Subscribe to On the Editor's Desk RSS Feed

On the Editor's Desk

by: Liz Beaulieu - Thursday, December 14, 2017

This one’s for you, dear providers who aren’t on twitter.

AAHomecare included an item in its Wednesday in Washington bulletin this week on updated data for HME’s share of total Medicare spending. Turns out it’s down to 1.11% in 2016 from 1.22% in 2015.

The association pointed out that even way back in 2006, HME’s share of total Medicare spending was a paltry 1.6%.

The general theme here: HME spending is what they call in Washington, D.C., “budget dust.” Am I right?

AAHomecare further pointed out that while overall Medicare spending continues to climb (and let’s face it, that trend will likely continue—I’m talking about you baby boomers), HME spending has decreased 7.5% between 2012 and 2016.

I posted the above graph to twitter, and a telling exchange between providers ensued.

Here it is:

Jason Jones: When I’m working AR, I start with higher dollar amounts and worry less about those who owe very little. Why is it that Medicare hammers the 1% and ignores the rest? What do I know—I’m just a college dropout from Alabama.

Woody O’Neal: Why would they even bother?

Jamie Long: Any meeting with Congress should consist of pulling out this graph, slapping it down on the table, and walking out of the room.

Gary Sheehan: I have always used this one and it does help. “See that tiny line at the bottom, the only one going down, that’s us!”

Rusty Church: Marcus Lemonis would come into a DME business and say, “The product costs you this much, driver costs this, gas costs this, and Medicare pays you this? Are you crazy? Why are you in this business? Who created this crazy (bleep) model?”

Gary Sheehan: The other item that bears mentioning: The small line on the bottom holds the key for controlling the out-of-control growth of all the other lines.

Rusty Church: Well said.

Jamie Long: I wish there was a way to show that the growth would have been in those other areas if DME had not been gutted over the last decade. I bet that graph would look vastly different.

Thanks providers for writing this blog for me. Sure, I cleaned up some of your language and added some grammar here and there, but I couldn’t have said it any better.

by: HME News Staff - Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Here’s a look at the most read stories for 2017. I know there are still 32 days left in 2017 (who’s counting), but I couldn’t help myself (and I needed a blog topic).

The No. 1 most read story surprises me—and it doesn’t. It surprises me because it’s not competitive bidding related. On the face, it’s even what we call a “state story,” meaning it doesn’t even apply to every provider everywhere. But it doesn’t surprise me, because it’s representative of the increasing influence of managed care organizations in HME payment and policy. And when those organizations have multiple companies in multiple states, it becomes bigger than Texas or Indiana. With competitive bidding pricing now in place nationwide, this is the next front in the war on reduced reimbursement for HME.

Competitive bidding may not be the subject of the No. 1 most read story, but have no fear, it’s still well represented in this year’s list. The stories have to do with the impact of the program (41% of providers across the country have dropped Medicare or closed their doors since July 1, 2013, when Round 2 kicked off in 91 cities) and efforts to reform it (an interim final rule stuck at the Office of Management and Budget would purportedly provide relief in non-bid areas). TBH, I am surprised that no stories about H.R. 4229, which would extend a retroactive delay of a second round of reimbursement cuts in non-bid areas, made this year’s list.

There are always stories on the most read list about national and regional providers and this year’s no different, with stories about layoffs at Pacific Pulmonary and the merger of Linde and Praxair. Noticeably absent are any stories about the traditional nationals like Lincare or Apria Healthcare or Rotech Healthcare, which is probably a testament to how quiet (i.e. inactive) they’ve been.

If I had to pick one story that made the list that surprised me the most it’s No. 8.  It’s bid-related, so it had that going for it, but it was kind of an obscure story, stemming from a tweet from then HHS Secretary Tom Price. The story detailed a video made by HHS meant to support efforts to repeal Obamacare and that actually featured an HME provider who was more concerned about competitive bidding. I got tipped to the story from another provider on twitter, a good example of why it’s important to be there and interact with all of you.

Don’t get me wrong, something big could happen in the next 32 days that could impact the most read stories for 2017—namely, H.R. 4229 gets passed as part of broader legislation—in which case, I’ll happily edit and update this list.

Stay tuned.


States move to single-source more and more DME

‘They’re commoditizing this portion of health care, and it’s scary to think about how far they’ll take it’

YARMOUTH, Maine – Distributors have been picking up Medicaid contracts for incontinence supplies in a number of states for years. Now the stakes have been raised.


Tougher times ahead: Impact of rate cuts pile up

YARMOUTH, Maine – A whopping 65% of respondents to a recent HME Newspoll say they can sustain their businesses for less than a year, if they don’t get reimbursement relief.


All eyes on new bid-related rule

‘It sounds like a good thing, but we just don’t know what’s in it’

WASHINGTON – The website of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget now shows an interim final rule pending review titled “Durable Medical Equipment Fee Schedule, Adjustments to Resume the Transitional 50/50 Blended Rates to Provider Relief in Non-Competitive Bidding Areas.”


Turmoil continues at Pacific Pulmonary

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – Pacific Pulmonary Services will lay off 170 employees in July, according to a local newspaper.


CMS adds teeth to bid program

WASHINGTON – After several rounds of the competitive bidding program now under its belt, CMS has implemented improvements to Round 2019 that could curb the ongoing race to the bottom, say industry stakeholders.


HME infrastructure crumbles

‘I’ve been saying for a while that I think we’ve crossed the tipping point,’ says one provider

YARMOUTH, Maine – CMS set out to reduce the number of HME providers with competitive bidding and, as recent data shows, it has done just that, say providers


Linde-Praxair: Will merger have impact on HME?

MUNICH and DANBURY, Conn. – Although industrial gas giant Linde continues to dip its toe in the waters of home care, its planned merger with Praxair likely won’t have a noticeable effect on the HME industry, say M&A analysts.


Caught on tape: Criticism of bid program mixed in with criticism of Obamacare

Also, Secretary Price finally goes on record about access issues

WASHINGTON – When HHS Secretary Tom Price took to Twitter last week to post several videos of small business owners speaking on the negative impact of Obamacare, one in particular caught the eye of social media-savvy HME providers.


Pacific Pulmonary settles whistleblower lawsuit

NOVATO, Calif. – Pacific Pulmonary Services has agreed to pay $11.4 million to resolve allegations that it participated in a kickback scheme for home oxygen and sleep therapy equipment.


‘Right this wrong,’ providers tell CMS

Callers to forum outline problems related to drastic rate cuts

WASHINGTON – From Martha’s Vineyard to the Pacific Northwest, rural HME providers are struggling to survive in a post-competitive bidding world, they told CMS officials during a call March 23.

by: Liz Beaulieu - Wednesday, November 1, 2017

A Boston TV station recently ran an “I-Team” piece on a man who needed a brace after twisting his knee and who was charged nearly $700 for said brace by a local supply company because he hadn’t met his deductible.

In shock, the man Googled the brace and found it available through several online retailers for as little as $125.

Who do you think took the blame in this scenario?

You guessed it, the supply company.

It’s all become so very predictable.

There a number of things wrong with this, the first being the supply company doesn’t set fee schedules for DME, Medicare does, and more often than not, private insurers pick up those fee schedules, as appears to be the case here.

Why is the fee schedule for this particular brace nearly $700?

It might have something to do (though not entirely—I’m not naïve) with the second thing that’s wrong with this: There’s a big difference between getting a brace from a supply company vs. an online retailer.

It’s not quite apples to apples, but this reminds me of a graphic recently posted to twitter by the government relations team at VGM that compares the payment received for a pumpkin spice latte and the work involved in providing said latte, and the payment received for a nebulizer and the work involved in providing said nebulizer.

Like I said, not apples to apples, but the general idea is, being a supplier vs. an online retailer comes with additional burdens, including more often that not filling out and collecting cumbersome paperwork.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a piece involving DME without a mention of competitive bidding and how that has helped to rein in pricing (albeit, as the article points out, not for braces, which hasn’t been included in the program—yet), to which a provider responded, “Dear I-Team, interview oxygen and diabetic patients who can’t find providers due to Medicare allowables (that are drastically reduced due to competitive bidding), rather than one guy with a knee brace.”

Good point.

All of this is symbolic of the mess we’re in—a knee brace whose allowable is probably too high; an oxygen concentrator whose allowable is definitely too low.

It’s representative of the complicated problems with the healthcare system in the U.S. today, problems that go far beyond DME, which accounts for only a slim percentage of total Medicare spending.

So why is it DME’s always the easy target?

by: Liz Beaulieu - Friday, October 20, 2017

I’ve had a few conversations now where the people I’m talking to try to find the silver lining in the statistic that the number of DME locations has dropped about 40% since 2013, when Medicare’s competitive bidding program began to really gain steam.

That’s a brutal statistic and one that, when shared with members of Congress, has to be impactful in the industry’s efforts to get some relief from the bid program.

But a few of the people I referred to above like to look at it as, 60% of locations are still standing and with the bid program now in effect nationwide, if they’re still standing now, they should remain standing.

“We believe we’re in a pinnacle moment in time here,” said one person I talked to. “Forty percent of dealers have closed their doors, but the people who are in business today, they have the opportunity to be in business going forward. We don’t expect additional cutbacks.”

Of course, there are a whole host of questions that come up when considering this logic. Mainly: Just because a company is still standing now, doesn’t mean it’s not still standing with two broken legs, limping along with crutches, am I right?

There are other questions: What are the types of businesses that can remain standing and in what areas? Are they larger companies in more urban areas? Are they full-line or specialty providers?

To move on to another statistic, I’ve also had a few conversations with people about the fact that DMEPOS appeals have made up about 49% of total appeals at the ALJ level so far in fiscal year 2017. AAHomecare reported this week that as of August 2017, 591,962 appeals were pending, a 300% increase since 2016, and as of October 2017, 291,047 appeals were for DMEPOS. It’s hard to find any silver lining at all in that.

The two big questions here: How much money are these appeals costing CMS to adjudicate, especially when the majority are overturned; and how is it fair that DMEPOS, which represents about 2.3% of the Medicare budget, represents nearly 50% of appeals?

Like a lot of things these days, none of this makes a whole lot of sense.

by: Liz Beaulieu - Tuesday, September 26, 2017

We go live with 2016 data for our HME Databank on Oct. 1. I’ve been playing around in a test site this week, and let me tell you, the data ain’t pretty.

Take E1390, stationary oxygen concentrators. Total Medicare spend on this code in 2016 was $620,708,743, according to data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from CMS. In 2015: $903,973,456.

Before we move on to declines in spending in other DME, let me say that obtaining the data this year was more difficult than in past years. Our request for county-level data for total Medicare spend had to be forwarded from the Pricing, Data Analysis and Coding Contractor, which usually fulfills our requests easily and timely, to CMS’s FOIA office and then to the agency’s “central office.” It took months. But I’m glad to say that once it hit said “central office,” the data was released promptly. Thank you!

How about E0601, CPAP devices? Total Medicare spend was $115,903,964 in 2016 vs. $150,060,612 in 2015.

For E0260, hospital beds, semi-electric with mattress: $48,239,698 in 2016 vs. $65,522,841 in 2015.

A4235, blood glucose strips: $179,812,476 in 2016 vs. $222,324,155 in 2015.

K0823, standard power wheelchair: $32,579,043 in 2016 vs. $43,227,808 in 2015.

It goes on and on and on.

Another aside: The line above reminds me of the kid’s favorite book at the moment: “The Circus Ship” by Chris Van Dusen. Long story short, a circus ship crashes off the coast of Maine and the 15 animals aboard make their way to an island, where they surprise, and initially horrify, its human inhabitants. There’s a tiger in the tulips, there’s a lion on the lawn, there’s a python in the pantry, it went on and on and on. I highly recommend it.

Speaking of horrifying, when you combine this data with other data, such as the aging population (the number of Americans ages 65 and older is projected to more than double from 46 million today to more than 98 million by 2060), the increasing awareness and diagnosis of OSA (it’s estimated 75% of severe sleep disordered breathing remains undiagnosed), etc., it’s hard to make sense of any kind of declines at all.

What is going on here? That’s more of a rhetorical question, of course, because we all know what’s going on here. And something’s gotta give.

by: Liz Beaulieu - Friday, September 22, 2017

When you speak to industry attorneys, you get a wealth of information, more than can fit into a 400-word story for the November issue. So here are some outtakes from my recent conversations with Jeff Baird:

Same or separate

If an HME company wants to explore retail, it has two options, Baird says: They can do it under their existing company, ABC Medical, which has a PTAN; or a separate company, ABC Retail, which has no PTAN.

Baird says he prefers the latter option, because it eliminates a number of potential problems.

“For example, if you’re selling stuff for cash under one entity with one tax ID, you have to deal with anti-discrimination concerns between your Medicare and cash customers,” he said. “If you have a separate entity, those concerns go away.”

Additionally, if ABC Medical for one reason or another goes down in flames, ABC Retail still stands, Baird says.

“I think it scares people to set up a separate entity, but it shouldn’t,” he said.

The party’s over

Baird has long warned of “the big party going on with folks selling braces and sham telehealth arrangements.” Well, the party has come to an end, he says.

“We have now seen a number of letters, not from the NSC, but from CMS to mail-order orthotics providers saying, you know you’re selling in 30 states and in three of those states you don’t have the right licensure, so we’re going to revoke your PTAN,” he said.

Baird calls the move “pretty wicked.” In the past, a provider would get a letter from the NSC asking for a corrective action plan on how they plan to address the issue.

by: HME News Staff - Friday, September 15, 2017

A wrote a blog a few weeks back called “Head banging” about the share of Medicare spending on DME, and the concentration of Medicare spending in different areas of health care. The source was the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s “A data book: Health care spending and the Medicare program.”

A reader emailed me this week to point out another data point of interest in this whopping 214-page report (I told you I didn’t read it all).

Chart 6-18 features data on the “discharge destination of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries served in acute care hospitals, 2006-15.”

As you can see the percentage of patients whose destination was home self-care dropped from 52.3% in 2006 to 45.5% in 2015.

The reader wrote: “That means about 13% more patient are discharged to skilled nursing and home health with organized health care. Much more expensive. That’s what you get with a watered down DME industry. I ran a DME company for 28 years and we all saw this coming. It’s called cost-shifting and it’s bad for Americans.”

I wrote back: “Great point. This stat further surprises me because of all the efforts in recent years to shift care into the home. I guess 2015 was a little early for that to start having an impact, though. Will be interesting to see what the 2016-17 numbers show.”

Though I will say, now that I’ve thought about it further, those efforts I mentioned have focused on post-acute care services, which runs the gamut of anything outside the hospital, not necessarily in the home. But this reader is taking things a step further, saying everything but the home is more expensive and if discharges to the home are decreasing, health care is moving in the wrong direction.

The reader wrote back again: “We were clinical respiratory until around 2006. Reimbursement was good for oxygen and competition demanded that your services be excellent. We had a registered respiratory therapist visit our oxygen patients every three months. They checked the concentrator, they discussed portability, they took a pulse oximetry, blood pressure, etc. If the patient’s oxygen saturation was good without oxygen, we contacted physician and D/C'd oxygen. Competition and fair reimbursement allowed DME companies to keep patients from more expensive home health care agencies and skilled nursing. Now the data is proving it.  DME expenses have dropped 50% over the last 11 years—2% to 1%? I suppose congratulations to CMS for saving 50% on the smallest segment, DME. Real head smasher.”


by: Liz Beaulieu - Friday, August 11, 2017

The data is starting to trickle in for this year’s State of the Industry Report, which we’ll publish online in December. One of those pieces of data: the top 100 suppliers by amount allowed by Medicare.

It’s always the usual cast of characters in this list, mostly national players, but it’s still interesting to see the jockeying for position, as well as the changes in amount allowed, from year to year.

Right off the bat, in this year’s list, I noticed that while Lincare still had the No. 1 spot, the amount allowed dropped from $830.9 million in 2015 to $651.8 million in 2016. Can you say ouch?

Accredo Health Group, once again in the No. 2 spot, did a better job maintaining its course with $482.8 million in 2016 vs. $481.8 million in 2015.

Another national that we keep an eye on is Apria Healthcare, which dropped from the No. 3 spot to the No. 4 spot in 2016 with $224.3 million vs. $273.5 million. Other companies that dropped positions from 2015 to 2016 include KCI from No. 7 to No. 10.

One national that dropped out of, not the top 10, but the top 15 completely: American HomePatient. In 2015, it had $75.2 million in the No. 13 spot; in 2016, $57.2 million in the No. 23 spot.

I know I don’t need to go into the context of what’s behind these shifts, so here’s a glimpse of this year's data:

And here is some historical data.

by: Liz Beaulieu - Friday, July 28, 2017

In case you missed it, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) in June published “A data book: Health care spending and the Medicare program.”

Durable medical equipment has no section of its own (unlike hospitals, inpatient psychiatric facilities, physicians, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, inpatient rehab facilities, etc.), but it was included in a number of graphs detailing trends in Medicare spending, one of which is a real head scratcher.

According to Chart 1-5, Medicare represents only 16% of the DME spend, with Medicaid and CHIP representing 15% and “other” representing 68%. Other includes private health insurance, out-of-pocket spending, and other private and public spending, MedPac says.

I asked on twitter if anyone else was floored by this, and I got a few yeses. I also got a “Pfft, that’s what happens when Medicare bennies lose access to service across the U.S.”

Yes, it would be nice to see some historical data here, preferably pre- and post-competitive bidding. Would it show, say, that Medicare represented 60% of the DME spend in 2006 vs. 16% in 2015? But the report, to my knowledge (granted, I didn’t read ALL 214 pages), doesn’t make that comparison.

The report does have some interesting historical data on another point, though: that Medicare spending is concentrated in certain services and has shifted over time, as detailed in Chart 1-2.

As you see, total Medicare spending in 2006 was $402 billion and in 2015 it was $638 billion, but DME’s share of that spending dropped from 2% to 1% during that timeframe, a 50% reduction. Note home health in a similar predicament, with 4% in 2006 vs. 3% in 20015.

So where is Medicare spend concentrating and shifting to, if not in DME and home health? Well, managed care appears to be the big winner here, increasing from 16% in 2006 to 27% in 2015, more than a quarter of all spending.

This could be a scary trend for HME providers, as evidenced by recent stories like this.

In conclusion, if Chart 1-5 is a head scratcher, then Chart 1-2 is a head banger. Now I’ll let your peruse this data for yourself. Just don’t hurt your head.

by: Liz Beaulieu - Tuesday, July 18, 2017

In these challenging days of national competitive bidding pricing and widespread auditing, HME businesses can be, understandably, an insular bunch.

But there are problems in any market. And the severity of those problems typically ebb and flow, with periods of decline and regrowth.

At this year’s HME News Business Summit, we’re here to focus on the latter: regrowth.

To regrow, a business must take action. It can’t wait for it to happen. It must make it happen.

Sometimes taking action means throwing your playbook out the window. Never think you’d outsource your billing operations to another country? Never think you’d drop-ship sleep therapy equipment and service patients remotely? For speakers Todd Usher and Joseph LaPorta, two providers, it not only made sense, it has worked.

Even pre-eminent health systems are under pressure to take action. As health care transitions from a fee-for-service to value-based model, keynote speaker Don Carroll is reshaping Cleveland Clinic’s home and transitional care services to become not only a provider of specialty referral-based services, but also a manager of population health. He’s writing a new playbook for connected care.

There are very few more action-oriented entities than private equity firms, and we’ll have three of them represented on a panel to talk about how they’re taking HME-related businesses to the next level. Less burdened by the industry’s past successes and failures, these firms have no playbooks. Almost anything is fair game.

To use a lofty quote from Gandhi: “Action expresses priorities.” What actions are you taking? And what does that say about your priorities?

Come to the Summit and find out.