[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 would like it please.  I want to be able to back myself up if I forward on
your example and then am questioned about how I know that.  You have to
admit that the average every day run of the mill citizen would not be aware
of that data.

Nora Roales Nevers
Arlington, TX


-----Original Message-----
From: email @ redacted
[mailto:email @ redacted] On Behalf Of Phyllis Abram
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 21:33
To: email @ redacted
Subject: Re: [IP] About Competitive Bidders

 Stacey, if you mean the 1st document it has the government seal on the
letterhead. The document had signatures in it. If you mean the second one it
came as a document which was submitted to the government as evidence. I also
have a 3rd document endorsed by several hundred people including Nobel prize
winners and more. I didn't post that because I'm taking up too much space
trying to  make a point and back it up. If you really want the rest; I will
be happy to send it to you; not on IP.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 31, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Stacey Martin <email @ redacted> wrote:

> 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
>> to the public information law.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Phyllis
>> On May 31, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Stacey Martin <email @ redacted>
>>> Where is this from?
>>> Stacey
>>> 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 
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> -- 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!
 >>>> QUALITY? ACCESS? Frail and needy seniors lose. Jobs are lost in your
>>>> 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
> .
> 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