[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



I had the same question.  I know it is all public information but what
documents, what agencies, provided it - the sources are what I'm curious
about.  It's my nature - I'm an analyst.  I'm not from the "show me" state
but it's my nature to say "show me the citations and sources".

Before I pass anything along 99% of the time I check snopes or other
fact-finding sites.  I have no doubt that what you quote is accurate but if
I pass it along to someone else and they ask me where I got it - Phyllis
Abram <email @ redacted> - is totally unknown to them and as knowledgeable as
she is she won't carry much credibility with someone who does not know her.


Nora Roales Nevers
Arlington, TX  


-----Original Message-----
From: email @ redacted
[mailto:email @ redacted] On Behalf Of Phyllis Abram
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 19:27
To: email @ redacted
Subject: Re: [IP] About Competitive Bidders

 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