Naturally, they have the RIGHT to restrict distribution. The real question we are discussing is whether it makes sense for them to do so.Anonymous wrote:
The DME 'guy' had no right WHATSOEVER making an elicit, unauthorized copy of the CD and posting it on the internet.This has nothing to do with intended audience or whether manufacturers care about its customers or user-base.
So according to you, a manufacturer doesn't have a right to restrict distribution of certain things?
Moogy wrote:Naturally, they have the RIGHT to restrict distribution. The real question we are discussing is whether it makes sense for them to do so.Anonymous wrote:
The DME 'guy' had no right WHATSOEVER making an elicit, unauthorized copy of the CD and posting it on the internet.This has nothing to do with intended audience or whether manufacturers care about its customers or user-base.
So according to you, a manufacturer doesn't have a right to restrict distribution of certain things?
Moogy
I don't mean to be dense, but judging from your rolling eyes, obviously I am! My question is: there must be some logical explanation for their reticence to give the end-user access to this information. What is it?Anonymous wrote:Again, nobody from their side (Resp) ever claimed there was any "harm" in showing the info to patients or whomever---they simply didn't want the stuff outside of its intended distribution area. What's so hard to understand here???
Sorry to disagree with you, but the "user" (policyholder) is the one that is paying the premiums....the insurance provider is the distributor of the payments when services are rendered to the policyholder. Yes, they have "rules" and deductibles, etc., etc.....but they work for YOU (the policyholder). DME does NOT rule. They are only a recipient of payments for services rendered, just like doctors, sleep labs, etc......who are ALL being paid to work FOR you.different guest wrote:Alas, the end user is not the customer. Insurance companies and DMEs rule. The end users that do get a choice are the lucky ones.
That we should want to understand how our machines work.....????
The "intended distribution area" and the fact the Mr. Paul insists on this limited distribution area, are what is so hard to understand.Anonymous wrote:Again, nobody from their side (Resp) ever claimed there was any "harm" in showing the info to patients or whomever---they simply didn't want the stuff outside of its intended distribution area. What's so hard to understand here???
W. Edwards Deming wrote:Profit in business comes from repeat customers, customers that boast about your project or service, and that bring friends with them.
Mr. Paul's right to insist on his policy is not questioned. It is his wisdom that is questionable.Friedrich Schiller wrote: Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
| Mask: AirFit™ P10 Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear |
| Additional Comments: Machine: Resmed AirSense10 for Her with Climateline heated hose ; alternating masks. |
mikemoran wrote:The DMEs clearly aren't financially incentivized to issue APAPs.
harikarishimari wrote: This may sound overly simple, but the issue will never change until there are separate billing codes for CPAP and APAP.
This is yet another case of accountants practicing medicine. In their eyes an APAP is just a luxury edition of a basic medical device, the CPAP. As long as that is their perception there is no hope for "incentivising" the DMEs, or even the physicians. As long as third-party payers and DMEs control the distribution of CPAPs and APAPs, they will continue to re-write the prescriptions to maximize their profit, and beg and whine and make a long list of "honest mistakes" (*cough*) and do almost ANYTHING to prevent the end user from having the most appropriate equipment if that equipment happens to be an APAP.
Mr. Zack Paul should not waste his time schmoozing with DMEs and trying to convince them of anything. He should be making his case with the insurance companies to split the codes to reflect the present reality. The technology has changed. Insurance providers haven't. Until there are two separate cost-based reimbursement schedules, issuing better equipment translates directly into reduced profits. The online business model of our gracious sponsor works (no questions, no hassle, just tell us what you want) ONLY because you can see the cost-based price list, and you pay for what you get. Imagine if cpap.com put all their CPAP/APAP/BiPAP/xPAP models in one big picture, but with one pricetag (any model, same low price). How long would they stay in business? Either the price would reflect the most expensive equipment and no sensible person would order the low end products. Or the price would be rock-bottom, and the inventory at the top would just disappear until there were only CHEAP CHEAP models to choose from. In reality the latter is EXACTLY what has happened with the DME/Insurance distribution model, and that is why the system is seriously BROKEN. What will it take to change it? Splitting the codes would be a good first step, and setting the reimbursement schedules to match, and to reflect reality.
There may in fact be some incentive for respironics to keep the information out of the public eye. If we buy an inferior product that is inadequate and doesn't meet minimum standards, then maybe they can sell us TWO xPAP machines, the second being out-of-pocket, retail. That will be offset with a large population that simply give up therapy altogether because it isn't working, and sell their equipment at an auction. That's gotta eventually cut into their sales.
DME_Guy did a good thing, I hope he is not punished in any way. Respironics should be pushing their APAP technology to "the people", the docs, the patients, the insurance providers, MediCare, congress, and whoever will listen. Mr. Z.P. should be taking the lead getting those informational materials out to all the above, and anyone else who truly needs to be educated. Having a sales rep for "Sleep Therapy Auto Titration" that deals (as we have just learned) exclusively with DMEs seems like a complete waste of a job description.
