It's been a while since I've blogged.
I didn't have anything new to say and one person alone can't make a large group see sense.
AAHomecare is still a do-nothing association that has little to offer other than self-serving hot air. Our voice in Washington may as well be silenced because it surely has done no good and accomplished absolutely nothing in many years.
NAIMES is still touting that idiotic auction as a solution to our competitive bidding problem. Yes, Wayne Stanfield and company, let's trade one evil for another because that will surely save the industry. That's the dumbest strategy I've ever heard of, and I can't believe that anyone would pay to be a member of an organization that would back such a stupid idea.
Between the two, there isn't one good organization.
The Blind Leading the Blind
Don't worry, I'm not ignoring AMEPA. It was announced some time ago that Rob Brant was stepping down as President and that Barry Johnson was going to take his place. This is not an improvement because I think each man is equally ridiculous.
The AMEPA site still lists Brant as President, and as late as mid-August, Brant was still posting. These guys can't get it together enough to keep their site current.
Brant was "leading" meetings in Texas in August to discuss round two competitive bidding, and he was clearly impressed with the fact that he "committed" two weeks to the "project."
Really? Nothing says "success" like attending meetings "led" by a man who has a failed DME, who was rejected in the first round of round one and who barely managed to snag a single inadequate contract in the reboot, and who fell so spectacularly flat at ridding the industry of bidding. Brant formed AMEPA because he was convinced that he had all the answers. This man scheduled meetings and presumed to tell others how to prepare for bidding and how to engage legislators?
How many of you were gullible enough or desperate enough to fall for his self-proclaimed expertise?
If you want or need guidance, turn to the people who know what they're talking about, not the failures of the industry. I am always amazed and alarmed when I hear that someone has hired a "consultant" who was the owner of a DME that was a failure. Is it a case then of applying the mantra of "do as I say, not as I did?"
I doubt those AMEPA sessions were well-attended, so I'm going to do those who did fall prey to desperation a favor and offer some advice their own common sense should have told them to begin with: Never take advice from someone who wasn't competent to keep his own doors open.
If your consultant wasn't capable in his (or her) own venture, then he (or she) isn't capable in yours.
I Told You So
When the rocket scientists of TAHCS, combined with the equally smart Dean Cheney, came up with the been-there-done-that idea of filing suit to force CMS and HHS to detail the financial standards used in the bidding process, I said here on my blog that this was not going to work.
I was right. Again.
It was entertaining to watch Cheney doing his best imitation of a strutting rooster at industry events after the suit was filed, presenting himself as the underdog brave enough to fight CMS in court. It was amusing to watch Cheney all but beg for attention and praise for putting himself and his company out there; Cheney was a man willing to "take one for the team," and he wanted to make sure all of us knew it.
He had no investment in the case; it's not as though he was funding it. He was merely a front. But that didn't stop Cheney from trying to take as much of the credit and attention that he could grab. He put me in mind of all of the people these days who are famous for doing nothing. Kim Kardashian, anyone?
Anyone paying attention this week saw in HME News that the suit was dismissed because it basically lacked merit. The discretion granted to the Secretary in statute was very clear. Anti-bidding lawsuits don't get results for the industry. The lawyers involved may find it profitable, but in the end, there is no benefit to the DMEs.
Desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures, but how many times can the industry be defeated in court until it realizes that court is not the answer?
So What Is the Answer?
The answer is simple, really.
CMS can't have competitive bidding if the industry refuses to participate in the farce.
This approach requires that we all agree to refuse; this approach requires that each and every company in the round-two areas (even the nationals!) not submit a bid of any kind.
It requires solidarity. And that's why nothing has yet to or will ever work. There's always going to be a few who will have a winner-take-all mentality and submit stupidly low bids in an attempt to secure as many contracts as he (or she) can get. Knowing this, the rest of you will submit bids so you're not left out, and this is why round two and any future rounds will ultimately succeed.
The success of competitive bidding is guaranteed by the very industry so desperate to get rid of it. This ensures the most spectacular epic fail of all.
