Premier Home Health Care - Madison

Pros

• They were very happy with Premier.
• The companion for the mother was a perfect fit for almost 10 years.
• The caregiver was the professional—on time, never called out, and always willing to cover for others who called out.

Cons

• The company stopped allowing the caregiver to work, and the mother declined quickly.
• The company was very unreliable, with frequent no-shows and calls saying there was no one to send to the mother.
• When coverage existed, the caregivers were horrible: never on time, and asking for money from family members, while also stealing the mother's possessions.
• They took advantage of an elderly woman with diminishing eyesight and hearing, and stole a guardian angel manger bought for the mother.
• They stole from an old, defenseless woman, an act described as callous beyond comprehension.
• The company never acknowledged the mother's passing after years of service.
• The company would not be recommended: they do not care who they hire and do not check references or background checks.
• The caregivers are described as anything but caring; they are scum.
• The company did not contact the family after letters about the issue.

Review

Premier Home Health Care in Madison is best suited for families that can anchor care to a single, exceptionally reliable caregiver and sustain that relationship over years. The agency’s strongest value appears where a dedicated companion is consistently available, punctual, and willing to cover shifts when others are unavailable. In such a scenario, the daily rhythm, safety, and emotional comfort of a long-standing arrangement can be a lifeline for a senior who thrives on predictability and personal familiarity. When that ideal caregiver remains eligible to work and remains in the client’s home, care is cohesive and effectively managed.

Those who should consider alternatives are families who cannot lock in a single caregiver or who require guaranteed, agency-wide coverage regardless of individual staffing changes. The record shows that coverage can evaporate on short notice, with no-shows and last-minute substitutions that destabilize routines and trust. If a care plan hinges on consistent, predictable staffing from week to week, or if the household cannot tolerate gaps while a substitute is arranged, looking elsewhere becomes prudent. Potential clients should also weigh the overall risk tolerance around safeguarding personal belongings and the agency’s responsiveness to concerns.

The strongest pro in the accounts is precisely the caregiver who was a perfect fit for nearly a decade: on time, never calling out, and willing to step in for others as needed. That level of reliability is transformative, translating into steadiness for the senior and relief for family members who otherwise shoulder constant scheduling and supervision. When such reliability is sustainable, the benefits, timely visits, composed companionship, and continuity of care, can offset many practical frictions of home health care. Yet the upside hinges on stable access to that trusted caregiver or an equally dependable alternative, which is not guaranteed by the agency’s broader staffing model.

The dominant cons, in turn, erode confidence quickly. Recurrent no-shows and the agency’s struggles to secure coverage create disruptive days and heightened caregiver fatigue for the family. Allegations that caregivers asked for money and even mishandled or stole possessions compound the danger signals, turning logistics into a breach of trust. The absence of prompt acknowledgment after a loved one’s passing underscores a troubling lack of accountability. Together, these factors escalate risk, undermine security, and make the prospect of consistent, worry-free care unrealistic unless systemic safeguards are evident and reliably enforced.

To navigate these realities, families should demand concrete, contract-safe measures before committing: explicit guarantees of caregiver coverage, a written policy for substitutions during inevitable absences, and a transparent process for reporting and addressing any missing items or safety concerns. Insist on documented background checks, verifiable references, and rapid escalation procedures when issues arise. Request a clear plan showing how caregivers are matched to clients, how conflicts are resolved, and what happens when a caregiver is no longer eligible to work. In short, push for accountability, predictable staffing, and a dependable chain of communication that does not leave families guessing.

Bottom line: Premier can be a smart fit for clients who can secure and defend a stable, trusted caregiver and demand rigorous oversight. When that stability cannot be guaranteed, or when trust has been compromised by no-shows, financial pressure, or alleged misconduct, it is wise to explore alternatives with stronger staffing controls, guaranteed coverage, and explicit safeguards against loss or miscommunication. For families prioritizing continuity and personal rapport, the opportunity exists here, but only with careful, assertive vetting and a clear, enforceable plan for stability.