Catch-22

I have a client in jail on a probation violation. She is accused of continuing to use and test positive for illegal drugs. I am trying to get her into an inpatient treatment program. My client does not have the funds or insurance coverage to pay for the treatment, however the program I was trying to get her into gets funding from a publicly funded quasi-HMO to treat people who can't pay themselves. My client is clearly indigent, so I figure this is a perfect fit. Right? Wrong. The quasi-HMO won't pay for my client to receive inpatient services because she hasn't used drugs in the last 30 days. It apparently doesn't matter that the reason she hasn't used drugs in the past 30 days is that she's been in jail for violating her probation by continuously using drugs. How's that for common sense drug treatment policy?