Like everyone else in the industry, I've been waiting for details about round two of competitive bidding. It's inevitable; sort of like death and taxes, but worse, because it's a slow and very painful process that seems to have no end.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that CMS is working on round two.
There may be additions to items in the bid, but I, like most, don't expect huge changes to the program. Why change what's billed as a good thing?
I think that there's going to have to be more prep work because so many MSAs are involved, and this may explain why we're not hearing much out of CMS about the bid.
HME News did an article about this topic last week, and the publication said that stakeholders are hoping that CMS is taking its time "to improve its outreach efforts to referral sources and beneficiaries."
I'm going to run against the herd and say that I didn't think that CMS did such a bad job notifying beneficiaries in the round-one MSAs.
I'll pause while you recover from the shock of what I just said.
My parents are Medicare beneficiaries, and they received literature from CMS that was very clear, in a basic kind of way, about competitive bidding and how it would have an impact on their Part B benefits. Though it didn't have paragraph after paragraph of detail, it did give an overview of competitive bidding for DME, and what equipment was included.
CMS may be stretching the truth when it claims that the program is a wonderful thing, but there are good aspects to it from the consumer and tax-payer point of view. With the reduced reimbursements, beneficiaries do save money on co-pays.
Peter Amico is quoted in the article talking about "all the problems with round one with doctors and patients being confused and misled," but based on everything I've read (and I've gone looking for news about it), there wasn't as much confusion and there weren't as many problems as the industry had hoped for.
Saying that doctors and patients were "misled" is a bit strong. There was definitely some misunderstanding, and perhaps CMS could have given better information. But the avalanche of problems and complaints that we needed simply didn't materialize.
This is a problem.
AAHomecare has task forces -- two of them -- "working on how to deal with competitive bidding." One task force is "working on a plan to repeal the program and replace it with some other cost-saving measure," and the other is "working on a plan to redesign the existing program to make it more fair."
We've had more than a decade to come up with the former, and the latter is, I firmly believe, AAHomecare's goal because they know they are incapable of getting rid of the competitive bid.
It's the easier of the two goals, but I'm going to say now that I don't think AAHomecare has the credibility to accomplish either one.
They have an upcoming legislative conference, but they have no bill to promote and no strategy. Yet they want us to come to D.C. and talk to legislators about competitive bidding and the fact that we don't want it.
You can attend their event and engage in no-point lobbying for the bargain-basement price of $245 for members and $355 for nonmembers!
Now add to your registration fee the cost of transportation to get there, and a hotel room for a stupid amount of money per night, plus meals and incidentals, and you've spent a tidy sum of money to attend an event that has no strategy, no talking points (other than the fact that competitive bidding is bad), and no cohesive goal.
AAHomecare wants us to come to D.C. and tell lawmakers that the program is "flawed," but what documentation can they offer to substantiate the claims they want us to make? We've been telling lawmakers for more than three years that the program is "flawed," and has that gotten us anywhere?
No.
This is a tired event, and it's a lot of money for someone to spend when there are no results (and never have been results). If I'm going to spend my money on something, I expect to get something in return.
I can (and do) lobby my representative and senators in my district. I don't have buckets of cash to spend on an event that's held every year and that produces no results.
And I'm not going to pay an outrageous registration fee to AAHomecare; lining the pockets of an organization that's failed the industry for more than a decade is not, in my opinion, a sound investment.
Especially when AAHomecare is employing the same, worn-out arguments against the bid. They're trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
That's not only insane, it's misleading. AAHomecare says it's no time to pull back? They may be right, but considering how little good they've done the industry, it's also no time to help fund an event and an organization that doesn't work.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment