CMS Cuts PAP Reimbursement in Nine Competitive Bidding Areas

[provider]

Just throwing in my 2 cents from the DME perspective. Medicare is not charged the MSRP. In fact they allow much less than anything close to MSRP. With their new rules and 90 day trial period very few of the patients we've setup since the changes have billed enough to even cover the cost of the equipment. I know you think DME's gouge patients, but unfortunately the hoops we're required to jump through with Medicare and Medicaid plans are becoming nearly unattainable to even make it worth our while.

I'm in an area that will be affected by the first round of competitive bidding.

Here is CMS (Medicare's) spin on the bid:

http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/rel ... Order=date

And here is the views of the American Association for Homecare:

http://www.oames.org/pdf/2010/07072010_ ... e_2010.pdf

[roster]

From the AAH link you provided:

LESS COMPETITION, NOT MORE – The bid program is anti-competitive because it reduces
the number of competitors. About 90 percent of home medical service providers would have
been barred from the Medicare program in the first round of bidding conducted in 2008.

The government is good at reducing competition with regulation and then crying, "The free market does not work. We need more regulation."

See also what they did to create an oligopoly of credit-rating agencies that eventually became a big problem - http://www.forbes.com/2005/01/26/cz_ic_0126beltway.html

[AirBreather]

It is past time to start selling them at WalMart and Best Buy OTC.

I fully agree.

[Wulfman]

I don't know what's happened to the plan that Wal-Mart was working on in the link I posted in this thread a couple of years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28638


Den

[Slinky]

Not enough profit margin???

[DreamStalker]

Grandmother I don't remember so well (that is not a pun), but mother held your political views. She believed we need the guv'mint to take care of us. I believed it for thirty years. Then the hard knocks of life began to settle in and I saw more clearly what was going on. Turned my life around personally and also changed what I did in the voting booth. With the personal I was quite successful, but in the voting booths the choices were poor.

So you don't want me to take Social Security when (and if) my time comes? That goes right along with your leftist politics.

The grandmother comment is an inside joke that only a few members are aware of.

Social security. You whine and cry about the evils of socialism and yet have no issues with it when it benefits you.

The security part of "social security" is supposed to be a net to catch those who for whatever reason are unable to afford to eat, clothe oneself, or have a warm place to sleep. Sure, those things and their affordability are all relative but that is what "social security" is for. It is a socialistic responsibility for those who are able, to help those who are unable to help themselves ... at least in a world where human compassion trumps selfish greed (call it leftist if you like).

So I'm not saying that YOU should not collect your social security checks but rather if you are going to whine about the socialized program, then don't be a hypoctite by accepting the benefits of the program.

At age 80, I assumed that you were already collecting SS checks ... my mistake.

[So Well]

Oh my little cream puff, I have no doubt you can "outpost" me while you sit comfortably in your secure government job as a research associate dawdling away. I also have no doubt that your leftist philosophy is so ingrained it will be with you until the end of life.

I believe ownership is the product of earning.

You believe ownership is the product of wanting.

I believe in equality before God and the law. I believe no arbitrary obstacles should prevent a person from achieving a position for which his talents fit him and which his values lead him to seek. Not birth, not nationality, not color, not religion, not sex, nor any other irrelevant characteristic should determine the opportunities that are open to a man - only his abilities.

You believe in equality of outcome. You believe in "fair shares for all". You believe in redistribution in order to achieve the unachievable. You don't believe in achievement.

Our positions are in direct opposition.

My position calls for government measures that promote equality of opportunity.

Your position calls for government measures that "achieve fair shares for all".

My position enhances human liberty.

Your position reduces human liberty.

Your slogan "fair shares for all" is a rewording of Karl Marx's "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities."

The obligation of all responsible voters in my beloved country is to use the voting booth to knock your type back into your holes.

Good day.