ADVERTISEMENT
| View this email as a Web page | Please add HC_HomeCare Monday_ to your Safe Sender list. |
|
|
|
| A Penton Media Property | |
| May 19, 2008 | Volume 15, Number 21 |
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT MedAct partners with InstaMed to provide an integrated solution that incorporates real time eligibility as well as credit card and check processing readiness. The MedAct and InstaMed integration enables DME businesses to produce clean claims and provides a tool offered by no other software provider in collecting patient receivables. www.dynamicenergy.com  Table of Contents - House Members Ask for One-Year Delay of NCB - Cleveland Lawsuit Seeks Injunction to Delay Competitive Bidding - California Reps Call for Closer Look at Riverside Bids - Information Tidal Wave: CMS Reveals Instructions for Round One Providers - Competitive Bidding Updates and Other Info You Need to Know - ATS Requirement Still Murky, Stakeholders Say - Heard at Medtrade Spring For more industry news, features and highlights from our latest issue, please visit our Web site at www.homecaremag.com. Headline News House Members Ask for One-Year Delay of NCB WASHINGTON--Following a congressional hearing on national competitive bidding that opened up grave questions about the program, Reps. John Tanner, D-Tenn.; David Hobson, R-Ohio; and Jason Altmire, D-Pa., are urging their colleagues to sign on to a letter asking for a one-year delay of the Medicare DMEPOS bidding program. In explaining the request to other House members, the representatives said "multiple concerns have been raised that should be addressed before this program is allowed to go forward." The letter, addressed to Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, which convened the May 6 hearing, follows: "We write to bring to your attention our continuing and serious concerns with the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) competitive bidding program and ask that you support legislation this year to delay the implementation of this program until outstanding issues can be resolved. "Our overall concern is focused on the implementation of the program thus far and its implications for Medicare beneficiaries receiving high quality health care. Almost four million Medicare beneficiaries will be impacted by round one of the competitive bidding program scheduled to take effect July 1. Eighteen million beneficiaries will be affected by round two, which is scheduled for implementation in July 2009. Our request is legislation that would delay the implementation of this program until outstanding issues are resolved. "Our first concern is the alleged discrepancies between information submitted by bidders and received by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We have all heard from long-standing companies who have offered quality home care services for decades, but who have been excluded from the bidding program, apparently through no fault of their own. The vast majority of rejected bidders were informed that they have not submitted sufficient financial information, when in many cases, bidders have evidence they had. These rejected bidders have no appeal rights. "In other examples, reputable home oxygen providers were disqualified for allegedly bidding too low on certain individual items subject to bidding, while other providers based outside the market area were offered contracts for similarly-priced bids. Another serious concern is the reports of companies who won bids to serve beneficiaries in areas where the company has no proximate physical location and where the company has no history of serving. It is possible that contract suppliers may be able to quickly subcontract with local home care providers, but we are very concerned that the suppliers will not be able to meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries in bidding areas effective July 1, 2008. "Finally, we are seeking more transparency from CMS as to how bidders’ financial information and service capacity were evaluated and how the single payment amount was calculated. We have heard about numerous data anomalies and believe this information is critical to the bidding program’s success. At the very least an internal review should be conducted to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of the criteria for future bidding. We all agree that it is of the utmost importance that we protect access to quality medical supplies for all of Medicare beneficiaries and people with disabilities. Therefore, we urge that the implementation of round one be delayed for at least a year." In an action alert sent last week, the American Association for Homecare said asking members of the House to sign on to the letter will be one of the requests industry advocates take to Capitol Hill during its Washingon lobbying fly-in Wednesday. "The Medicare bidding program must be significantly delayed so Congress can take a careful look at the program," AAHomecare said. "If you can't attend [the fly-in] in person, please call your senators' and representatives' offices and ask them to support congressional efforts to delay the Medicare bidding program for durable medical equipment and ask them to instruct [CMS] to immediately delay implementation of round one. "This issue affects everyone in the home care community, whether you are in round one, round two or beyond." For a report on the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing, see HomeCare Monday, May 12. For information on the AAHomecare fly-in, visit www.aahomecare.org. Are you hopeful that, with industry efforts in full swing, Congress/CMS will suspend round one of competitive bidding? To vote in HomeCare's monthly Web poll, visit www.homecaremag.com. Cleveland Lawsuit Seeks Injunction to Delay Competitive Bidding CLEVELAND--The industry’s fierce battle to delay competitive bidding took on extra firepower last week when attorneys requested an injunction that would delay the July 1 implementation of the CMS project. “We are making a request to the court to enjoin implementation of [competitive bidding],” said Michael J. Jordan, attorney for Cleveland-based Walter & Haverfield LLP, which is handling the case backed by Last Chance for Patient Choice, a non-profit entity created by Waterloo, Iowa-based VGM Group to fight competitive bidding. He noted that the basis for the request is CMS’ failure to comply with the public notice and comment provisions contained in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). “We believe the changes between the proposed rule and the final rule are significantly changed. We believe [the final rule] should have been opened to public comment,” Jordan said, adding the motion for a preliminary injunction includes a request for a hearing in early June so that it can be ruled on by July 1, the implementation date for round one. “It‘s in the lap of the court whether [the injunction] is issued or not,” said Jordan. “We’re optimistic that [Judge Patricia A. Gaughan] will hold a hearing or that there will be other action by the court. We’ve asked for a decision by July 1.” The request for an injunction came in the form of an amended complaint to a lawsuit initially filed by the firm in December on behalf of a single plaintiff, Premier Medical Supplies. The suit alleges that competitive bidding violates the RFA, which “requires all agencies to carefully scrutinize ways to minimize the economic impact on small entities.” The amended complaint, which was filed May 12, includes three additional plaintiffs: Medic Home Health Care LLC, Cornerstone Medical Services Midwest LLC, and Carested Inc. Two beneficiaries, Kit Shinkle and Laszlo Nagy, are also listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which names as defendants Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt and CMS acting Administrator Kerry Weems. Jim Walsh, legal counsel and president of VGM, said expansion of the Cleveland suit “is a direct result of what we experienced in the bid process. It became clear that the bid process itself was badly botched, to the point that people who had legitimate rights to be considered were not considered at all.” That botched process has resulted in more plaintiffs in the suit, according to Walsh. “Providers became more willing to step up and be named once they understood that CMS was not going to give them a fair chance to stay in the business,” Walsh said. “In our view, [the lawsuit] has been strengthened by more plaintiffs,” said Jordan. “We also have more background and more claims.” Key to the amended complaint are instances in which there are significant differences between the competitive bidding proposed and final rules. Jordan cited the following issues: --A change in the “small supplier” definition from $6.5 million
in total annual receipts as defined by the Small Business Administration
to $3.5 million in total annual receipts;
According to the amended complaint, “the reclassification of the definition of ‘small supplier’ in the final competitive bidding rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act … because it was implemented without compliance with the notice and comment provisions for rulemaking under the APA.” The complaint argues that “comments should have been solicited to evaluate the impact upon suppliers with receipts between $3.5 million and $6.5 million. Comments should have been solicited to assess the impact upon network formation by eliminating all entities with receipts in excess of $3.5 million from participating networks.” As well, according to the complaint, “there should have been an opportunity for notice and comment upon imposing the new requirement that each member of a network must separately submit its own Medicare claims … By requiring each member of a network to process and submit its own Medicare claims, a substantial benefit of network formation is eviscerated.” In what Jordan believes to be the first legal challenge to CMS’ bid award process, the amended complaint also seeks redress for the home medical equipment providers named in the suit--Carested, Cornerstone and Medic--whose bids were disqualified. (Premier did not submit a bid, according to the complaint, “because as a small supplier it was not financially feasible for it to achieve the required accreditation and expend the significant time and financial resources required to prepare a bid submission.”) “There were issues raised about the types of documentation,” explained Jordan. “Our clients’ documentation was submitted and they were disqualified because [the CBIC] said it wasn’t submitted. We’ve asked the court to review these specific bidding situations involving our clients.” Jordan said the providers asked for reviews by the CBIC; the disqualifications were not reversed. “The result is that plaintiffs will suffer significant loss of clientele and revenue due to their inability to provide DMEPOS to Medicare beneficiaries,” the complaint says, adding that Carested will lose 90 percent of its clientele if it loses its Medicare contract supplier status; Medic will lose 30 percent of its client base, as well as non-Medicare business from one of its biggest suppliers amounting to 150 to 200 orders a week; and Cornerstone will lose 70 percent of its overall revenue in Cleveland alone and 50 percent in Cincinnati. The amended complaint asks that the defendants “be required to implement a meaningful review process for disqualification decisions” and that they “be required to reevaluate the application and disqualification status of plaintiffs Medic, Cornerstone and Carested.” The amended complaint also challenges beneficiary access to service under competitive bidding. It notes that Laszlo Nagy is a quadriplegic who uses “a highly specialized custom power wheelchair.” Nagy’s provider has cared for him since 2002 and “goes to his home to custom fit the chair to his needs,” according to the complaint. Since Nagy obtained his new chair five months ago, the provider has visited him four times to customize the chair, the complaint says. However, that provider was rejected as a supplier of power wheelchairs under competitive bidding. “Thus [Nagy] no longer has the choice to work with the supplier with whom he has an established relationship and from whom he received the specialized, individualized care necessitated by his medical condition. “In addition,” the complaint continues, “because the Medicare competitive bidding scheme values low price point over all else, Nagy is imminently facing a likely lack of service from the supplier with whom he is forced to deal and complete alienation from the services upon which he has highly depended.” Because CMS has not as yet released the names of the approved providers, the complaint notes, Nagy doesn’t even know who his new provider will be. The complaint requests that “good-faith studies” be conducted on the impact that the MMA will have on beneficiaries and the provision of new technologies, as well as on “providers who service particular racial or cultural needs.” The Cleveland suit is the second backed by VGM and its Last Chance for Patient Choice. The first suit, filed in June 2007 in Dallas by Amarillo, Texas-based Brown & Fortunato, challenged the constitutionality of competitive bidding but was dismissed on the grounds that the case was not “ripe”--that is, that bids had not yet been awarded or denied so there was nothing to adjudicate. “The Dallas suit will be re-filed with new grounds and perhaps some new parties as plaintiff,” Walsh said. “It will be slightly different from Cleveland, allowing each of the attorney teams to pursue what they think will work best but all working towards the same end … an order stopping the program.” Walsh said VGM would continue legislative efforts to get competitive bidding halted. “We felt that even though legal actions are expensive, we had to move ahead on all fronts,” he said. California Reps Call for Closer Look at Riverside Bids WASHINGTON--Following Pride Mobility Products' findings of possible round one bidding improprieties in the Riverside-San Bernadino CBA, federal legislators representing southern California have added their weight to the call for an investigation of the matter. In a May 13 letter addressed to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, Reps. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.; Ken Calvert, R-Calif.; and Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., wrote of a "potential problem" with bids in the standard power wheelchair category that warrants further investigation. "There have been reports that a health care consultant worked directly with a wholesale distributor to establish pricing levels," the representatives told Leavitt. "It is our understanding that the consultant then approached DME providers in the Riverside-San Bernardino CBA offering to submit their bids for certain categories of products. We are told that the prices submitted by 19 providers for the standard power wheelchair category were virtually identical and that 18 of the 19 were awarded standard power wheelchair contracts. Our constituents inform us that the only winning bidders used this consultant. "This matter must clearly be investigated," the letter continued. "If a review of the initial bid prices submitted by those awarded the standard power wheelchair contract show[s] collusionary activity, it also calls into question the numerous other bids for categories that were also developed by the same health care consultant. In that event, we call for suspension of implementation until all contracts can be reviewed." In a letter to Leavitt earlier this month, Pride Chairman and CEO Scott Meuser notified the HHS Secretary of the issue and requested an immediate investigation. "I think this clearly shows there was something in the system that didn't work," said Seth Johnson, vice president of government affairs for the Exeter, Pa.-based manufacturer, in an interview at Medtrade Spring. Referring to the fact that the winning PWC bids in Riverside-San Bernadino "were identical or within pennies of each other," Johnson said, "this is just further evidence there's a real problem here and that this program needs to be stopped and closely evaluated prior to moving forward with the implementation of round one." Johnson said the issue could spread beyond standard PWC bids. "It is is our understanding that the consultant also developed bids for other product categories ... and was successful in the hospital bed category," he said. While Pride has not yet heard back from Leavitt, Johnson said, the company has begun working with PWC providers in the Dallas CBA to assess the situation there, and also may look into the Miami and Orlando bidding areas. Information Tidal Wave: CMS Reveals Instructions for Round One Providers BALTIMORE--In back-to-back teleconferences last week, CMS unleashed a veritable tidal wave of information for providers preparing for the implementation of competitive bidding--well, almost. The May 13 teleconferences began with a national provider training call that was designed to “address some of the situations [providers] may encounter” before the implementation of round one on July 1. Using a PowerPoint outline, CMS and CBIC officials discussed contracts, payment rules, payment policies, mail-order diabetic supplies, use of the ABN, grandfathering and more. But asked when round one contract winners will be announced and what the timeline for round two will be, the answers were that information would come “in the near future.” Additionally, despite six pages of information on various policies for grandfathering, complications including the oxygen rental cap caused confusion among listeners, as did instructions on mail-order diabetic supplies. “If a contract supplier did not win, can that uncontracted supplier hand deliver the [diabetic] supplies to the patient? Would that be a mail order or not a mail order type of arrangement?” one caller asked. Joel Kaiser, deputy director of DMEPOS policy, answered this way: “The reason we separated mail orders from non-mail orders is that we were basing it on concerns and comments that competitive bidding was going to impact beneficiaries’ abilities to go to local storefronts and pharmacies … to receive their diabetic care,” Kaiser said. “We are applying competitive bidding to mail order only." Pointing out a definition in a new chapter of its claims processing manual that deals with competitive bidding, Kaiser said in "Chapter 36 in the Internet home manual [that] 'mail order' refers to items ordered remotely, that is by phone, email, Internet or mail and delivered to the beneficiaries’ residence by common carriers … and does not include items obtained by beneficiaries from local supplier storefronts.” But when the caller responded that the definition was “a little foggy,” Kaiser conceded. “We probably could and should further define what we mean by local storefront so that there is no question about it,” Kaiser said. “You may be right. There may be a little ambiguity there, so we’ll be looking into it to see if maybe we can further define what we mean by ‘local storefront.'" Questions also arose concerning competitive bidding’s effects on beneficiary services. One caller, a physical therapist who services beneficiaries in two separate round one CBAs, said she and other therapists have “concerns” about beneficiary care in the realm of complex rehab. “The concerns amongst a lot of the therapists are that some of the companies that appear to be the ones who are going to be getting the bid for our areas are companies who have never provided complex rehab in the past and don’t have the basis to do it,” she said. “They don’t understand the complexity of it. And I know that that’s not fraud, but is there someone we can contact to say when companies are being given the bid who clearly, from a clinical perspective, can’t provide the services that the clients need?” CMS’ Sandra Bastinelli responded, advising the caller to contact either the OIG Fraud Hotline, the accrediting organizations for the companies in question or CMS, at which time she said the concerns would be investigated. During an Open Door Forum immediately following the training call, Kaiser outlined basic information on grandfathering and clarified the differences between MSAs and CBAs--information critical to those providers who may be involved in round two. Kaiser advised providers to access the Medicare Claims Processing Manual’s new Chapter 36 for more information on grandfathering, which includes policies on grandfathered providers and items, transfer of title of capped rental items and oxygen equipment. “Suppliers need to make these grandfathering decisions in the very near future, and they need to start informing beneficiaries about what their plans are regarding grandfathering,” he said. “If you elect to become a grandfather supplier for an item, you must be a grandfather for all beneficiaries in a competitive bid area. It is not a decision made by the supplier on a beneficiary-by-beneficiary basis. It is a decision made by a supplier on an item-by-item basis.” Kaiser said. “You can pick and choose among the items that are subject to competitive bidding but you cannot pick and choose whether to be a grandfather supplier on a beneficiary-to-beneficiary basis.” Non-contract suppliers are responsible for notifying Medicare patients of their plans to furnish grandfathered items--or not--that beneficiaries have been receiving from the supplier, CMS said. On the subject of MSAs and CBAs, Kaiser offered this clarification: “An MSA is an area that is defined [by] a series of counties. You can clearly identify whether an area is part of an MSA or not part of an MSA by looking to see what counties are part of the MSA, so there’s really no question about whether an area is part of an MSA or not. “You don’t need to know what zip code you are in,” Kaiser continued. “If there’s a county and it’s part of an MSA, it’s part of an MSA. There’s no ifs, ands or buts. “As far as CBAs are concerned, they may differ from the actual boundaries of the MSAs, and the reason is because the law gives us the authority to exempt or carve out low population-density areas of an MSA. So we’re not talking about huge, massive parts of an MSA … what we’re really talking about is areas on the fringe … “It’s not where the supplier is located, it’s whether you furnish items to beneficiaries in an MSA,” Kaiser said. “If you are furnishing items to beneficiaries in a given MSA on a routine basis, you’re probably furnishing those items to people who live in the more populated areas … There’s not much chance that those will not be part of the CBA.” To see which counties are included in the round two MSAs, Kaiser said to visit the Census Bureau Web site. Bastinelli also took the opportunity to say that CMS is still reviewing comments on proposed revisions to its accreditation quality standards, for which the comment period ended March 18. “We hope to have the final of those quality standards posted soon,” she said. Kaiser offered a similar statement with regard to announcing the winners in round one. “Contracting for round one will be announced in the near future,” he said. “We are very close to finishing up the contracting process for round one and will be announcing them in the near future.” CMS has announced its next educational call on competitive bidding for May 27. For information and to register for the call, visit www2.eventsvc.com/palmettogba052908. Competitive Bidding Updates and Other Info You Need to Know BALTIMORE--The news on competitive bidding and other government initiatives is moving a mile a minute and, at that breakneck speed, it’s easy to miss something that could be imperative for your business. To help, HomeCare has assembled the following list of dates and events to keep you prepared.
ATS Requirement Still Murky, Stakeholders Say ATLANTA--A CMS regulation regarding assistive technology suppliers is still evoking concern and confusion, even though it was implemented April 1, industry stakeholders said last week. The new regulation requires that Group 2 single- or multiple-power option power wheelchairs and any Group 3 or Group 4 PWC or a push-rim activated power assist device for a manual wheelchair come from a supplier employing an ATS “who specializes in wheelchairs and who has direct, in-person involvement in the wheelchair selection for the patient.” The ATS must be certified by the Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA). While industry stakeholders applaud the requirement, saying it is a mark of professionalism, there has been some confusion over how the ATS can be employed: as a W-2 employee or as an independent contractor. Concern heightened in January when CMS issued its proposed supplier standards. In a change to existing standard No. 1, the agency is proposing that suppliers providing licensed services not be allowed to contract out those services. “We’ve had a number of questions as to whether you were allowed to contract, and all were submitted to CMS because the [Local Coverage Determination] did not provide anything greater,” said Anjali Weber, director of certification for RESNA. Perhaps to address that and other questions, on May 5 the DME MACs issued an FAQ on the subject. In its clarification of the word “employ,” the document reads: “The ATS must be employed by a supplier in a full-time, part-time or contracted capacity as is acceptable by state law. The ATS, if part-time or contracted, must be under the direct control of the supplier.” (According to the FAQ, the term “ATS” refers to either an ATS or an assistive technology practitioner, ATP.) Still, the issue is confusing, said Tim Pedersen, ATS, president and CEO of WestMed Rehab in Rapid City, S.D. “The [DME MAC] medical directors don’t feel that they are the ones that should be deciding what the status of the employment arrangement is. But they have said the ATS must be under the clear control and direction of the supplier,” Pedersen said. Both he and Weber said they have concerns about contracting an ATS. “The LCD says it has to be documented in the client file that a RESNA-certified ATS working for a supplier is directly involved, not just signing off. But the requirement is there only for the recommendation,” Weber explained. “CMS is not requiring that the same person come back for the delivery. It’s an issue of continuity of service, optimizing that equipment and making sure that the equipment is operating effectively.” Pedersen agreed. “I have always been a believer in best practices. Best practices dictate that the ATS should be a full employee of that organization and not merely a hired gun,” said Pedersen, who has three ATSs on his staff beside himself. “I think we encourage proper compliance when we have an ATS who is a full-on employee of an organization.” Jerry Keiderling, president of U.S. Rehab for Waterloo, Iowa-based VGM, said he, too, believes the ATS needs to be on staff. “You tend to lose control over marketing or referral sources [if personnel is contracted],” he said. “I would want full control over my employees.” Stakeholders said that questions have also surfaced on whether there would be enough ATSs to meet demand. Weber said that beginning last year, RESNA stepped up the number of times it offered the test for the credential. “We made a real effort in the last 18 months to make the exam available in every part of the country,” she said, noting that it was offered 56 times last year and at least 20 times so far this year. “Because of the April 1 deadline, we had a surge in the providers sitting for the exam,” she noted. But not everyone passes, she said. The certification requires, among other things, that the person taking the exam be employed for two years in the field. “Because they don’t have the formal training or don’t have the experience, there are those who are not passing,” Weber said. Still, business has been brisk. “We’ve certified 3,800 so far,” Weber said. That number is up from 2,812 at the end of October 2007, when there were 1,138 ATSs and 1,674 ATPs in the country. But are the 3,800 enough to meet demand? Stakeholders said they aren't sure. “I don’t know if that is calculable,” Pedersen said, adding he doesn’t believe there is a shortage. Cody Verrett, ATS, national sales director of Quantum Rehab for Pride Mobility Products, Exeter, Pa., also couldn’t say if there was a shortage, but he noted another concern. “I think we are going to see some attrition in complex rehab,” he said, adding that providers who have in the past supplied such equipment but who now do not have an ATS will be unable to service those same clients. That business will move to well-established, long-term providers, he surmised. Providers supplying the pertinent equipment without the ATS are in jeopardy, said Keiderling. “If you don’t have an ATS at the time of the evaluation and the billing, that is actually fraudulent billing,” he pointed out. How that is going to be policed hasn’t been stipulated. According to the FAQ, “the medical directors have not mandated how suppliers document compliance with the ATS … requirement.” However, it continues, “There must be evidence in the supplier’s file of direct in-person interaction with the patient by the ATS in the wheelchair selection process. Suppliers must document how the ATS is involved with the patient.” Even with release of the new FAQ, there is still enough gray area in the regulation for concern, stakeholders said. But Pedersen said he believes some of the gray could become clear if quality standards were in place. “I do believe that this is another reason we need the quality standards in place,” Pedersen said, specifically referring to the contracting issue. “The quality standards could be a method of addressing this through the accreditation bodies.” Calling the CMS system “backwards,” Pedersen noted that “we have accreditation requirements but no quality standards. They can’t hold us accountable to draft standards. There are no rehab quality standards in existence today except in draft standard form.” Meanwhile, as they wait for these issues to clear up, stakeholders are hopeful that providers will continue to send employees to take the certification exam. One ATS employee may not be enough, Keiderling said, because the certification stays with the person, not the provider. “What happens if that person starts seeing the grass as being greener on the other side and they leave?” Keiderling asked. He knows it can be expensive and that has likely stopped some providers from sending multiple people to take the test. The 200-question exam is $500 the first time, he pointed out, $250 the second and third times. Sometimes, travel is required to the location where the exam is being administered. That means transportation costs, hotel and meal expenses. Weber said RESNA is working on cutting those costs; it expects to institute computer-based testing in 2009. And that, said Verrett, “is definitely going to make it easier for providers to get tested and be compliant. It will definitely make it easier to become certified. That’s a good thing.” Julie Piriano, PT, ATP, director of rehab industry affairs for Quantum Rehab, said the computer-based test would offer another plus: quick results. Currently, Piriano said, it can take as long as eight weeks to get test results. "With computer-based testing, [people] will know right away and be able to go forward and see patients," she said. Heard at Medtrade Spring LONG BEACH, Calif.--After years of escaping Congress' attempts to get Medicare competitive bidding in place, the HME industry finally succumbed when the program was mandated under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Since then, the topic has been top-of-mind at virtually every industry gathering. It was no different at Medtrade Spring, held May 6-8 in Long Beach, Calif., where the discussion reached fever pitch. As providers continued to work against the program, they also worked to get prepared for its outcome at more than 70 educational sessions, many focused on competitive bidding. "Although attendance was down some from last year due to the impact of competitive bidding on the industry as well as the strained general economy that is affecting all businesses ... feedback from participants--both attendees and exhibitors--was very positive," said Joe Randall, senior vice president of Nielsen Business Media, the show's producer. "I think that given the doom-and-gloom that we are seeing, people expected the worst. We've got a long way to go, but we feel Medtrade Spring and the many positive things that happened there put us on the right course for the future." At the event, Nielsen issued a "contract with home care," which Randall calls a renewal of the company's commitment to the industry. The contract includes 10 points that focus on restoring accountability, the introduction of new educational opportunities, dedicated financial support of the industry and an emphasis on competitive bidding resources for HME providers. Following are remarks from trade show attendees, who, as usual, were not shy about sharing their opinions on any subject related to the impending bid program. On an accreditation upswing
On providers' state of mind
On surviving round one
On being a small company
On moving ahead
On moving out of Medicare
On the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing
On bid winners in diabetics
On the future
For information on Medtrade, scheduled Oct. 28-30 in Atlanta, or
Medtrade Spring 2009, set March 24-26, 2009, in Las Vegas, visit www.medtrade.com.
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
About this Newsletter You are subscribed to this newsletter as #email# To unsubscribe from this newsletter go to: Unsubscribe To subscribe to this newsletter, go to: Subscribe To visit HomeCare's Web site click here For information on advertising in this newsletter, please contact Kent Peterson, National Sales Manager/Western Region Sales at kpeterson@homecaremag.com, or John McNamara, Regional Sales Manager/Eastern Region Sales at jmcnamara@homecaremag.com. |
|
|
|
To get this newsletter in a different format (Text or HTML),
or to change your e-mail address, please visit your profile
page to change your delivery preferences.
For questions concerning delivery of this newsletter, please contact our
Customer Service Department at: Penton Media | 249 W. 17th Street | New York, NY 10011 Copyright 2008, Penton Media. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, re-disseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of Penton Media. |
