way. 

For patients traveling to dialysis three times a week, these costs can become prohibitive. 

Among dialysis facility respondents, most concern was focused on those not eligible for 

Medicaid but not ill enough to require a Medicare reimbursed ambulance. Over onethird of the transportation providers we contacted require that a patient be Medicaid 

eligible in order to receive transportation services. 

According to some dialysis facility respondents lack of physical assistance on the part of 

transportation providers was a problem for some patients. Twenty-one of the 37 

providers we contacted said they did provide physical assistance on stairs. While some 

providers would only assist patients on one to seven steps, in New York City some 

providers will carry patients up and down as many as six flights of stairs. Six providers 

said they provided curb-to-curb service only. 

6

CONCLUSION


Based on this limited review, we draw several preliminary conclusions about nonemergency transportation for dialysis patients. We offer these to HCFA as it conducts a 

more substantive effort to examine access to transportation for dialysis patients. 

First, it does not appear that lack of access to alternative forms of transportation is a 

central explanation of our data indicating inappropriate use of emergency transportation. 

In most of the sampled cities, alternative forms of transportation seem generally 

available. 

Second, successful approaches to developing a network of transportation options seem to 

exist. More in-depth review of the five cities where respondents reported quite favorably 

about the availability of transportation might provide good lessons for other localities. 

How did such networks come to exist? How are the problems which were identified in 

other cities addressed? 

Third, some problems might merit further examination: locations where access problems 

might exist, special access problems for certain populations, and problems of long waiting 

times and lack of physical assistance that might apply more generally to all dialysis 

patients. These are areas that HCFA may wish to pursue further in its research planned 

on this subject. In addition, non-urban populations (whom we did not examine) may also 

merit further examination, since such areas may pose different challenges or represent 

unique issues. 

7

APPENDIX A


SAMPLE OF CITIES 

Listed below are the number of beneficiaries, from the sample of 277 used for two 

pretious studies, whowere dialyzed ineachof the sampled cities. The sites chosen 

represent the city within each carrier where the most sample beneficiaries were dialyzed. 

After choosing these cities we then contacted the dialysis facilities in each city where 

these beneficiaries were dialyzed to find out about non-emergency transportation services 

used by patients at that facility. We obtained information about transportation from 

dialysis facility social workers who coordinate transportation arrangements for dialysis 

patients and from non-emergency transportation providers serving these facilities. 

Detroit, MI -16 beneficiaries 

Elizabethtown, KY -12 beneficiaries 

Houston, TX -11 beneficiaries 

Brighton, MA -9 beneficiaries 

New York, NY -9 beneficiaries 

Miami Beach, FL -6 beneficiaries 

Pittsburgh, PA -4 beneficiaries 

Fremont, CA -3 beneficiaries 

A-1

APPENDIX B


ORGANIZATIONS WHICH PROVIDE FINANCIAL 

Organizations Which Provide Financial Assistance 

Transportation Expenses in Eight Cities 

Medic- AKF1 Nl@ ,40A3 Red 

aid Cross 

Fremont, CA x x 

Miami Beach, x x x 

FL 

Elizabethtown, KY x x x 

Boston, MA x x x 

Detroit, MI x x x x 

New Yorlq NY x x 

Pittsburgh, PA x x x x 

Houston, TX x x x x 

TOTAL 8 8 3 4 2 

ASSISTANCE 

For 

1 

x 

I 

xl 

xl 

xl 1 

X1X I 

X1X 

7 12 

1 American Kidney Fund - This organization is located in Baltimore, Maryland but 

serves patients with kidney disease nationwide. 

2 National Kidney Foundation 

Area Agencies on Aging 

4 Americans with Disabilities Act 

B-1


3