DME and Hot Air Don't Mix

We all like others to know about our accomplishments. It's human nature to bask in praise and positive attention; it's a strong motivator.

There is nothing wrong in wanting praise for a job well done if you've actually done a job well (or done a job at all, for that matter). What I find as annoying as I find contemptible is when a person or group claims to have accomplished something they have not. I excuse this in young children because they don't know any better. But I do not excuse it in adults. Some people might be moved to pity or make allowances for adults who are pompous, tale-telling blow-hards, but I am neither moved by them nor am I inclined to excuse their dishonesty and idiocy.

Another thing I despise is people who make inflated (or false) claims at the expense of others. There are those out there who seem to think that it's acceptable to denigrate others just to make themselves look better than they actually are. It's petty, it's misleading, and it's childish. But people do it because it's easier to do that than actually do something that will earn them the praise and respect they so desperately crave.

It's those pesky standards that I have. I expect adults to act like adults. And I expect an organization that presumes to represent my interests to act in an honest, ethical, and professional manner. There are times, however, that my expectations aren't met, even though they could be.

Yes, I'm talking to you AMEPA, TAHCS, and FAHCS.

Let's take a look at these three groups.

AMEPA -- For $500.00 annual dues, you can be a member of a "national" organization that hasn't bothered to update its 2009 membership application, and for a site that hasn't had anything new written on it since July 27th (an "update" on an "issue" that AMEPA and cronies blew out of proportion anyhow); an organization that doesn't seem terribly active. The "President" of AMEPA, Rob Brant, seems far more interested in his relationship with AAHomecare than his own association (neither of which has been effective, so maybe they deserve each other); he's as busy as ever sending out press releases when he or AMEPA's offshoot organizations so much as burp.

Brant and friends formed AMEPA because they alleged no one else in the industry was doing enough to change things, so AMEPA was going to eliminate competitive bidding. Three or so years later, AMEPA hasn't accomplished anything either.

FAHCS -- The quieter of the two children of AMEPA, this one is also less literate than AMEPA (which isn't saying much, really, because AMEPA's items are a low reach up). The FAHCS site is missing information, and they too haven't updated their membership application. They're supposed to have an Executive Director, but I can only assume that quality control isn't in his job description.

FAHCS call themselves "the" state association in Florida, and falsely claims that during 2007 and 2008, it was "obvious" that there was no "active" state association working on things. This is the Brant/AMEPA denigrating, misleading, blow-hard formula at its best.

There was a state association at that time, and it was working on things at and before that time: FAMES. It's common knowledge that the FAMES Board of Directors made very expensive (and irresponsible) choices to sue every time Florida Medicaid blinked; deficit spending doesn't work for small organizations, and this seems to have been a large part of the problem with FAMES. Two years later FAMES still exists, but on a far smaller and weaker scale; the board hasn't changed enough, and now a former board member (and former provider-turned-consultant) "runs" the association. FAMES isn't what it was and isn't likely to improve, but it is out there, giving lie to the FAHCS claim of being "the" state association.

TAHCS -- These guys are just too much.

They call themselves the "only proactive TEXAS organization representing DME providers."

What, exactly, have they been "proactive" about for Texas providers? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They've accomplished nothing for Texas providers; they do nothing with state issues. They spend more time tooting their own horns about national issues than anything else; they spend too much time trying to make mountains out of molehills (ZPIC audits, for example) and too much time filing useless and expensive lawsuits against competitive bidding.

If they spent half their time actually doing productive and positive things instead of jumping up and down in front of the industry press and denigrating MESA (an organization about which TAHCS knows nothing and from whom TAHCS is rumored to have stolen their membership list), they might be worth something. Instead they produce little else but hot air.

I've seen the TAHCS alerts; they're sub-literate (badly written), and their website is junk. It's worse than the FAHCS site.

The lack of professionalism I see in these three organizations is shocking. I could put that aside (reluctantly) if they sniped at others less and accomplished the goals that they trumpet too loudly. AMEPA, FAHCS and TAHCS aren't doing anything that hasn't already been tried or been done. They proclaim an activity and success level and an industry knowledge that most other organizations top every day.

Life experience has taught me that those who talk the most about what they do actually don't do much. Life experience has taught me that those who have to disparage others to make themselves look or feel good don't have much to offer; it also speaks to their ethics (or lack of ethics, depending on your view).

I don't care that AAHomecare and VGM "support" these organizations. I think AAHomecare and VGM would support anyone and anything, even though both have protested the industry splintering. Hypocritical? Definitely. But if AAHomecare and VGM think they can benefit from associating with AMEPA, FAHCS, and TAHCS, they'll do it and justify it any way they can.

And they do.

Don't tell me you've done something. Prove that you have, or shut up and stop heating the air I breathe.

Tea Anyone?
If you haven't heard of the political tea party movement in this country, you need to get out more.

The thing with the tea party is that it's basically a step-child of the Republicans. I don't mean the official Republican party; what I mean is that some unhappy conservatives decided to be rebellious and shake things up a bit. It's still an ultra-conservative group. What scares me most about them is that they treat Sarah Palin like a rock star. This is a woman who sticks her foot in her mouth on a regular basis, and who quit her job as Governor of Alaska (letting her constituents down) so she could strike while the iron was hot and make piles of money.

I'm a capitalist, and I have no problem with making piles of money. But I do have a problem with Palin quitting the job she ran for election to have. What does that say about her real commitment to voters and to holding public office? I think it speaks volumes.

Tea parties can, I think, be good things. A little bit of rebellion (organized, thoughtful, and well-planned rebellion) can go a long way and get something done. The DME industry needs its own tea party; it just needs to beware being left with nothing but a wet, used tea bag.

If you're not happy with the way things are, you have it within your power to make some positive changes. Just because someone tells you that they represent your interests doesn't mean that they do. It's up to you to define your interests and up to you to decide what action will best serve those interests.

There is a common industry interest, and that's getting rid of competitive bidding. It's been looming over DME since before MMA 2003 was passed. It's now seven years later, and though there have been delays, competitive bidding is still here. The same tactics have been employed over and over, with no result. So what will work? I invite all readers to post comments and suggestions to get a dialogue going. If you don't talk to each other, how are you going to formulate a game plan and move forward?

Are You Being Talked About?
I've run across an interesting website that is talking about DME suppliers; individual companies are named and not always in a good way. Take a look:

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=118731

There are general comments about DMEs, and there are reviews of companies. This particular thread, though having only 85 replies, has had 13,565 views.

There seems, in general, to be a dim view of DMEs; the very first post says this:

lets start documenting our dme's both local and national. we all know they are getting greedy.

That was posted in May of 2009, but the tone of the posts really don't get better as you move forward in time. If you wonder why the industry has the reputation it does in the patient community, read the thread (yes, all of it). Ignorant it may be, but it's rather eye-opening. It's an opportunity for you to tell the provider's side of the story and an opportunity for you to be involved. You might make a difference!