[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]   Help@Insulin-Pumpers.org
  [Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   for subscribe/unsubscribe assistance

Re: [IP] About Competitive Bidders

Where is this from?


Sent from my iPad

On May 31, 2013, at 16:34, Phyllis Abram <email @ redacted> wrote:

> I. CMS has awarded DMEPOS exclusive contracts to bidders that SUBMITTED
> FRAUDULENT BIDS that did not meet CMS' published rules for licensure,
> accreditation, and/or certification in the state and/or specific product
> category by
> the May 1, 2012 bid window deadline. Any bidder which was not licensed or
> accredited for a specific produced category should have been eliminated from
> the bidding. Yet the facts are that:
> -- 33 bid winners do not hold a valid DME license in the state of Tennessee
> and so are fraudulent bidders.
> -- 68 out of 138 unique bid winners in the State of Maryland do not hold the
> necessary Maryland Residential Service Agency (RSA) license and so are
> fraudulent bids.
> -- 58 of the contracts in the six Ohio bid areas are held by firms that are
> not appropriately licensed to provide items in Ohio, and are likewise
> fraudulent bids.
> -- 31 of the 105 companies awarded contracts in Texas were not licensed under
> Texas law as required and so are fraudulent bidders.
> -- and each week brings new evidence of additional unqualified companies
> - Medicarebs published RFB stated "Bids will be disqualified if a bidder
> does not meet all state licensure requirements for the applicable product
> categories and for every state in a CBA." If CMS fails to disqualify such
> fraudulent bid winners, they penalize the many suppliers that followed the
> rules and bid honestly, many of whom would have bid on new areas if they had
 > known that they didn't have to invest the time and money to be licensed
 > bidding. Fraud is fraud, whether payment or contracting, and ignoring it
> a dangerous message!.
> -- Use of the bids submitted by unlicensed bidders to which CMS incorrectly
> awarded contracts cannot be used in calculating the Single Payment Amounts
> (SPA) because they were illegal. Fraudulent bidding cannot be condoned nor
> allowed to influence price setting.
> -- CMS helping these winners to get licensed now is wrong. It is likely that
> many other bidders were disqualified for lesser problems and are not getting
> this bspecialb help to succeed, and others would have bid differently if
> the rules had been different for all!
> W NLJ 258483 v3 2917952-000001 05/30/2013
> II. Equally serious are the lack of financial standards for companies
> promising huge expansions of services to these medically needy Medicare
> beneficiaries.
> -- There are big bwinners" currently serving few patients and with a very
> modest revenue stream, but which have been awarded scores, and even hundreds,
> of contracts. One example of many: NUTRI USA provides Enteral Nutrients to
> about 18 patients, had revenues of $24,000 for a full year and was awarded 82
> contracts nationwide for Enteral Nutrients.
> -- There is simply no way NUTRI USA, or many others, could pass any rational
> financial standards test that would demonstrate the financial and
> infrastructure capabilities to very rapidly expand (over 8,000%!!! in a few
> months) to serve the seniors and disabled in the vast geographic areas for
> which they were awarded contracts.
> -- There are many winners which will have to expand several thousands of
> percent on July 1st to fulfill their responsibilities to Medicare
> beneficiaries. IMPOSSIBLE!
> -- Not only were there no financial standards bidders had to meet to prove
 > their ability to expand, but CMS' bidding system itself transfers the value
> bids from serving seniors to selling bids. No intent necessary to serve
> seniors...JUST BID AND RUN!
> -- How do the strategies, DRIVEN BY THE CMS BIDDING STRUCTURE, serve the
> seniors and disabled who are particularly needy?
> The bsmartb thing to do to compete in this game of irrational bids and
 > extraordinary price cuts is to bid low, win as many bids as possible, and
> them at as high a price as possible! If you can't sell, just hold, as you are
 > not required to serve anyone. Eventually the market will crash, the price
> up, and you can sell, if you haven't gone broke! It's happening just as the
> experts predicted, and Cal Tech proved, driven by CMS' flawed design.
> In Round 2 the talk on the street is all about such strategies! 11 of the 15
> announced winners in the nationwide competition for mail order diabetic
> supplies had no plans to serve! Other winners in every category quietly say
> the same. Some talk of how to serve only those needing the cheapest supplies
> with costs below the median...or just one's old customers! WHO LOSES when the
> focus becomes how to exit with your shirt? SICK AND NEEDY SENIORS unable to
> find a new supplier! Co-pays become self-pay!
> III. Lastly is Round 2's reliance on remote suppliers.
> -- The evidence is unequivocal from the Round 1 Rebid: REMOTE
> (out-of-area/out-of-state) WINNERS DO NOT PERFORM! But in Round 1only 10% of
> the winners were remote.
> -- Round 2 removes 90% of the local suppliers right off the top! Then 50% of
> the CMS- selected suppliers don't serve because they are remote! CHOICE?
> QUALITY? ACCESS? Frail and needy seniors lose. Jobs are lost in your towns.
> WHY???? Is this American?
> W NLJ 258483 v3 2917952-000001 05/30/2013
> Sent from my iPhone
> Phyllis
> .
> Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe/change list versions,
contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers