Goodbye 2010

In my last blog, I talked about resolutions. I wasn't discussing resolutions for the DME industry, and did I hear about that!

An optimist stays up until midnight to see the new year in. A pessimist stays up to make sure the old year leaves. (Bill Vaughn)

Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right. (Oprah Winfrey)

A new year is a new opportunity, I've been told by some of my readers. That's true. What I say in response is that a new day is a new opportunity; a new hour is a new opportunity. I suppose, though, that a new year is symbolic, so we'll greet the new year with suggestions for the industry as we drop-kick 2010 out the back door.

We will open the book. Its pages are blank. We are going to put words on them ourselves. The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year's Day. (Edith Lovejoy Pierce)

Suggesting Resolutions
It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the consequences of what we say. (Jawaharlal Nehru)

I think people hesitate to make strong suggestions because it puts them on the spot. Sometimes suggestions, if carried through, are good things. And sometimes, if suggestions are carried through and don't turn out well, things aren't so good; people today tend to like pointing the finger of blame too much. So most of us keep our heads down low and say as little as possible.

Unless, of course, we can give input and make suggestions anonymously. I (obviously) don't have a problem with that; sometimes anonymity creates an environment where freedom of expression can be fully enjoyed, which permits the airing of ideas that may be turned into constructive and productive actions.

Readers, you have a new year at hand, and it's a blank slate. 2011 is going to be what you make of it. I have one suggestion for all of you: Get off your a**** and make the changes most of you have been muttering about during 2010 (if not longer).

Paying Your Dues
One mail was about the dues structures of some of the industry organizations; specifically the ones that are based on a member's income. The author pointed out that it's no one's business what a company's income is, and asked if it really costs more for an organization to serve a larger entity than a smaller one.

My response: In this day and age it's extremely unlikely that it costs an entity like AAHomecare more to provide member services to a company like Lincare than, say, a small, mom-and-pop DME. When communications were sent out via fax (or mail), there were real costs involved in the sending. Today, with everything being sent out by email, costs are minimal. I think that basing dues on a company's income is an invasion of privacy as well as unfair, and this is a practice that should stop. Unless an organization can document that there are higher costs involved for serving larger members, this is a practice that should stop; dues structures, in these cases, should be reviewed and changed.

The Gift of Obscurity
Another reader told me that AMEPA needs to dissolve and fade into oblivion along with Rob Brant.

My response: Amen! As I've said in other blogs, my understanding is that AMEPA was formed to get rid of competitive bidding; AMEPA has failed to do this (not that it was ever likely to succeed, but that's another matter entirely). Rob Brant had delusions of adequacy when he decided that his group was the answer to the industry's problems. If we fast-forward a couple of years from the forming of AMEPA to today, we see Rob Brant involved with AAHomecare (another failure of an organization), apparently setting or deeply involved in formulating that association's (bad) policies, angling for an administrative delay to "fix" competitive bidding so it will actually work (at the literal expense of the round-two targets, who Brant says don't "need" a delay).

What a stupid idea.

Yes, AMEPA has launched its own "hotline" for problems relating to round one of competitive bidding, which is ridiculous (but typical). There should be one clearinghouse for issues, not three or more (AAHomecare, I'm talking to you as well).

AMEPA is almost as useful as AAHomecare is, and that's not saying much. An organization that accomplishes nothing deserves obscurity (I use that word as it means "the quality or condition of being unknown," not in any other definition or usage).

My own opinion is that Brant isn't going to go away because he likes the attention he gets from whatever it is he thinks he's doing (or wants you to think he's doing). He seems to have appointed himself as the spokesman and savior of the industry, and though that's clearly not reality, he imagines himself useful and important.

I know who you are, and I am not impressed. (Joan Jett)

The Politics of Staffing
Good help is really hard to find.

In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. (Dr. Laurence J. Peter)

If you're an employer, you want to hire an employee who'll do their job, not do your bidding. (Jeffrey Jones)

I've had several people tell me that Tyler Wilson and Walt Gorski should resign (or be fired) from AAHomecare and the association should hire people who have industry experience.

One reader told me that though Tyler Wilson had the mess to clean up that Kay Cox created, that mess was several years ago, and what has Wilson done for the industry lately?

Good question. It's normal to blame one's predecessor for the condition of an organization or business, but that wears pretty thin very fast. A rule of thumb for me is that if a successor can't show some real progress within a year, the successor was the wrong choice. Yes, a year goes by quickly. But a competent leader will rise to the occasion and take immediate and solid action to solve the problems that ail an organization. He or she might not always get it right, but time spent blaming a predecessor underscores the successor's lack of qualifications, professionalism, and drive.

I don't like or dislike Tyler Wilson and Walt Gorski. I have no personal feelings about either man. I know that Wilson was given a lot of benefit of the doubt the first couple of years of his tenure at AAHomecare because the truth is that Kay Cox did leave quite a mess. But that was then, and this is now, and the industry is no farther ahead.

I've heard many times that Wilson was the only person to apply for Cox's job. The AAHomecare board needed to replace Cox, but with only one person interested in the position, the board didn't have a lot of choice. They couldn't possibly keep Cox, so we ended up with Tyler Wilson, who brought Gorski in almost immediately.

I'm going to try to be fair here and point out that competitive bidding was already passed when Wilson came on the scene; MMA 2003 was a ball that Cox dropped, not Wilson. Since then he's had to try to stop the giant snowball as it rolls downhill toward him.

Since Wilson took the reins at AAHomecare, he's developed a staff that's heavy on the legislative side but the team he's built has failed to deliver results. Years later, we still have competitive bidding.

To add insult to injury, AAHomecare appears to have eliminated its professional education and events staff; that's a call only Wilson could have made, and the loss of Kim Kianka (who was with the association for many years) is as inexplicable as it is unacceptable. It makes no sense to replace Kianka with an administrative assistant, but that's what Wilson has done. No one will talk about what happened, but the loss of Kianka was a bad move. She functioned. The bloated legislative and communications staff does not (which is demonstrated by their collective lack of success). If Wilson was looking to save money (and I don't know that that was his motivation), he should have cut from those departments, not education.

If AAHomecare wasn't making enough money from their events, they should have lowered their prices and made them more affordable, which in turn would make them more attractive to potential attendees. Sometimes less is more.

The thing is that eliminating Wilson and some of his staff won't solve all of the problems that plague AAHomecare. Attention also needs to shift to the people on the AAHomecare board. Each year members are presented with a slate that the association wants to have voted in. What AAHomecare needs is to have real elections -- live elections -- where nominees from the floor can get in and shake things up. Control of AAHomecare needs to pass to new blood that's truly representative of the industry, not the same names shifting positions to stay in control. Don't believe me? Look at the too-familiar names on the AAHomecare board list.

I agree with my reader that changes need to be made at AAHomecare. Big ones.

The Merge Lane Begins Here
A reader suggested to me that AAHomecare, NAIMES, and CSI:HME should merge.

That's an interesting idea. But is it feasible?

I've never known AAHomecare to play well with others. That association insists it's the industry's "voice in Washington," and resists anything that it doesn't invent or initiate.

Nevermind that what AAHomecare has invented or initiated hasn't worked, of course.

I've preached about unity time and time again. I've had mails from readers who agree with me, but are reluctant to take a stand for fear of alienating or offending someone.

That makes sense; far better to end up losing your business because of competitive bidding than offending someone or making waves.

Some of the state leaders are guilty of towing the party line too. It's only appropriate to tow a party line if that line is working for you. If you're not happy with the status quo, and don't have the backbone to take a stand that will make some waves, then you deserve what you get.

It's really that simple.

In a perfect world, there would be one national organization that is responsive to the industry.

One reader said that a national association should submit policy decisions to the industry businesses for vote before acting on them. In this way organizations like AAHomecare wouldn't be able to move forward on the "administrative delay" idea to "fix" competitive bidding. Everyone that reader has spoken to is dead-set against that idea, but AAHomecare persists in moving on it.

When an organization that presumes to call itself the "voice of the industry in Washington" formulates a plan that the majority are against, then the organization needs to be responsive and drop the plan. Acting on it is senseless.

And it's not as though AAHomecare knows better; the association can't point to a record of successes and achievements to demonstrate that it knows what's good for the industry. The fact that "rival" organizations have sprung up in recent years should show AAHomecare that it isn't trusted or well-regarded in many quarters.

A merger wouldn't be a bad idea if done right. But why do I suspect that a merger from AAHomecare's point of view would mean AAHomecare "absorbing" NAIMES and CSI:HME, and making no real changes otherwise?

Mergers of equal partners are rare and difficult to carry out. (Juan Fernandez)

Come Together?
The theme for merging was carried over into Texas; I'm told that TAHCS and MESA should merge, with TAHCS dissolving after all is said and done.

I had to take some time to absorb this idea. On the surface, it's not an outrageous suggestion, but my initial thought was this:

MESA doesn't need TAHCS. No one needs TAHCS; it has nothing to offer.

The reader who made the MESA/TAHCS suggestion suggested the same for FAMES/FAHCS, but there isn't one good, credible organization between those two; the best thing that could happen to Florida is that a new, professionally run association should spring into being. And so I (regretfully) dismiss Florida.

I'm not a shy person, but I am a nosy one. So I sent a mail to MESA exec to see what her thoughts were about a merger with TAHCS.

She was cautious. She was diplomatic. I would be too if I had an email from a person who identifies himself/herself as an anonymous blogger who wants to ask a rather impertinent question (but nothing ventured, nothing gained, readers!). In a nutshell:

MESA would be pleased to honor the balances of paid TAHCS memberships, on a case-by-case basis, when TAHCS closes its doors. MESA always reserves the right to approve a company's application for membership, but recognizes that DME providers need the excellent representation and services that MESA offers.

I'm thinking that Barry Johnson and Dean Cheney need not apply. That wasn't said; it wasn't even hinted at. She was very tactful (more tactful than I would've been, I assure you). But if I put myself in her shoes, that's what I'd be thinking.

Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind when he has a hole in his head. (Anonymous)

In the battle of existence, Talent is the punch; Tact is the clever footwork. (Wilson Mizner)

If I have any complaint about the tact shown here it's that the TAHCS people don't deserve it. But I'm not surprised that MESA has yet again out-classed TAHCS.

Should there be a merger between MESA and TAHCS? No. TAHCS just needs to go away and stay away (right away!).

What Are You Afraid Of?
I get a lot of offers from various organizations and individuals who offer me live seminars, webinars, and other "education" opportunities. How nice.

I resent it when I see something that looks good on paper, but the actual event was long on speculation and way too short on facts.

You know what I'm afraid of? Getting ripped off.

No one has all the answers. No one can tell you what your chances are of getting a contract in competitive bidding. And no one is yet in a position to offer you information that will give you and your company an "edge" in round two.

I could go on, but I'm sure you're getting my point.

Your state/regional associations (most of them, anyhow) produce events that offer you important, useful information presented by qualified speakers, and they deserve your support.

Too many others are hosting "road shows" and similar events that play on the fears of providers stuck in an uncertain industry and who are willing to pay for any answers they can get.

Before you give your money to an organization or individual to attend an event, do your homework. Look at the qualifications of the speaker (or speakers). Scrutinize the content; don't settle for generalities. If you know someone who's attended in another city, ask the attendee for feedback. Ask yourself if the session can offer you anything in the way of new information that will make it worth the price of admission.

But most important, don't let your fear of the future lead you to empty your wallet on seminars and other events from which you'll receive no benefit. Be careful; be choosy.

Help Yourself
And so 2010 draws to a close. Things must change for the industry in 2011. But things don't change unless we make them change. You're part of the solution; it's time to resolve to help yourself to a better future.