So I am confused - are they going to introduce a new fleet or is it asking their existing drivers to do this? If they are going to introduce a new fleet - how is it different from a normal ambulance service?
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/Rur...
The voucher program actually goes direct through hospitals, the hospitals negotiate with transportation providers like Uber (or local taxi companies).
Unfortunately, shit doesn't work like this anymore. Hospitals don't always dispatch transportation out to local taxi companies. For Medicaid, most states have Logisticare which is very much a rent-seeking company paid based on the number of Medicaid subscribers (not runs). This company finds local transportation providers (or ride share services) and dispatches out the patients to them. Their job is to get the taxi companies to blind bid in a race to the bottom.
How do I know this? I part-time drove a couple nights a week for a tiny family owned taxi company that sometimes did voucher runs for a local hospital. They also considered Logisticare but backed off when I told them what it would require and how they'd get pushed into accepting below their usual mileage rate.
Also, Logisticare doesn't give a shit about inspecting the transportation providers, so noncompliance is common since they'll contract with any rando that'll work for dirt. [1][2]
[1] https://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional/pressure-drivers-... [2] https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region2/21401001.asp
But this service doesn't seem to be for people who need to be transported so much as for people who need transportation. That is, the target for this service isn't the person who has a medical issue that needs to be addressed in transport. It's for people who need a transport and whose destination happens to be medical in nature. That's why it seems to be marketed primarily to medical providers rather than patients, with the benefit of a reduction in missed appointments and an increase in efficiency.
If there is a new fleet, then, it's likely that the vehicles would have none of the medical equipment that ambulances do. (Though maybe they'd have more leg room, or a stool to help people in, or other minor accessibility considerations.) I'd also expect that drivers would be specially trained in HIPAA, and probably in recognizing imminent life threats so that they could call 911 in case someone was trying to use them as an ambulance.
Apropos of anything else, most if not all states require ambulances to be individually licensed as such, and have a specified minimum complement of equipment including but not limited to oxygen, defibrillators, etc.
They also require the company/agency to have a overarching license to transport patients.
Something tells me, as an EMS provider, that state Departments of Health would likely come down hard on attempts to use (or indeed advertise) this service as such.
> and probably in recognizing imminent life threats
If you're looking at that, you're probably getting to 80 hours of training (most Basic Life Support courses are around 160-200 of practical and classroom training). I can't imagine Uber doing this, or the liability nightmare that could ensue.
And very specifically, if you're talking about wanting to "recognize acute medical emergencies", the half the EMT course I'd be looking at would be exactly the opposite half you mentioned, and more things like "symptoms of acute coronary syndrome", "respiratory distress" and the like. Yes, a non-urgent transport would likely have no need of A&P, etc.
> I'd also expect that drivers would be specially trained ... in recognizing imminent life threats
And trying to consider what that might look like.
A whole host of potential liability issues, Uber's favorite thing to avoid.