(LogistiCare) has terminated its contract with the state starting next year, officials announced Wednesday. "Yesterday, LogistiCare notified us that it plans to terminate its contracts with the Department of Health Services, effective in 90 days on February 17, 2013," Department of Health Services Secretary Dennis G. Smith said in a news release Wednesday.
Well, that's saved the state money...just kidding. Think about it, while the state’s revenues increase, thanks to the nations
steady but slow recovery, bragging Republicans can’t hide their own bad management of government.
LogistiCare was a major failure the state couldn't act
decisively on. Trashing teachers…that’s another story. Any lessons learned? Are you kidding:
Officials said the state does not intend to go back to the old county-based system for providing members transportation to medical appointments or that the state will change its approach to providing transportation. "We are committed to the transportation manager model in here in Wisconsin," Smith said in the release. "I am confident that this model will work here in Wisconsin, as it has in other states."
Committed to a model that victimized the neediest
Wisconsinites? There is one important difference; other states provide
oversight and don’t leave programs like this up to partisan cronies to manage. I loved the list of stories provided by jsonline:
Since LogistiCare took over ride dispatches for patients in Milwaukee on Sept. 1, the Journal Sentinel has documented LogistiCare's troubles with late and no-show rides, long hold times on its reservation and complaint lines and other issues. Here's a list of the stories:
" Complaints spike for LogistiCare transit service", Sept. 13, 2012.
" LogistiCare reducing wait times, but transit complaints persist", Sept. 17, 2012.
" Legislators, disability groups demand action against LogistiCare", Sept. 21, 2012.
" Small transport firms say they're being squeezed by LogistiCare", Oct. 1, 2012.
" Man dies after frustration with state-funded ride provider", Oct. 6, 2012.
" Complaints prompt informational hearing on LogistiCare" Oct. 6, 2012.
" Senators schedule Milwaukee hearing on LogistiCare" Oct. 16, 2012.
" LogistiCare developing online reservation system" Oct. 17, 2012.
" LogistiCare says it's fixing ride, phone problems" Oct. 18, 2012.
" LogistiCare still short of standard despite shorter hold times" Nov. 14, 2012.
The MJS stories you quote all mislead and carry the company propaganda that this was not their fault -- it was the state's for not having date (lie), the transit providers (NOT!), and county transportation managers (PUL-EEEEZE).
ReplyDeleteOnly VOICES Newspaper, blog and TV had the whole story and people acknowledged this at the Milwaukee Hearing (which VOICES covered and posted video from).
MJS scrubbed the links you provided from their page -- curious that you want to make this about Journal Communication's MJS when there hands are not clean.
Surely, you get news from outside the right wing echo chamber, right?
You don't typically just reprint propaganda from Milwaukee's anti-Milwaukee pro-Walker arm. What gives now?
First, I've read all the stories linked on my post as they happened. Second, it's more than obvious the state didn't provide the information needed, big surprise, and LogistiCare's excuses were preposterous. I noted that in my posts. In fact, that's why I posted the coverage on this a number of times. They should have been fired.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading VOICES story, but thanks again for the reminder. A link would have helped.
The JS is not the evil paper most liberal bloggers make it out to be, so we agree to disagree on that point.
Scrubbing the originally provided links is curious and worth noting.
The J/S may not be 'evil', but I shouldn't be reading well reported and documented blog postings about Walker weeks or months before I read about it in the J/S. They're developing a deserved reputation for, shall we say, an outsized sense of fairness where Walker is concerned.
ReplyDeleteThere. That's a more respectful way to agree to disagree.