Is there a reason for this?

I didn't want to hijack the thread I'm referring to, thus the reason for this.

FLAME ON

I have been following a thread here where the OP has had two sleep studies and the DME unilaterally decided not to fill the prescription citing the insurance wouldn't pay. As they never tried to fill the prescription how the hell did they come to the conclusion they wouldn't get paid. This appears like their feeling was the money wasn't easy enough and they might actually have to work making an argument for their patient.

I have limited experience with this side of the DME business, but owners of DME that I have dealt with would
1. Try to fill the prescription and
2. If the insurance company balked would advocate for the patient to some degree that the patient needed the equipment.

This situation is reprehensible IMHO.

But here's the question:

Is there some forum rule that prohibits posters from referring to these DME's by company name? Should not these companies be held accountable even if the only consequence to their negligence is alerting other folks that the DME might not be the best alternative for the trust of their care?

I guess that's two questions.

If Accurate Biomed failed to this extent I would expect and we would deserve to be called out and have to respond in some fashion.

FLAME OFF

To my recollection, there have been a "number" of these types of situations. Some of the DMEs seem to think they're "GOD" and they can do anything they want.

I don't think there's a forum "rule" against naming them, but I'm not sure if there might be legal ramifications if the "offending DME" got wind of it. Kind of a libel situation that most don't want to have to deal with......so, the offenders remain anonymous. But, "Crapria" and "Lin-dont-care" are two of the biggest outfits and then there's a slew of local shops (most of which provide better service than the big two).
It HAS been brought up before about whether to name the offenders.


Den

.

Wulfman... wrote:To my recollection, there have been a "number" of these types of situations. Some of the DMEs seem to think they're "GOD" and they can do anything they want.

I don't think there's a forum "rule" against naming them, but I'm not sure if there might be legal ramifications if the "offending DME" got wind of it. Kind of a libel situation that most don't want to have to deal with......so, the offenders remain anonymous. But, "Crapria" and "Lin-dont-care" are two of the biggest outfits and then there's a slew of local shops (most of which provide better service than the big two).
It HAS been brought up before about whether to name the offenders.

TECHNICALLY (and I'm sure Drowsy will correct me if I'm wrong) if one names a business, and states factually what happened, you're proof against libel. if however, one starts into speculation and hyperbole and name calling, that's where things get nasty, legally.

"bigname dme inc in mytown refused to fill my prescription, saying "you don't need this, so we sent it back to your doctor, I had to go to momandpop dme to get things taken care of!" should be fine.

"Bigname DME is a bunch of bastards that are too stupid to exist, everybody in mytown should avoid the idiots" could get one in trouble.

Now that I've thought about it a little more, I think there have been SOME who have been named. But, on the other side, there have been some good ones who have been named, too.


Den

.

Wulfman... wrote:Now that I've thought about it a little more, I think there have been SOME who have been named. But, on the other side, there have been some good ones who have been named, too.


Den

.

More to the point that I was making, certainly good work should be acknowledged. Accurate has been named favorably in many posts and for that I am grateful. However, I would also expect Accurate to be excoriated should we neglect our customers in the fashion I cited above.

As to libel, and I am not a lawyer, I do know that monetary damages have to be demonstrated and proven for a libel suit to have any merit. Although I don't feel that statements to the effect of "Idiot DME are crumb bums." are effective, I still think they fall under free speech protection.

I don't want to belabor the OP, but it is my belief that anyone that owns a business has a moral and at times fiduciary obligation to serve their customers in the best way possible. Not only for a profitable outcome for the company, but also a satisfactory result for the folks they are serving.

Some/lots of people don't even put in their profile where they live or even mention it. And, in some cases, the way the Internet seems to be going, that may not be a "bad" thing, either.


Den

.

And there is another reason we like you, Accurate.
A sense of duty and an awareness of decent behavior is not found everywhere.
More's the pity.

Apria and Lincare have been mentioned a lot of times with insightful posts about how bad they can be.

If it is a local DME, it may not really make much of a difference.

As to the post being referred to, I am a bit mystified as to what is actually going on.

Either the DR wrote an RX or they didn't. If they wrote an RX, not sure how the DME says that isn't good enough to fill. Sounds like a different DME is needed.

Hard to fathom the DME not falling all over themselves to fill an equipment order.

Krelvin wrote:
If it is a local DME, it may not really make much of a difference.

My thinking, when I read the post I referred to, was I was wondering if I knew the company that was being mentioned. If I did business with that DME I could reach out to the owner and ask if they would review the situation. I know there have been times when Accurate's employees have taken a stance that I might not have taken and there have also been times when I have interjected myself and reversed a prior decision by my employee that I didn't agree with.

In this case, maybe the DME person that refused to go forward with the prescription was just an employee having a bad day, or wasn't well trained, or just didn't have the skills for the job they were trying to perform. If that was the case a company owner may have felt the need to get involved.

A business owner, if their business is of any size, relies so much on the judgement calls of their front line people. In many cases those front line people are not empowered to make decisions outside of certain parameters. We have a customer complaint procedure in Accurate that says an unresolved complaint continually travels up a chain until it gets to administrative management. It doesn't take very long (a couple of days tops) for that to happen as part of our managers performance review is based on problem resolution. At that time it automatically goes to my desk for review. Not everyone does that or can do that and in that case, were I an owner, I wouldn't mind a phone call advising me of a potential train wreck.

Your super power is PC salesman, happy happy schmoozing. You're GOOD.

Tatooed Lady wrote:Your super power is PC salesman, happy happy schmoozing. You're GOOD.

OK I'll shut up.

I'm embarrassed now

It's true that truth is a defense to a claim of libel in the United States.

(Not everyone here is in the USA, and I know that libel claims are handled somewhat differently in, for example, the UK. However, I don't recall ever having seen someone complaining about their UK DME--also, I think the delivery system is quite different there).

In some jurisdictions you might have to be concerned about a "false light" claim (the information was technically true, but gives a misleadingly negative view of someone), but it would be really hard, I think to make something like this stick against a merchant doing business with the general public. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-re ... se-light-0

The most problematic material I've ever seen posted on this board related to a claim of misconduct during a sleep study by a sleep tech. Naming that sleep tech might very well have been defamatory.

The board owners have occasionally removed the names of local DME's from posts.

Let's not forget that the DME is claiming that the insurance is not going to pay for the CPAP machine. If they're correct, they're doing the patient a favor by not dispensing it and then trying to bill the patient for the full fantasy price later.

However, it looks like DME didn't even bother with trying to precertify the claim.


correction, - the DME dispenses, not "prescribes." TNX, PR.

archangle wrote: by not prescribing it .

never one to not nitpick something that might confuse a newbie.... DME's don't prescribe, they dispense.

Drowsy Dancer wrote:It's true that truth is a defense to a claim of libel in the United States.

(Not everyone here is in the USA, and I know that libel claims are handled somewhat differently in, for example, the UK. However, I don't recall ever having seen someone complaining about their UK DME--also, I think the delivery system is quite different there).

In some jurisdictions you might have to be concerned about a "false light" claim (the information was technically true, but gives a misleadingly negative view of someone), but it would be really hard, I think to make something like this stick against a merchant doing business with the general public. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-re ... se-light-0

The most problematic material I've ever seen posted on this board related to a claim of misconduct during a sleep study by a sleep tech. Naming that sleep tech might very well have been defamatory.

You also have to be very careful about being able to prove they did what you claim as most of this happens by word of mouth and is not documented in such a way that will protect you should they sue you. They say go prove it and you're stuck with he said/she said.