I thought TAHCS had done providers in Texas a favor and closed its doors; no one I know has heard a peep out of them since their conference in October. None of my contacts was mourning, unless I count those who missed howling with laughter about the bad grammar, atrocious spelling, and too-often hysterical tone of the TAHCS missives.
I have to confess that they always made me laugh too.
Barry Johnson is quoted in today's HomeCare Monday, talking about the changes in Texas Medicaid's incontinence product quantities as announced on February 11, 2011. He complains that the change was posted with "literally no notice;" it's effective April 1, 2011.
Should HHSC have posted a notice that they were going to post a notice? The posting on February 11 was the notice that a change was coming up. Perhaps the notice could and should have been posted sooner, but it's not as though the change was posted on March 31 with an effective date of the next day.
Johnson goes on to say that "at least one major vendor [manufacturer] has said that meeting the April 1 date isn't possible." Yes, there are some repackaging challenges to meet the new date, but the fact is that, based on everything I've heard and read about supplier and manufacturer meetings that the TCPA and HHSC hosted, many of them suggested reducing the allowed product quantities because most recipients don't use what they get.
This is a common-sense move that most suppliers understand will save the state millions of dollars that they don't and shouldn't have to spend. Sending 300 per month when only 240 (or fewer) are actually used is wasteful, Barry Johnson.
If vendors didn't see this coming, they weren't paying attention. It's obvious that Johnson wasn't either.
Johnson goes on to whine about "no guidance" from HHSC about what would qualify on the LMN for approval of additional supplies." How hard can it be to figure out what a physician would need to say to justify that a patient needs more than 240 diapers and (or) 120 underpads?
Thank you, Barry Johnson, for stating the obvious (and thank you, HomeCare magazine, for giving the man an undeserved platform from which to spew his drivel); no one would have figured out without you that lower monthly allowable could have an impact on some special-needs patients.
That's what the LMN is for. D-U-H.
It's only Monday, but here is the line that I'm giving the Dumbest Quote of the Week award for: "Guess nobody said the state had a heart for less fortunate individuals who cannot go to the Capitol and complain."
Cue the violins!
Anyone who's provided incontinence supplies to patients knows that the majority of the time the maximum monthly allowable isn't used. In some cases, the recipients sell them to others, give what they don't use to family members who don't qualify for entitlement programs, or throw them away. There are those out there who do use them all, but that's generally the exception, not the rule.
Legislators can have the biggest hearts in the world, but there are financial realities that we all have to deal with. States need to cut budgets. There are people out there who are struggling to make ends meet, but who are still considered "too wealthy" to receive assistance from the state. They too are "less fortunate" individuals, but they can't benefit from the programs that they're forced to support.
If the people out there struggling to make ends meet have to accept less than what they're used to in these tough economic times, then so too do the "less fortunate" that Johnson imagines himself champion of.
Johnson says that the reduction is ridiculous. If Texas is trying this reduction in lieu of a competitive bid for the incontinence products, it benefits patients and suppliers alike. I don't know that this is what the state is doing, but it is what many suppliers, manufacturers, and MESA (the association for Texas DMEs) has suggested to the state since the proposed initiative was announced.
I'd rather go down the road of a reduction of monthly allowables than see my business bid out of existence.
If anything is ridiculous here, it's Johnson (which is no surprise).
I did some digging around and found the presentation, mentioned by Johnson in the same article, that HHSC chief Suehs made to several committees. In it, a new bid program for many DME items is very clear; what isn't clear is whether or not the bid will be at provider or manufacturer level.
What is clear is that something called "Rider 61" grants HHSC the power to do what they want with no limitations imposed by the Texas legislature. There is nothing I could find that permitted the agency to dispense with rule-making and standard implementation procedures, but I don't do business in Texas, so there could be something I've missed.
I doubt it, but it is a possibility.
The HomeCare Monday article goes on to say that Johnson says that he "would be testifying" before "the" committee (there are several of them; which one does he mean?) about the "effects of such a change."
Well, he says he'll testify "if they listen."
Johnson will only testify if they invite him. I checked out the pertinent Texas legislature committees, and as far as I can tell, they're only hearing testimony from those invited. Unless Johnson has been invited (I can't imagine who'd do something like that), then he's not testifying anywhere.
That would be a (very) good thing, because I'm very sure that there are people out there who are more credible, reliable, and articulate than Barry Johnson.
I'm sure there are more useful ones too; several of my readers tell me that while MESA gave the state a comprehensive alternative proposal to the incontinence bid, TAHCS did not. Attending meetings and mumbling opinions into a microphone does not count, in my opinion, as effective advocacy, and this is what Johnson and TAHCS has to offer.
It's my opinion that if providers in Texas need Barry Johnson and TAHCS to save them, they're already done for.
I think that Johnson is trying to keep TAHCS alive (or keep the illusion that TAHCS is alive) because he feels more empowered with it than he is as an individual. If he can make legislators and state agencies believe that he has a following through TAHCS, his opinions will matter more as a representative of many than as an individual.
Barry Johnson the individual might not get attention if he sends a press release containing his thoughts to a publication like HomeCare magazine, but if he sends it out as the president of TAHCS, a lazy publication (HomeCare magazine) will accept it (without questioning and fact-checking, apparently). I can only hope that HME News won't take the same downward step.
The problem with Johnson's illusion (delusion?) that he represents a multitude is that it's misleading. TAHCS does not have a following, and Johnson doesn't have a cohesive, intelligent, and organized approach. He is not representative of suppliers in Texas, and playing the "have a heart" card is just plain stupid.
Barry Johnson, please shut up and go away. HomeCare Monday, please develop some journalism standards and stop publishing garbage.
No comments:
Post a Comment