[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



 What I want to know is where is what you actually sent from? Who put the
information together?

Thanks,
Stacey

Sent from my iPad

On May 31, 2013, at 20:27, Phyllis Abram <email @ redacted> wrote:

> It is all public information. Anything sent to a government agency is subject
> to the public information law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> Phyllis 
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Stacey Martin <email @ redacted> wrote:
> 
>> Where is this from?
>> 
>> Stacey
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On May 31, 2013, at 16:34, Phyllis Abram <email @ redacted> wrote:
>> 
>>> COMPETITIVE BIDDING OF DMEPOS: GOVERNMENT GONE WILD WILD WILD !!
>>> 
>>> KEY FACTS YOU MUST KNOW
>>> 
>>> 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
>> before
>>> bidding. Fraud is fraud, whether payment or contracting, and ignoring it
>> sends
>>> 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
>> of
>>> 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
>> sell
>>> 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
>> goes
>>> 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.
>>> In Round 2, HALF OR MORE OF THE WINNERS ARE 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
>> .
>> Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
> .
> 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