U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

47–056 PDF 2009

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON 

THE IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING 

ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE 

DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT COMMUNITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

Small Business Committee Document Number 111-004 

Available via the GPO Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 


Congress.#13
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KAREN HAAS, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Entrepreneurship and Trade 

HEATH SHULER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 1 

Graves, Hon. Sam .................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Wilson, Mr. Laurence D., Director, Chronic Care Policy Group, Center For 

Medicare Management, Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services .............. 3 

Blackburn, Ms. Georgetta, Blackburn’s, Tarentum, PA, On Behalf Of 

AAHomecare ......................................................................................................... 14 

Brant, Mr. Robert E., President, Accredited Medical Equipment Providers 

Of America, Inc., Davie, FL ................................................................................. 16 

Routman, M.D., Mr. Alan, Fort Lauderdale, FL, On Behalf Of American 

Association Of Orthopaedic Surgeons ................................................................ 19 

Stanfield, Mr. Wayne E., President, CEO, National Association Of Independent Medical Equipment Suppliers .............................................................. 21 

Griffin, Mr. William H., President, CEO, Griffin Home Health Care, Inc., 

Charlotte, NC, On Behalf Of North Carolina Association For Medical 

Equipment Services ............................................................................................. 23 

Sloan, Mr. Gerald, CEO, Progressive Medical Equipment, Lenexa, KS ............. 25 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Wilson, Mr. Laurence D., Director, Chronic Care Policy Group, Center For 

Medicare Management, Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services .............. 39 

Blackburn, Ms. Georgetta, Blackburn’s, Tarentum, PA, On Behalf Of 

AAHomecare ......................................................................................................... 53 

Brant, Mr. Robert E., President, Accredited Medical Equipment Providers 

Of America, Inc., Davie, FL ................................................................................. 62 

Stanfield, Mr. Wayne E., President, CEO, National Association Of Independent Medical Equipment Suppliers .............................................................. 77 

Griffin, Mr. William H., President, CEO, Griffin Home Health Care, Inc., 

Charlotte, NC, On Behalf Of North Carolina Association For Medical 

Equipment Services ............................................................................................. 83 

Sloan, Mr. Gerald, CEO, Progressive Medical Equipment, Lenexa, KS ............. 108 

Routman, M.D., Mr. Alan, Fort Lauderdale, FL, On Behalf Of American 

Association Of Orthopaedic Surgeons ................................................................ 112 

Statements for the Record: 

O’Roark, PhD, Mr. Brian and Foreman, PhD, JD, MPA, Mr. Stephen: The 

Impact of Competitive Bidding on the Market for DME .................................. 123 

Health Industry Distributors Association .............................................................. 149 

Medi-Source Equipment & Supply, Inc. ................................................................ 151 

National Association of Chain Drug Stores ........................................................... 159 

National Community Pharmacitsts Association ................................................... 165 

(V) 

(1) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRADE 

HEARING ON: 

THE IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING 

ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE 

DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT COMMUNITY 

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Heath Shuler [chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Shuler, Luetkemeyer, and Thompson. 

Also Present: Representatives Altmire and Klein. 

Chairman SHULER. I call this hearing to order. Good policy is defined by basic philosophy that governs good medicine. First, do no 

harm. That principle seems simple. And, yet, there are incidents in 

which well-meaning legislation has unintended and sometimes devastating consequences. 

This was the case in 2007 when the CMS established competitive 

bidding for durable medical equipment. When it was first launched, 

competitive bidding was expected to save up to one billion dollars 

in taxpayer money. 

The idea was that it would drive down the prices by increasing 

competition and creating more choices, but this was not the case. 

Instead, it devastated small suppliers of rural communities. 

Although Congress intervened and stopped the competitive bidding, CMS used the last days of the Bush administration to push 

it through. Fortunately, the new administration has put a hold on 

that eleventh hour rule. 

In the next two months, the administration will review and hopefully eliminate the competitive bidding program altogether. This 

morning I will explore the efforts of competitive bidding on small 

healthcare providers and discuss the importance of ending the program entirely. 

The vast majority of the durable medical equipment providers 

are small businesses. Most of them deliver highly specialized products, which require a depth of industry knowledge. But competitive 

bidding allows many of the small suppliers to be outbid by larger, 

less knowledgeable firms. 

By nature, this process gives the upper hand to larger suppliers, 

who can churn out several medical devices and span an entire bidding area. 

2 

In the last year, the Committee has held hearings to review the 

effects of competitive bidding on entrepreneurs. Time and again 

our witnesses have said the exact same thing. The program hurts 

small businesses and cripples rural communities. 

Because Medicare payments total a large percentage of the revenues for small suppliers, the effects of the program were devastating for those that failed to win contracts. This was particularly true for durable medical equipment suppliers in rural areas. 

If those firms are forced to shut their doors, the entire community will suffer, both economically and in terms of access to care. 

Although the name would suggest otherwise, competitive bidding 

did nothing to encourage competition. If anything, it worked to suppress it. 

In the long run, the program would have caused choices to dwindle and prices to go up. We need to continue to work to ensure that 

small businesses are able to compete in the market. 

I look forward to today’s testimony. And I thank the witnesses 

for their participation. Before I turn it over to the Ranking Member, I also want to thank the staff in such short notice and right 

out of the gate for holding a hearing so early in the 111th Congress. They did an outstanding job. To Michael Day and to the entire staff and for all that you guys have continued to do, I appreciate all of your hard work and what you provide for all of the 

members, both the majority and the minority and to both sides, 

what great work you do. 

At this time I would like to yield to my Ranking Member, Mr. 

Luetkemeyer, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like 

to echo my thanks to the staff. I know they were in my office yesterday afternoon late and still managed to get me a briefing book 

with everything in it, the testimony, their initiative, and their 

abilities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding another hearing on the 

important topic of ensuring that our senior citizens have access to 

the best available durable medical equipment supplies and services, as offered by small businesses. 

The House Small Business Committee and this subcommittee 

recognize that small business is critical to the economic health of 

this country. The competition provided by small businesses ensures 

lower prices, greater supplies, higher quality, and increased innovation. 

Rural America presents unique issues with respect to providing 

healthcare services to residents. Distances are vast. Population 

density is low. And healthcare providers are few. 

More importantly, small businesses play an important, irreplaceable role in providing healthcare services in rural areas. Without 

a robust small business sector, the ability of other business to provide quality healthcare to the employees would falter. The result 

would be a diminishing of the economic well-being of rural areas 

because employees will not locate in areas where they cannot get 

adequate healthcare. 

Policies must ensure that all Americans, wherever they live, 

have access to the highest quality of healthcare, whether that is a 

service of surgeons or suppliers of slings for patients. 

3 

In 2003, Congress mandated that the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, or CMS, institute competitive bidding for the 

provision of durable medical equipment supplies. 

The implementation of this program has raised significant concerns with small businesses. In fact, the concerns were so serious 

that Congress acted to delay implementation of the bidding program that was to go into effect on July 1, 2008. On January 16th, 

2009, in response to the actions of the 110th Congress, CMS issued 

some new rules on the implementation of competitive bidding. 

I am very interested in hearing from the suppliers represented 

here today whether concerns that led the Congress to action last 

July have been ameliorated by subsequent administrative decisions 

by CMS. 

If those concerns have not been allayed, then I am interested in 

hearing what potential problems will exist for the small businesses 

that are involved in providing durable medical equipment supplies 

and equipment to America’s senior citizens. 

Finally, I am interested in hearing what improvements can be 

made to the competitive bidding that reduce any adverse consequences on small business. I think it is important that Congress 

have the information necessary to act if CMS adopts a procedure 

that forecloses numerous small businesses from participating in the 

competitive bidding process. 

Without small business, the competitive bidding program will not 

lead to lower prices, greater supply, and increased innovative in 

the durable medical equipment marketplace. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, sir. 

Our first panel, obviously we have Mr. Laurence Wilson. Mr. Wilson is currently the Director of the Chronic Care Policy Group in 

the CMS’ Center for Medicare Management. As the director, he is 

responsible for Medicare policy on a broad range of fee for service 

healthcare benefits. He is also responsible for administrating the 

agency’s process for the coding of drugs, devices, and other items 

and services. Mr. Wilson has worked for CMS since 1988. 

Mr. Wilson, thank you for being here today. And we look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning, Chairman Shuler, Ranking Member 

Luetkemeyer. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the durable 

medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies competitive 

bidding program. 

This important initiative, required under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, has three key components: quality standards and accreditation, financial standards, and competitive bidding. Together these will help reduce beneficiary out-of-pocket 

costs, improve the accuracy of Medicare’s payments, help combat 

fraud, and ensure beneficiary access to high-quality items and services. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, implemented the program on July 1, 2008 in 10 metropolitan areas 

around the country. After two weeks of operation, the program was 

4 

delayed by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers 

Act of 2008, or MIPPA. 

CMS is now preparing to move forward with that program in 

2009, as the law requires. And we look forward to incorporating the 

improvements mandated by MIPPA as well as others being 

planned by CMS to ensure a smooth transition to the new program 

for both beneficiaries and suppliers. 

As the 2008 implementation showed, the accreditation program 

and use of financial standards provides important safeguards for 

beneficiaries and the Medicare program. These safeguards support 

good quality and customer service, act to weed out illegitimate suppliers, and ensure a level playing field for suppliers competing for 

contracts under the program. 

I would note that with the support of suppliers, CMS will be implementing the quality standards and accreditation process on a 

national basis this year. 

CMS conducted a wide variety of activities to involve stakeholders in the development of these standards. Some, such as special focus groups, were targeted specifically to small suppliers. 

CMS has also adopted a number of approaches to ensure small 

suppliers have the opportunity to be considered for participation in 

the competitive bidding program. First, CMS worked in collaboration with the Small Business Administration to develop new, more 

representative definition of small suppliers. CMS then designed 

policies linked to this definition to help small suppliers. 

For example, our final regulations allow small suppliers to band 

together in networks in order to meet certain program requirements. The regulation also employs a formula to ensure that multiple contract suppliers are selected for each product category in an 

area. More importantly, the regulation establishes a special 30 percent target for small suppliers in the program. 

CMS was pleased that of the 335 contract suppliers selected in 

2008, 64 percent met this definition of small supplier. Our 2008 experience demonstrated that competitive bidding has the potential 

to bring value to Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. In fact, average savings across the ten metropolitan areas was 26 percent. 

As a specific example, in Pittsburgh, the price of a standard 

wheelchair dropped 32 percent under this program. That savings 

would have gone directly to Medicare, the taxpayers, and to beneficiaries in terms of lower co-insurance. 

While this program offers real benefits, we do understand that 

it will be difficult for some suppliers because the law requires that 

there be both winning and losing bidders and the new system represents a significant change in how suppliers operate under Medicare. 

We will continue to work closely with suppliers, manufacturers, 

beneficiaries, and others to make improvements in the program as 

we move forward. For example, MIPPA requires a number of important changes to the program. 

Just a few of these include: a document review process to assist 

providers or suppliers in completing their bids; an exemption to the 

competitive bidding program for certain items provided by hospitals; exemption from the program for rural areas and for small 

metropolitan areas in future rounds of bidding that is beyond this 

5 

next first round; establishment of a competitive bidding program 

ombudsman to address supplier and beneficiary concerns. 

Last month, CMS issued an interim final rule with comment period to implement these and other provisions of MIPPA. Yesterday, 

CMS issued a notice seeking comment on a contemplated 60-day 

delay in the effective date of that rule. 

CMS, itself, is also considering additional improvements to the 

program. These include an improved online bidding system, 

streamlined financial documentation requirements, earlier education for suppliers on the bidding process, and many other features that we intend to improve. 

We have also established new membership of our program advisory and oversight committee to advise CMS as it implements the 

program. This group is equipped to advise CMS on a broad range 

of issues and has experience with on-the-ground operational issues, 

including the critical interaction between beneficiaries and suppliers. 

In conclusion, beneficiaries deserve quality items and services at 

a lower price from reliable suppliers. CMS is committed to the 

secuessful implementation of this program in order to deliver that. 

Once decisions are made about the timing of implementation, 

CMS will notify the public and begin to educate suppliers and 

beneficiaries about the program. 

I very much appreciate your time and the invitation to testify before you today and would be very happy to take questions. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wilson is included in the appendix in page 

39.] 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. The Ranking Member and I will have several questions. We may ping-pong back and 

forth on these. Thank you for your time again. 

You know, the latest ruling didn’t reflect any significant changes 

as we reviewed. CMS has until the end of 2009 to fix its problems. 

Wouldn’t it be better to just start over and start with a much better process? 

I mean, we have seen from numerous newspaper articles. We 

have seen from numerous suppliers and providers that the programs that go into effect are going to have this disastrous impact 

on small business. 

Isn’t there a way that we can delay this until the end of 2009, 

instead of just, you know, as most times when bad policy goes here 

in Washington, we try to cram it down all the small businesses and 

all the suppliers? And ultimately it is going to end up hurting and 

having a negative impact. And the quality of care will obviously go 

down. 

I mean, isn’t there a way that we can just halt and assist this 

until the end of 2009 so we can get good legislation put together? 

Mr. WILSON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by answering your question with respect to the rule. We did publish a 

rule at the end of last year or in January. The importance of that 

rule is to codify the specific changes that Congress asked us to 

make in our regulations that would put us in a position to implement the program, as the law requires, this year. 

6 

Really, what the law requires this year is that we open the bid 

window, begin the competition in 2009. So we feel like we are 

merely codifying those changes to put ourselves in a position to implement the law. 

We do understand, of course, that suppliers have had concerns 

with this program and will continue to have concerns with this program. This is a program that has many benefits for beneficiaries 

in terms of lower co-insurance, benefits to taxpayers and Medicare 

in terms of reduced expenditures under the Medicare program. 

As we all know, sustainability of the Medicare program is a key 

issue, both for the administration, Congress, and others. So, we do 

feel that this does offer benefits that will help with sustainability 

of Medicare. 

In the end, we do believe that we can implement the program in 

a way that allows small suppliers to participate in the program 

that will result in a number of them being included in the program. 

In the 2008 process, 64 percent of the winning contract suppliers 

were small suppliers under our definition. And we think that was 

a good result but, again, do understand the concerns, sir. 

Chairman SHULER. Why wouldn’t we have a proposed rule, instead of a final rule? Why wouldn’t we have a proposed rule? We 

could get more of the people who are actually involved in this process actually having a voice, as opposed to, to be quite frank, just 

some of the past administration? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I think for a couple of reasons. One, we did 

go through a notice and comment rulemaking on this provision. We 

did have numerous public forums. We had approximately eight advisory committee meetings. They were public. We took public testimony. We took comments on the quality standards, had over 5,000 

comments, made important changes in the quality standards, made 

important changes in the rule. 

I think we have been very transparent with respect to the rules 

through our Web sites, listserv announcements, all of the different 

phone calls we have had, whether they are bidder conferences, access to staff in terms of meetings, briefings that we have held. 

I think that at the end of the day, we have a set of policies that 

allow us to implement this program consistent with the law. I 

think that the law in MIPPA asked us to make some specific 

changes in that and move forward in 2009. That is what we are 

trying to do right now. 

I am not sure that revisiting issues that we have dealt with in 

the past will necessarily change a lot, particularly in round one, 

given that we have tried to address those issues in a transparent 

way. 

Chairman SHULER. Give me one example of those changes, significant changes, that have been made that would impact someone 

who lives, oh, let’s say in Murphy, North Carolina, who are two 

and a half hours from Atlanta, two and a half hours from Knoxville, two and a half hours from Asheville, North Carolina. So, I 

mean, they are really, you know, in a very rural area. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, one thing I could say, sir, is that under the 

provisions in MIPPA, rural areas are excluded from competitive 

bidding and metropolitan areas that have populations of less than 

250,000 people. So competitive bidding has not occurred in those 

7 

areas, will not under round one of competitive bidding, the round 

one rebidding required by MIPPA, and will never apply there in 

the future. 

I think that is a significant change. Under the Medicare Modernization Act, we did have the authority to apply competitive bidding there. And we don’t— 

Chairman SHULER. So there is really no use saying that there is 

a round two. Is that what you are alluding to? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, there will be a round two of competitive bidding. The law requires that there be a round two. And there may 

very well be future rounds. They will never occur in a rural area 

because the law prohibits us from doing that. 

Chairman SHULER. What about these providers that are eligible 

in, let’s say, Texas but they can actually go across states and that 

they have no business in, say, North Carolina? How can they? Especially at this point in time and the way the economy is, for providers from other states to come into my home state and take business away from the people, the hard-working people, that have had 

a relationship—and I think that is the most important thing to remember is a relationship with these patients. Why is that possible? 

I mean, that doesn’t make good business sense in these economic 

times. 

Mr. WILSON. Sure. What I would say is that in the Medicare program now, competitive bidding aside and for the last, you know, 40, 

almost 50 years of existence of the program, we have not had restrictions on businesses going into new areas and expanding. 

Many businesses do that all of the time, whether there is a competitive bidding program or not. They expand, go into new areas, 

and try to provide services to customers. So we do see that as 

something that has naturally occurred. 

That said, we understand that that was a concern in the first 

round of bidding last year. We did hear that quite a bit and hear 

some concerns about suppliers that were either new to an area, 

had no experience in an area, or new to a particular product category. Maybe they never provided oxygen before, let alone provided 

oxygen in Chattanooga. 

Chairman SHULER. And that is probably one of the biggest problems that we would have, is providers coming in who are not even 

educated in the field. 

Mr. WILSON. Right. And so I think a few things that the program 

does now— 

Chairman SHULER. So that change has been addressed? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I will say that it has been addressed in some 

ways. And let me just say that we do have accreditation requirements. There are higher-level accreditation requirements and quality requirements on oxygen suppliers. So they do have to meet a 

set of standards. 

We do ensure that all suppliers that participate in the competitive bidding program meet financial standards as well so they have 

the wherewithal to provide services on a consistent basis to beneficiaries, but we do not at this time have restrictions on movement. 

We want to make sure that they have licenses in the appropriate 

states and in the appropriate areas to provide those services. 

8 

We will do that. But, at this time, we don’t have a policy that 

prevents that type of natural business expansion into a new area 

or a new product category. 

Chairman SHULER. I think that gets back to my point. You know, 

when you look at the financial wherewithal, that starts to really 

make it more difficult on small businesses, what I would consider 

the mom and pop shops that have been so helpful in our communities. 

I mean, I have a close friend of mine that provides services that 

go far and beyond what he gets paid for. It is just because of his 

relationship with his patients that they have had and conducted. 

And he feels a moral obligation to be able to provide for these people. 

And so it is going to be very difficult for small businesses to engage if they don’t have the financial wherewithal, especially during 

struggling times and more difficult. 

Obviously I know that we have to make sure that the businesses 

are structured properly and they do have the financial wherewithal 

so they stay in business so they can provide a service. 

Can you educate me on what financial wherewithal would be? Is 

it a million-dollar net worth? Is it half a million dollars net worth 

in company value? 

Mr. WILSON. We rely on a set of financial standards that look at 

things like credit reports, look at past tax records, make sure that 

they have appropriate cash flow and resources in order to maintain/sustain a business. 

I think you raised some very good points, sir. One of the things 

I would say, you know, about local businesses is that we did see 

a number of businesses that won bids in new areas. 

One of the things they did to provide those services was subcontract with local suppliers. So maybe those local suppliers didn’t 

win under competitive bidding, but they were allowed to participate in the program through subcontracting arrangements. So I 

think that is a good thing. 

The other thing that we saw is that many suppliers and many 

patients made use of a provision in the law which allows certain 

suppliers to grandfather. So maybe you are a patient in a certain 

area and you have a relationship with a supplier. If that supplier 

did not win under competitive bidding, you can choose to maintain 

that relationship for a service like oxygen, for example, regardless 

of whether or not that supplier won. 

So we did see those types of things occur, which sort of allowed 

the transition to the new program to be seamless and allowed suppliers to sort of maintain that local relationship with a patient. 

Chairman SHULER. I think that is going to be the extreme. I 

think, you know, when someone wins a bid, they are going to walk 

in and say, ‘‘I am your new provider. They are going to walk the 

walk, and they are going to talk the talk about how well they are 

doing in their business. And now I am going to be your new provider.’’ 

I doubt, very frankly, that the patients are going to know that 

this grandfathered clause is actually in effect. There are not 

enough marketing dollars that are being spent to know that you 

can be grandfathered in. 

9 

When that happens, you know, it would be great because I think 

a lot of our small businesses obviously would stay in business. But 

if you are only grandfathering in 20 percent of your overall business, you are probably not going to stay in business. 

Mr. WILSON. In response, sir, what I would say is that when we 

implemented the program in 2008, as you said, we did see a lot of 

the new suppliers, the winning suppliers, were aggressive in terms 

of trying to get patients, trying to get business. That is why they 

bid. That is why they bid and tried to win. 

We also did see—and we checked because one of the key things 

that we wanted to do as part of our monitoring program was to 

make sure that oxygen patients continued to get oxygen because it 

is not like a hospital bed, where if a patient needs a hospital, 

maybe they can wait a day or an hour. Oxygen you need every few 

seconds. 

We did check. Many did grandfather because they did want to 

keep that relationship with the patients, at least for a while. And 

I think that was important for patients and important for their 

suppliers. 

But I do understand the issue and the concern. Thank you. 

Chairman SHULER. I would like to yield to the Ranking Member 

now for his questions. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Who is driving this bidding process issue? 

Mr. WILSON. The law is driving the bidding process. The law requires that this competitive bidding process is in place. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Who drove the law initially? What group? 

Was there a group of people, a part of the industry? Was there an 

issue, a problem? Any time you have a change, do something like 

this, something or somebody or some group is driving it. Who was 

driving it? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. I am not sure of the group. I sort of doubt it 

was the industry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I kind of doubt that, too. This is an awfully 

large group here this morning. We had a meeting the other day on 

some stimulus package stuff, and we didn’t have this many people 

in here for that. I think that probably is an overriding issue over 

this, but this is something that obviously has gotten some folks 

stirred up. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I can tell you this, sir. I don’t know what particular group drove this or where this came about in terms of negotiations over the managed Medicare Modernization Act. I mean, I 

wasn’t involved in those discussions. I am a career person, as I 

think you know. 

The thing that I will say is that there has been interest from 

CMS and formerly HCFA before that, the GAO, the OIG, and others on trying to get better pricing in this area of the program. 

There has been a lot of work done that shows that the pricing is 

excessive and that there may be a better way to get prices through 

the competitive bidding program. 

In earlier legislation; that is, prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, there was a demonstration that did test this in two areas: 

Polk County and San Antonio, Polk County, Florida and San AntoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\47056.TXT DARIEN
10 

nio, Texas. So there was work done on this prior to the national 

program. 

I think the interest was in better pricing because better pricing 

results in not just lower expenditures for Medicare. It results in 

lower expenditures for beneficiaries. Beneficiaries paid 20 percent 

coinsurance. 

So, under my example, from Pittsburgh, a 32 percent savings on a standard power wheelchair equates to about $279 in savings. 

That is important for beneficiaries, particularly in times now where 

beneficiaries have been hit pretty hard in the pocketbook in terms 

of their 401(k)’s and in terms of their retirement plans. 

And so I think there has been interest from the beneficiary area 

and the consumer groups, certainly interest from those around 

town here, like the GAO, Office of Inspector General, and CMS, 

that are interested in having fair prices. 

I know that is a long-winded answer, but I think that— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is normal for Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am just curious. I know that you made a 

comment a minute ago about the service portion of this. To me, it 

would seem that service is a big part of the, or should be a big part 

of the bid here. How do you factor that in? I think I have some information, but I want to be sure that it is a part of your thought 

process when you accept the bid. 

Mr. WILSON. It absolutely is. And when you look at Medicare’s 

quality standards—and, of course, all suppliers in order to compete 

under competitive bidding must meet the quality standards. And, 

indeed, later this year every supplier in the country will have to 

meet the quality standards and be accredited. 

They talk about not just the equipment but delivering the equipment, setting up the equipment, educating the beneficiary on its 

use, and being there to provide customer service. 

So that it is very much factored in as part of the covered benefit. 

And the issue is, I think, what is the price for that and the equipment. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. During your answer to one of the Chairman’s 

questions, you made a couple of comments with regards to 

grandfathering in some of the providers. How long can you extend 

that to those folks to continue to be grandfathered in the program 

or are they grandfathered forever or just for a few months, a year 

or two, or where do we go with that? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, if the supplier and if the patient agree to 

maintain their relationship for a service like oxygen, then they can 

continue that relationship for as long as the patient and the supplier want it. 

For new patients, that grandfathering does not come into play. 

It is just for existing patients. So it would extend forever, although 

most patients are on oxygen for, I think the average is, about ten 

months under Medicare. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Obviously there are some concerns 

about what we are doing here. You are in the middle of this. What 

would you see or what would you like to see or what would you 

prefer done to alleviate the problem or get to the goal of containing 

costs, yet allowing competition or allowing great service? If you 

11 

were in our position here to try and find a balance here, what 

would you suggest be done? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Difficult to answer that. Difficult to answer 

that question. You know, I am looking at--right now I work within 

sort of the boundaries of existing law and think about proposals for 

changes to the extent that there are changes being considered. 

You know, I think there are certain elements in Medicare that 

are pretty important. You know, you want to maintain quality and 

access and you want to pay well. When you don’t pay accurately, 

you incentivize fraud. You incentivize bad behavior. And you bring 

in bad actors. 

And so I think we need to try to get to a way to pay accurately 

for these services. And we need a set of quality standards that we 

have today that ensures that people coming into the program and 

acting as suppliers are those that are prepared and able to provide 

quality services and deliver quality items. 

I was very pleased to see that part of AAHomecare’s initiative on 

fraud was to try to boost the quality standards. We have quality 

standards for this area of the program. Their thought was to make 

them more rigid. 

So we are very interested in hearing those ideas because I think 

when you elevate quality in these kinds of programs, provide accurate pricing, you get pretty good results. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHULER. I just have a couple of more questions. Talk 

to me about the companies that were involved in the original demonstration. Talk to me. How successful have they been? I mean, 

have they made a pretty good business structure since the original 

demonstration? Polk County I think you said. San Antonio? 

Mr. WILSON. San Antonio, sir. 

Chairman SHULER. How are those companies doing? 

Mr. WILSON. I would have to get back to you on that. I do not 

recall which particular companies were involved in the demonstration. So I would not be able to tell you where they are now. 

The thing that I can tell you about the demonstration is that our 

findings were that we saved about, in the neighborhood of, 20 percent. I think it was a little less than that in terms of program savings. And that was savings for Medicare and beneficiaries in terms 

of reduced coinsurance and that we didn’t see any impact on quality. 

Those were the findings of the demonstration. And, again, I am 

not sure where those companies are now and what their history 

has been. I would be happy to check, though. 

Chairman SHULER. Yes because I guess it was our understanding 

that a few of those companies aren’t doing very well at all. 

We talked about the cost savings. And, obviously, being a blue 

dog member of that caucus, I am very much for cost savings. You 

talked about the 20 percent now. What increase, if any, of quality 

of care did you find out in this survey research? 

Mr. WILSON. In the demonstration? 

Chairman SHULER. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. The finding that I recall from the evaluation report 

on that demonstration was that quality was not negatively impacted. That is what I recall. 

12 

So I don’t know that quality increased as a result of the demonstration. The thing that I would say is there were not quality 

standards in place and an accreditation process in place at the 

time. There was also not a set of financial standards, as the law 

requires us to have now, and a number of other programmatic requirements. 

Chairman SHULER. Obviously we can cut savings in a lot of different areas. I mean, obviously we have a budget that is coming 

up that I think probably no one is going to be happy with. I mean, 

there are going to be probably broad cuts across the board. But in 

these financial times, we obviously have to cut costs. But we always have to be very mindful of the quality of care. 

I have a grandmother who is on oxygen. And I know her quality 

of life actually increased once the doctor recommended her to be on 

oxygen. Now, obviously this is for another discussion. That is no 

different than insulin medication for patients. I personally feel that 

it is a prescription. And as long as the person is alive and needs 

oxygen, then it needs to be provided for them, just as insulin is. 

My grandmother was not a smoker. I mean, it is just happenstance. That is how God made her. 

I guess help me to understand. If a patient is distraught with the 

service that they were getting provided by the company that has 

been awarded the contract, what can they do about changing to get 

another provider? How would that process work? 

Mr. WILSON. Under the competitive bidding program, sir? 

Chairman SHULER. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I think one of the things that we found—and 

I will just go back to our 2008 experience. And let me just first 

preface this by saying that the program was only active for two 

weeks. We call it 14 days in July. So we don’t have a lot of experience or a lot of records on everything. 

Chairman SHULER. Obviously some research has been done before. I mean, like most laws, surely, we think this process through 

before we throw it into law. 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. And I think one of the things that—I 

think there are a lot of things, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

that we want to try to improve in this program for next time. 

But one of the things that I think we did a pretty good job on 

was getting in touch with beneficiaries, talking to them about the 

program, making sure that Medicare 1-(800) knew what to do, having an infrastructure in place, caseworkers, ombudsmen staff at 

our contractors to be able to address concerns that came up from 

beneficiaries. 

So I think we did that pretty well. And so what would happen 

if someone had a concern with their supplier or maybe there was 

confusion about grandfathering and we didn’t see a lot of this, but 

when we did, we were able to get a caseworker on these issues and 

usually resolve it within 24 hours. 

Typically what would happen, most of the calls that we got did 

involve ‘‘I need a supplier for this, and I don’t know where to go 

because the supplier that I used to go to no longer is part of the 

competitive bidding program.’’ 

13 

We were able to direct them to new suppliers. And in most cases, 

there were multiple suppliers. Actually, in all cases, there were 

multiple suppliers in each area to provide choice to beneficiaries. 

We had, you know, 42-44 oxygen suppliers in Miami. Most places 

have 15 or 20 suppliers for a product category. Puerto Rico had 

fewer. That is not part of the program. Next time Congress excluded Puerto Rico. 

So I think that was a process that worked for us and worked 

pretty well. 

Chairman SHULER. Well, Mr. Wilson, just in closing, I would like 

to suggest if there is any way possible for CMS to scrap the program and start all over, I would highly suggest that. 

And I would like to obviously work with my colleagues on Small 

Business and obviously with the other committees to try to work 

with getting through some better quality standards. 

Obviously we need standards. We obviously need to cut costs. We 

need that, especially in the economic times that we are having. But 

to put our small businesses out is very difficult. We need to create 

jobs, not cut jobs and put people out of business. 

You know, some of them, I’m sure there are a lot of people who 

are attending here today that probably have their mortgages attached to their businesses. I mean, there is a way that, as with 

most people, the biggest asset that they have is their home. 

And so when you don’t compete in the competitive bidding process—and I am sure if you look at the financial side of it, that that 

probably would be a negative toward a business if that is their 

source of the liability that they have. They don’t have their house 

paid for. And that is where they put all of their debt of their company based upon an equity or have a line of credit for their company based upon their home equity loan. 

So I think we obviously need to take a much better look at this 

and possibly start all over or take some of the information obviously that has been provided. 

I mean, there are some things that can be done. I think there 

is a compromise at some point. And I want us to all compromise 

and work together. I mean, the reason why so many people showed 

up today that it is true and dear to their families and their livelihoods. 

Big business pushes over the small business in a lot of areas. 

And I just don’t think that it is going to help lower costs. It may 

in the short term, but I think in the overall long term, we are going 

to see more problems and issues when it comes to the large companies coming in and taking control of the smaller ones and putting 

these people out of business. 

So I thank you for your comments, your testimony. Do you have 

any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SHULER. And we will try to very quickly change out 

and have our next panel. Mr. Wilson, thank you so much for your 

attendance. And thank you. Thanks for all of your hard work. 

If the folks who are on the next panel would go ahead and grab 

a seat? 

14 

What a distinguished panel we have here. I would like to thank 

the panel for coming and spending their time here in Washington 

and giving their testimony. 

Each of you will have five minutes to present your testimony. 

And there will be a little light. It goes green. And then yellow 

means that you have a minute left. And then it goes to red. 

And then hopefully just try to finish up within the five-minute 

allotment time. We obviously have a very large panel here. We 

would like to get through all of the testimony and certainly the 

members be able to ask questions because I think it is so important 

that we may be preaching to the choir here, but I think as members, it is a great education for us. And that is why we hold these 

hearings for the members to educate them on the policy that may 

sound good and look good on paper, but examine the impact to our 

small businesses and to our people. 

At this time I would like to yield to my good friend Mr. Altmire 

to introduce our first witness. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the Chairman. 

I do have the high honor of introducing not just a constituent but 

a very good friend, Georgie Blackburn, who is Vice President of 

Government Relations and Legislative Affairs for Blackburn’s, a 

privately held home medical equipment and supplies provider in 

Tarentum, Pennsylvania. 

She also serves as treasurer and board director for the American 

Association of Homecare. AAHomecare represents homecare providers, equipment manufacturers, and other organizations, operating in approximately 3,000 locations across all 50 states. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that Ms. Blackburn and her business 

are good corporate citizens. They provide the highest-quality care. 

And they are exactly the model for what we are talking about here 

today with the impact small businesses can have on their local 

communities and why we need to keep them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Blackburn, you will be recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGETTA BLACKBURN 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today on 

behalf of the American Association for Homecare and should say 

that our members provide products in all 50 states. Members include providers and manufacturers of home medical equipment and 

services, prosthetics, orthotics, and medical supplies to Medicare 

beneficiaries in their homes. 

I urge you to permanently suspend the bidding program. It will 

force the closure of thousands of small providers and reduce access 

to quality care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. 

Since the last hearing on this topic before this Subcommittee in 

May of 2008, Congress delayed the competitive bidding program for 

a period of 18 to 24 months and directed the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services to address the disastrous results from the 

first round of bidding. This was part of the Medicare Improvements 

for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. 

15 

CMS has made as few changes as possible under the law in order 

to issue a rule on the last day of the previous administration with 

no structural changes to a flawed program. 

The interim rule is slated to go into effect on February 17th, 

2009. The CMS deadline on the reissued final rule to solicit comments on a delay is tomorrow, February 12th, giving only six days 

to respond. And there has been no opportunity for any public comment or any evaluation of the problems that plagued round one 

throughout 2008. 

Last year CMS disbanded the Medicare Program Advisory and 

Oversight Committee, which Congress mandated to advise CMS on 

the bidding program. Congress should exercise oversight of CMS, 

examine the process by which CMS issued the final rule, and urge 

the administration to rescind the rule. 

HHS has the authority to suspend and review pending federal 

rules as detailed in the White House Chief of Staff memorandum 

of January 20th, 2009. We hope the Subcommittee will allow for 

more public scrutiny of this program. 

Providers compete but we compete on quality and service. Medicare sets reimbursement rates. However, the CMS-designed bidding program is anti-competitive and fatally flawed. By selectively 

contracting with a small number of the homecare universe, it reduces competition because it eliminates 90 percent of the competitors. 

This government-mandated consolidation of the marketplace will 

lead to significant job losses. It will force small providers out of 

business, often family businesses serving their communities for 

decades. 

For the typical home medical equipment company, Medicare 

beneficiaries represent 40 to 50 percent of their customer base. 

Being shut out of Medicare for a three-year contract period will be 

a death knell for small providers. 

CMS expects fewer than 400 companies to be contracted to provide services in the initial 9 bidding areas if rebid. Currently 4,127 

companies serve those same 9 areas. 

This program, whose primary selection criterion is lowest price, 

represents a race to the bottom. CMS frequently cited that the program was an anti-fraud mechanism. This is incorrect. The bid program is simply a payment mechanism. 

Our association has zero tolerance for fraud. We have developed 

an aggressive 13-point plan to stop fraud and abuse within our sector. We are tired of reading about criminals who have easily acquired provider numbers and syphoned millions of dollars from the 

benefit. 

CMS must press the national supplier clearinghouse, who grants 

Medicare billing numbers privileges, to stop fraud by identifying 

the bad players before they start to bill. And CMS must ensure 

that the national supplier clearinghouse fulfills this mandate. 

Ending fraud makes more sense than the endless rounds of cuts 

to the home medical equipment sector, which only serves to punish 

good providers. 

Round one of the bidding program produced disastrous results 

for patients and providers in all MSAs. Patient services were disrupted. The availability of fewer providers delayed hospital disVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\47056.TXT DARIEN
16 

charges. That resulted in longer hospital stays, increasing costs to 

Medicare. 

Many accredited providers that submitted bids were disqualified 

based on erroneous errors. Providers with no history of servicing a 

region or with no business operations in a bidding area were 

awarded contracts. Structural flaws in the bidding program caused 

small providers to submit bids for fear of losing their businesses. 

I am from Pittsburgh. It is not a rural area. But let me tell you 

what happened in Pittsburgh. Out of 289 providers, roughly 60 

unique companies were awarded contracts. Of over 265,000 eligible 

Medicare beneficiaries, 18,000-plus relied on oxygen therapy and 

only 22 companies were contracted to provide it. 

Over 30,000 residents that required tube feeding to stay alive 

were forced to switch to one of only 10 providers. And 80 percent 

of longstanding experienced, accredited providers were totally excluded. 

Homecare is the most cost-effective setting for health care. It is 

the slowest-growing and one of the smallest sectors of Medicare, 

representing about 1.6 percent of Medicare dollars. In 2007, spending increased by less than one percent. 

At this time of economic hardship, it is imperative that small 

medical equipment providers remain in business. Congress must 

ensure that local economies will not suffer and that patient access 

to care remains intact. 

Congress must permanently suspend the Medicare competitive 

bidding program for home medical equipment or there will be catastrophic effects to small business providers, their employees, and 

certainly the patients they serve. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Blackburn is included in the appendix in 

page 53.] 

Chairman SHULER. Ms. Blackburn, thank you so much for your 

testimony. 

Our next witness is Robert Brant. Mr. Brant is the President of 

Accredited Medical Equipment Providers of America in Davie, Florida. I want to tell you that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who obviously represents your area, has done a fabulous job. I spoke to her 

on the House floor and she has been very supportive of our small 

businesses, certainly in the State of Florida and around our country. So, Mr. Brant, you are very well-represented there. 

Mr. Brant, you will be recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BRANT. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRANT 

Mr. BRANT. Chairman and Committee, thank you for allowing me 

to discuss Medicare’s competitive bidding program and the negative 

effects it has for patients and equipment providers. 

My name is Robert Brant. I am co-owner of City Medical Services 

in North Miami Beach, Florida. We are a 12-year-old company. We 

have been Joint Commission-accredited since 2000. We have seven 

full-time employees, and most have been with me for over five 

years. And they do enjoy a healthcare benefit. 

I am currently President of the Accredited Medical Equipment 

Providers of America. We were formed shortly after the bid results 

17 

came out, mostly from bid winners and bid losers from Miami, Orlando, and Dallas MSAs, all opposed to the competitive bidding 

program. 

The goals of the competitive bidding program were to reduce 

Medicare reimbursement and to responsibly minimize the number 

of providers for CMS to manage without limiting patients’ access 

to care. 

The fact is, in the last ten years, with the passage of new rules 

and regulations, all of the goals that once justified competitive bidding have already been achieved. The industry has negotiated a 9.5 

percent cut to providers, and CMS withheld a 5 percent CPI increase, which both began on January 1st. 

Despite that good news, Medicare released interim final rules on 

January 16th of this year in order to restart the program, using 

the same methodologies and techniques to award contracts without 

any financial accountability, allowing unlicensed, out-of-state, outof-area bid winners, with no history of providing bid equipment 

throughout the first nine MSAs. 

In fact, it was in a similar Small Business Committee hearing to 

this that Congressmen Altmire and Gohmert said that it did not 

meet Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements six months before bid 

winners were announced. 

This program was based on a flawed demonstration project, with 

only a few categories that most winners viewed as acceptable loss 

leaders. Half the bid winners from round one of the project found 

the loss unacceptable as they did not participate in the second 

round. 

Medicare noted key findings in an evaluation report of the demonstration project: one, a non-demonstration supplier acquired two 

demonstration suppliers; and, two, the parent companies of one 

demonstration supplier filed for bankruptcy. And another demonstration supplier also filed for bankruptcy protection. 

Regarding the first ten MSAs, the ability to purchase bid winners has led to part of the disaster that followed. In Orlando, 14 

of the 39 bid winners were over 100 miles outside of the area, without any means to service oxygen patients. 

For any companies out of the area, it is a no-lose situation. Outof-area providers place any low bid. And if they win, they think 

they may have a commodity that someone else may willing to buy, 

like in the demonstration project. 

The interim final rule does not require a provider to even provide 

a bond to cover the bid. You don’t even have to have a subcontract 

agreement in place to cover a 12-county area as large as the Dallas 

MSA before you bid. Then if you win the bid and cannot fulfill the 

contract, you can walk away without penalty. However, the low 

price is locked in for everyone else. 

The Florida Department of Health certified that 9 of the 44 bid 

winners for oxygen were unlicensed. Our association was informed 

of this discrepancy when providers contacted manufacturer representatives of oxygen asking, ‘‘How do you get an oxygen license?’’ 

This begs the question, how can a company place an accurate bid 

if they have never provided the service before? How can legitimate 

providers compete when bidders do not base bids on reality of providing service or equipment? 

18 

I made a decision years ago to compete in the industry by providing more costly systems, like liquid oxygen. In order to bid on 

oxygen, I had to submit the number of liquid patients I have taken 

care of. This is another determining factor that was ignored. Manufacturer representatives told us that some oxygen suppliers after 

winning the bid inquired about how to purchase liquid oxygen as 

well. 

A liquid oxygen system is five times the cost of a standard oxygen system, but it is paid at the same reimbursement rate. It also 

has to be refilled every month. And that refill cost is in there as 

well. We had to buy a truck with a lift gate to carry the 110-pound 

reservoir every month to the patient. All of these factors would be 

in the company’s ability to place a bid that they could honor without going out of business. 

When the program was briefly implemented in the two weeks of 

July, physicians and hospital case managers pleaded with us to 

continue to accept payments. Discharge planners went through the 

published lists of bid winners, could not find a company that could 

provide liquid oxygen or respiratory therapists to set up their patients that they were accustomed to. They were accustomed to patient training and setup within a few hours, not within a few days. 

This problem was exacerbated by providers refusing to address 

issues unless their orders were in addition to more expensive reimbursable items. 

The reduction in companies that currently provide service is astounding. In the Miami MSA, which covers the 3 largest counties, 

402 power mobility device providers were reduced to 18. More tragically is in the Miami MSA, 501 providers were reduced to only 44. 

In Hurricane Wilma, my company was without power for seven 

days. 

In areas of Dallas, where they had 285 providers reduced to—I’m 

sorry. In the Dallas MSA’s 12 counties, there were 4 counties that 

did not have a bid winner for oxygen in them. One of the counties, 

Rockwall County, does not even have a hospital in it. 

President Obama said that he does not want to keep government 

programs that do not work and intends to expand on programs that 

do. At less than ten percent of Medicare’s budget, durable medical 

equipment is the most cost effective program in healthcare. Our 

services keep patients out of hospitals and rehab centers so they 

can live independently in their homes. 

During this economic crisis we do not want to needlessly close 

companies, causing more bankruptcies; burden the system with additional unemployment, which will end healthcare benefits; ruin an 

important community resource called upon during natural disasters; and, most importantly, limit a patient’s access to care. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Brant is included in the appendix in page 

62.] 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Brant. 

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Klein, to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Luetkemeyer. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you. And 

19 

thank you for holding this hearing. This is an issue that affects our 

patients in Florida and all over the country. 

I know most of us are concerned, as you are for calling this, and 

the balance of making sure that the program is cost-effective, but 

we also have the quality and delivery of the product to the consumer in the most effective way. And that certainly was a failure 

of the CMS procedure that went forward a number of months ago. 

Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct privilege of introducing a good 

friend and tireless medical advocate in our community on behalf of 

his profession and on behalf of the patients in our area. 

Dr. Alan Routman is a practicing orthopedic surgeon in Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida. He has a very distinguished academic career. 

After establishing a practice in South Florida, he became one of the 

most respected voices in healthcare in our community, served as 

past president of the Florida Orthopaedic Society and the Broward 

County Medical Association, and earned the reputation of being a 

pragmatic and judicious expert on a variety of healthcare issues. 

He is testifying today on behalf of the American Association of 

Orthopaedic Surgeons. The association provides education and 

practice management services for surgeons and allied health professionals. 

Mr. Chairman, it is truly a pleasure and honor to introduce Dr. 

Routman to present before the Committee today. 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Dr. Routman, for being here 

today. You have five minutes for your opening testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN ROUTMAN 

Dr. ROUTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Shuler, Mr. Luetkemeyer, 

Representative Klein,—thank you very much for that introduction—and members of the Subcommittee. 

As Representative Klein mentioned, I am a practicing 

orthopaedic surgeon in Fort Lauderdale. I represent the American 

Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which represents 17,000 

board-certified surgeons across the country. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns today with 

the many changes being implemented by law and regulation concerning DMEPOS. We share Congress’ aims of increasing the quality of patient care, eliminating fraud and abuse in the federal 

healthcare programs, and reducing the costs of delivering care to 

our beneficiaries: our patients. It is our pleasure to appear here 

today to continue our work toward those goals. 

With that said, I would like to highlight what we believe to be 

unintended consequences of applying rules meant for retail 

DMEPOS suppliers to physicians in small practices across the 

country who provide certain DMEPOS as part of providing our 

high-quality care to our patients. This includes orthopaedic surgeons, who treat fractures and apply braces and splits to patients’ 

arms and legs and take care of patients with ambulatory problems, 

requiring crutches and canes and walkers. 

It is important to note that we are talking about doctors who 

supply these materials to our own patients, not to the public. Because we provide these materials as small businesses and sometimes in rural areas, we are the only suppliers of these materials 

that we stock in our offices for the care of our patients. 

20 

Our concerns that we have regarding some of these new and revised rules pertain not specifically to the competitive bidding process, which I know we are here to talk about today, but I would like 

to address primarily the accreditation issues as it applies to doctors 

because we have been lumped in with these businesses requiring 

this accreditation process. 

CMS has signaled, even today, that it might implement what we 

feel are unnecessary requirements that physicians be accredited 

like these other businesses to provide DMEPOS to our patients. 

This threatens to interfere with our continuity of care and our patient relationship. 

I would tell you that the rules were changed in May of 2008. I 

would like to thank Committee Chair Vela ́zquez and Chair Shuler 

for helping to change those rules. That released the doctors from 

the competitive bidding process and the accreditation requirements 

temporarily, but we’re looking for a more permanent fix because we 

are getting signals from CMS that accreditation is down the road 

for physicians. 

We believe that the Secretary of HHS should exercise the authority granted in MIPPA to permanently exempt physicians and licensed healthcare professional from the quality standards and accreditation requirements, considering the licensing, training, and 

accreditation requirements that we already go through in our 

states and our societies to practice our craft. 

We acknowledge and share your interest in ensuring Medicare 

beneficiaries receive high quality supplies and quality service. We 

are equally committed to ensuring that patients have access to the 

care and supplies they need in a safe, efficient, and timely manner. 

We believe as orthopaedic surgeons, this can best be provided by 

us at the point of service. 

When I treat a patient with an ankle fracture and they’re in my 

office, I need to make sure that fracture is stable. I can put them 

in a cast or a brace. But to enable them to get home and to become 

ambulatory, I need to be able to give them crutches or walkers or 

canes at that point of service. I can’t discharge those patients from 

my office with an unstable fracture, write a prescription, and say, 

‘‘Go get this somewhere in the community.’’ 

I stock these materials in my office. I submit my invoice to Medicare for my reimbursement. And I am paid a small pittance, perhaps ten percent over my invoice cost. I simply want to provide this 

to my patients as a service, not for profit. 

In order to go through the accreditation process, this would cost 

doctors $3,000 every 2 years. My total billing for durable medical 

equipment in the last year was less than that. So to submit me to 

a $3,000 accreditation process would totally take this out of my office and not allow me to provide this service to my patient. 

In addition, I would like to tell you my personal experience. CMS 

has withdrawn my supplier number. They have made me jump 

through many hurdles over the last year. I have been providing 

these materials to my patients over the past year of my own personal cost because of bureaucratic hurdles, the fact that the accreditation process was originally required and then changed. 

And I believe that doctors like me are subject to a very large net 

thrown over the South Florida area, in particular, looking for fraud 

21 

and abuse. And we have been caught in that net and been subjected to unfair and inappropriate scrutiny when what we are 

doing, really, is providing what we feel is quality and medically appropriate care to our patients. 

I would like to thank you, Chairman Shuler and Mr. 

Luetkemeyer, for allowing me to be here today and tell my story. 

Please allow me and my colleagues to continue to provide highquality health service to our patients and facilitate their recovery 

and their ability to health from their musculoskeletal injuries. 

[The statement of Dr. Routman is included in the appendix in 

page 112.] 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Dr. Routman, great testimony. 

Mr. Stanfield is our next witness. Wayne Stanfield is the President and CEO of the National Association of Independent Medical 

Equipment Suppliers. 

Mr. Stanfield, you will have five minutes to give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE STANFIELD 

Mr. STANFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Shuler and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, members of the Committee. 

As said, my name is Wayne Stanfield, and I am President and 

CEO of the National Association of Independent Medical Equipment Suppliers, or NAIMES. 

Working in medical equipment is a second career for me. I am 

retired Air Force and spent 20 years in the air traffic control business. 

NAIMES is a trade association representing and supporting independent DME suppliers. I also am a partner in an independent 

DME supply company, Carolina Med-Plus, in the Concord area in 

round one Charlotte CBA. We participated in the bid but did not 

win a contract because we bid above the pivotal bid. 

NAIMES commends this Subcommittee for examining the impact 

of CMS’ competitive bidding program for DME on small suppliers, 

which will be profound. 

Competitive bidding for DME was a part of the MMA ’03. And 

while the stated purpose was to save Medicare money, that contention gave no consideration to the service to patients and the impact 

on small businesses, communities, and employment. 

CMS contends that DME competitive bidding represents marketbased efficiency. I respectfully submit that this program does not 

represent anything close to healthy market economics. I also note 

that CMS has ample authority to lower fees without applying competitive bidding. 

Competitive bidding makes perfect sense for a multimillion-dollar 

aerial tanker to replace the aging KC-135, but it makes no sense 

for an $89 walker or for oxygen services to a senior citizen. Competitive bidding has no place in healthcare and will result in higher 

costs to Medicare, lower quality, and less access to needed services. 

Competitive bidding in itself is an exclusionary process. It is important to understand the gravity of this assault on small business. 

Since the vast majority of HME providers are small, independently 

owned businesses, it stands to reason that they will bear the brunt 

of the effects of competitive bidding. 

22 

According to CMS figures in 2007, there were 110,272 supplier 

numbers billing Medicare. And of those, 103,227 bill Medicare less 

than $300,000 per year. That is 94 percent of the total supplier 

community. 

It also is important to note that, despite new start-up businesses 

in the DME industry, there was a decrease of more than 4,000 suppliers from 2006 to 2007. Also notable is that the canceled first 

round winning bids in the 10 MSAs represented less than 10 percent of the total active suppliers, meaning 90 percent were excluded from the market. 

These small businesses are a major part of the engine of the 

American free enterprise system. They employ more than one and 

a half million people while serving over 50 million Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance beneficiaries. These businesses help 

keep patients out of institutional settings and at home, where they 

prefer to be, but it is also the least expensive alternative. 

The DME segment of Medicare is historically less than two percent of the total Medicare budget. And, in spite of the growth in 

the Medicare population, this has been virtually flat in growth in 

expenditures for decades. Yet, this smallest segment of Medicare 

expenditures is repeatedly singled out for fee cuts, competitive bidding, and other measures, such as the surety bond, all of which are 

forcing businesses to close and to stop serving Medicare patients. 

Homecare and DME should be growing since the cost of this care 

is infinitely less expensive than a hospital or nursing home. According to a recent market survey by the Freedonia Group, the 

need for medical equipment will grow by 5.5 percent through 2012, 

primarily due to the increasing number of older Americans. A program that reduces suppliers at a time when demand is increasing 

simply defies logic. 

This government-sponsored program will eliminate competition 

by dismantling a national network of suppliers that have reliably 

serviced the home health needs of Medicare patients for decades. 

While CMS has developed this program and has released the final 

rules for its implementation, it is Congress that authorized CMS to 

pursue this unworkable program. 

It is inconceivable that our government would promote a scheme 

to concentrate market share and eliminate competition at such a 

crucial time in our economy as we are at this present time. This 

is a formula for higher prices over time and is bad public policy 

that must be ended. 

NAIMES strongly opposes the reimplementation of this flawed 

program and recommends that Congress repeal the applicable portions of the MMA ’03. Much of the anticipated savings have already 

been realized through previous cuts, such as the FEHBP cuts in 

2007, the elimination of the CPI for the DME industry for more 

than 5 years, and the devastating 9 and a half percent cut to fees 

that went into effect on January 1st. 

I urge this Subcommittee to support the repeal of competitive 

bidding and return the free enterprise system to the small independently owned DME providers and allow them to meet the needs 

of America’s aging population. 

Thank you, Chairman Shuler. 

23 

[The statement of Mr. Stanfield is included in the appendix in 

page 77.] 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, sir. 

Our next witness is Bill Griffin. Mr. Griffin is the founder and 

President and CEO of Griffin Home Health Care. He his testifying 

on behalf of the North Carolina Association for Medical Equipment 

Services. 

Mr. Griffin, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GRIFFIN 

Mr. GRIFFIN. It is an honor to be here. And, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much. 

With my background in funeral service and retail pharmacy, I 

certainly have a very strong compassion for my fellow man, which 

is the very reason that I got into this business 26 years ago. I have 

a passion for the industry and for the clients. 

The DME providers of North Carolina were the first in the nation to push for licensure in our industry. CMS reports now that 

there are 38 states requiring oxygen providers to be licensed. 

The DME industry provides a vital part of care for the individuals in our healthcare system. It is very important to understand 

that the DME Medicare benefits are less than two percent of the 

total Medicare budget. Obviously much of this a result of small 

business. 

There is no debate that our healthcare system is broken and 

needs major overhaul. Competition in its purest is very, very 

healthy. Competition keeps businesses honest, service-oriented, and 

ultimately keeps prices competitive. My impression is that CMS 

wants to eliminate competition by eliminating DME providers. 

My company was in the first round of the competitive bidding 

process. The process in itself was antiquated and very cumbersome, 

to say the least. We bid for five out of the ten product categories. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, we did not win a single product category. 

The information I received from the bid contractor was that our 

bid prices were too high. Why? Because I looked at my overhead. 

I schooled myself very carefully before committing to prices that 

would create substandard service, poor quality products, and ultimately drive us out of business. 

There are many troubling issues surrounding the fact that as a 

stellar organization with a local presence for over 25 years, serving 

patients, we would now be unable to continue to serve those patients. 

The fact that we were told that our prices were too high is a 

clear indication that many suppliers bid to win, rather than bid to 

fulfill the commitment of the bid contract. 

The DME industry is a Service Industry. It is not a commodity. 

It is virtually impossible to place a price or a bid on the valueadded services for providing and delivering a hospital bed, setting 

up oxygen or a sleep apnea machine. 

I would like to share a couple of the troubling issues. Many of 

the bid winners had no physical presence in the local communities 

in Charlotte. CMS awarded these bids to providers that were not 

24 

even licensed in the State of North Carolina. Inexperienced and 

undercapitalized companies were awarded winning bids. 

Several of the winners are less than two to four years old. They 

had never done business in the product categories they had won, 

nor were they licensed and accredited in these winning categories. 

Many businesses will close their doors. One industry expert calculated that only nine percent are going to win the bid. We have 

heard that already. 91 percent of the businesses will go out of business. Obviously this will do away with thousands of jobs in our 

country. 

In Charlotte, one product category that equals up to 1,200 jobs, 

you can multiply that times 10 product categories and 10 MSAs 

just in the first round alone. 

To narrow down the results of the competitive bid program for 

my company, we have eliminated 30 percent of our staffing. That 

is painful as a business owner. 

Full-service DME suppliers can traditionally provide all the DME 

needs of the patient. Items such as wheelchairs, hospital beds, oxygen, enteral nutrients, and walkers may be provided by as many 

as five different suppliers under this plan. 

How confusing will this be Medicare beneficiaries, caregivers, 

and those who facilitate the discharge planning for patients leaving 

the hospital? Access will certainly be an issue. 

Case managers have told us they know they can depend on our 

business because of our service component. Under the Medicare 

competitive bidding program proposed scheme, the small number of 

providers will provide substandard service because they will be 

spread so thin. Patients will suffer. And ultimately there will be a 

cost shift from paying DME providers to paying for extended hospital stays. Home DME saves the government money. 

The reality is that my company lost the bid, but truly I have to 

believe that we were the winner. I am totally convinced that the 

number of bid winners are unable to fulfill the commitment. And 

I feel very strongly that many of the bid winners will not be able 

to provide the level of care to the Medicare beneficiary. 

The poor service will cost our healthcare system additional dollars. It will create hospital admissions and ultimately cost the 

Medicare program higher prices due to the lack of competition. The 

DME industry is highly regulated, nationally and locally. And obviously we have already heard CMS requires the companies be accredited by a certified accrediting agency. 

In closing, the competitive bidding process is bad policy. It is bad 

for consumers. It is bad for suppliers. It provides no significant savings to the government. It is inefficient and will ultimately create 

higher prices. 

We ask that the Medicare competitive bid implementation be 

eliminated. At the very least, let’s work with the industry insiders 

to seek alternatives to preserve the program’s integrity, maintain 

beneficiary freedom of choice in the selection of their provider, and 

ultimately maintain a competitive marketplace that will drive 

value-added services with competitive pricing. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Griffin is included in the appendix in page 

83.] 

25 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Griffin, for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Gerald Sloan. Mr. Sloan is founder and CEO 

of Progressive Medical Equipment in Lenexa, Kansas. 

Mr. Sloan, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD SLOAN 

Mr. SLOAN. Thank you, Chairman, thank you, Congressman 

Luetkemeyer, for the opportunity to come and share my story and 

our industry’s small business concerns. 

As stated, my name is Gerald Sloan. I am the founder and owner 

of Progressive Medical Equipment in Kansas City. My company is 

defined as a small business by the SBA but barely so as defined 

by CMS. 

We will be celebrating our tenth year of doing business this 

April. And although we specialize in servicing mobility needs, we 

are a full-line DME company that provides, among many things, 

standard items, such as oxygen supplies, hospital beds, and bath 

accessories. This allows us to be a single point of contact for most 

of our referral sources. 

I come before you today to tell the story of competitive bidding 

from a small provider point of view. Like many small DMEs, across 

the United States, we began the competitive bidding process with 

much trepidation and uncertainty. 

Although CMS had promised to install safeguards into the system, such as requiring a target of 30 percent small provider participation to protect us, we realized that this actually meant thousands of us would be excluded from the program. Additionally, because the program had no transparency in determining winning 

bids, we felt and many actually realized that they could be excluded from the program without any refutable cause. 

We eventually were selected to participate in four of the five categories that we bid: complex rehab, consumer power wheelchairs, 

walkers and related accessories, and hospital beds. Although we 

won our bids, I still feel strongly that CMS did not do enough to 

protect small providers and ultimately favored large national companies. Evidence of this can found directly from the booklet received by Medicare beneficiaries prior to July 1, 2008 announcing 

the program and winning providers. 

My company, Progressive Medical Equipment, was one of the two 

local providers to win in the complex rehab category. The other two 

winners, Scooter Store and ATG Designing Mobility, had never participated in this category in our MSA. To the best of my knowledge, 

neither is currently doing so. 

Also, one would find that the Scooter Store, a national provider 

for consumer power wheelchairs, is listed three times as a provider 

to call in our MSA. Everyone else is listed only once. 

As for the hospital beds and related supplies category, which features 49 listings, Apria, a national company, is listed 14 times; 

Lincare, another national company, 14 times; and the Scooter Store 

3, times. In other words, 31 of 49 listings, or 63 percent of the listings, were divided among these 3 national providers. No small provider was given more than one reference in this category. 

I would also like to point out that the Scooter Store won in every 

category in our MSA. CMS has been adamant about the quality of 

26 

service not being compromised in this acquisition program. But one 

must ask, how did a company that has never provided oxygen supplies, hospitals, et cetera, let alone be in our MSA, be selected to 

do so? 

Perhaps the greatest and longest-term ramification of the competitive acquisition program for my company rests in our oxygen 

services. As you may be aware, Congress passed a 36-month cap 

payment for oxygen concentrator reimbursement. The first of the 

capped rentals was scheduled to occur in January of 2009. 

When we were submitting bids for oxygen, we were still waiting 

on a final rule of what would happen after the 36-month cap. Questions such as ‘‘Who would own the equipment?’’ and ‘‘What kind of 

service calls would be reimbursed?’’ were left unanswered by CMS. 

Without this knowledge, I felt that as a small provider with very 

limited numbers of oxygen referrals a month, it would be unwise 

for me to gamble that the terms of the cap would be financially feasible for us. Therefore, our bid was higher than the accepted bid 

amount, and we lost the bid. 

In anticipation of losing the oxygen category, we began reducing 

our marketing in this area right after we submitted our bids. By 

July 1st, 2008, we were down to one to two referrals a month, 

down from six to ten referrals a month. Just a few years ago, we 

averaged 75 to 100 oxygen clients. Our number currently stands at 

27, 24 of whom are capped out with no reimbursement for our service. 

So in short, our oxygen service is dead because of competitive 

bidding. Not only do we lose, but so does our community, who depends on us for very personalized and committed service. 

Another major concern with the competitive acquisition program 

was the inability to adjust bids because of economic factors. We 

made bids in the Summer of 2007, long before the price of gas 

began its well-known spike. 

By the time the program started in July of 2008, the price of gas 

had doubled. The effect of the rise was not only felt in our fleet but 

in the price of our products as well. 

Every supplier we used began adding fuel surcharges to our shipments. Some started requiring minimum orders before they would 

ship. This had a devastating effect on our ability to maintain the 

margins necessary to remain profitable. Thankfully, the program 

only lasted two weeks, but one has to wonder how long could we 

have lasted in a three-year contract? 

In conclusion, I would like to say that the DME industry has 

been attacked by CMS and Congress for too long for problems we 

did not create. Fraud has been the ballyhooed cry to justify this 

persecution. I am before you today to testify that the guilty party 

is not our industry but CMS. 

CMS is charged with maintaining program integrity. Yet, they 

continue to allow unscrupulous and nefarious criminals access to 

medicare provider numbers. They have proven time and again that 

they are poorly managed and cannot deliver program integrity. Yet 

we are to believe that they have small business interests in mind, 

that, despite no transparency in the process, we are to trust them 

with decisions that affect thousands of companies and tens of thousands of employees. 

27 

I come before you to ask the Small Business Committee to find 

a way to strike down this program before it hurts anyone else. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Sloan is included in the appendix in page 

108.] 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Sloan. 

At this time I would like to open it up for questions. Mrs. 

Blackburn, if a competitive bidding process goes through and a 

large provider that is from outside the state gets a winning bid and 

they haven’t been actively engaged in, say, oxygen, for an example, 

that requires, obviously, a lot more technical expertize than maybe 

some of the other equipment does, what is the process for the 

learning curve? And to what extent? Obviously give me the Reader’s Digest version. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SHULER. And to what extent from the patient side, you 

know, from the health standpoint and quality of care is a problem 

if someone who doesn’t have the expertise that maybe your company would? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, our company 

is 70 years old. It is independent. But we only entered oxygen probably about eight years ago. 

The learning curve has been seven for us. It is an exceptional 

amount of information that you must know. You must comprise an 

exceptional staff that is skilled in order to deliver oxygen. 

If you go as far as providing liquid oxygen, that is another step 

that you add to the process. The loss would certainly be to the patient. If you are being provided any type of medical equipment, let 

alone oxygen, by someone who doesn’t understand the etiology of 

diagnosis, that doesn’t understand what happens if they do not provide service immediately, the patient is going to suffer. And the ultimate result would be a hospitalization or at least a visit to the 

emergency room, which causes an increase to the CMS budget. 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you. 

This is for Mr. Griffin and Mr. Stanfield. If the competitive bidding process would continue, what would it actually do to your 

businesses? Mr. Stanfield? 

Mr. STANFIELD. My personal business in the Concord market, we 

would bid again based on our ability to serve. And we would bid 

a fair market price. It is unlikely that we would win that bid. We 

would simply exit those categories and try and survive with the 

rest of the business. 

Chairman SHULER. So you would have layoffs? 

Mr. STANFIELD. It is impossible to subcontract. If you look at the 

contract price, which averaged 26 percent below current fees, what 

is the contract supplier going to pay me? 

It is already 26 percent below previous fees. And the offers that 

we had were 20 percent below the contract fee. Suppliers simply 

cannot subcontract under this process. So it would essentially take 

us out of the Medicare market for the product categories that we 

did not win a bid. 

Chairman SHULER. Mr. Griffin? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Very similar. I concur with Mr. Stanfield. We have 

already taken a little different approach, trying to work towards 

28 

some categories, some product categories, that are not included into 

the bid. 

In other words, we have gotten into the baby apnea monitoring 

business, a totally different field. We have gotten into diabetic 

shoes, totally apart from the Medicare competitive bidding process, 

not one of the product categories. A good portion of our business 

is retail. 

Once again, we have laid off 30 percent of our staff. We have 

exited that number of our staff, just pure and simply, because of 

that decline in business that we are foreseeing. We will bid again. 

Chairman SHULER. Mr. Brant, how about you? 

Mr. BRANT. Unfortunately, we would probably be forced to close 

because it affects 91 percent of the items that we do. Even though 

they stated earlier that some items would be grandfathered in, enteral feeding supplies, diabetic supplies would not be grandfathered 

in. And most of our patients would cap within a few months the 

majority of the business that we put out. So we could not rely on 

that. 

And when you don’t win the bid, you can’t pick up new equipment. You can’t pick up new patients. So, really, we would just be 

forced to close. 

Chairman SHULER. And Mr. Sloan. 

Mr. BRANT. Eighty percent of our business is Medicare. 

Chairman SHULER. Mr. Sloan? 

Mr. SLOAN. I think it is a bit of a difficult question. Naturally, 

as a small business owner, my first concerns would be taking care 

of those who have committed to me to work for me. So I would say 

I wouldn’t want to say flippantly that I would just close the door. 

I think the net result that we were to lose in certain categories 

would severely impact our business. And as a business owner, I 

would have to find other ways of adjusting for that revenue lost. 

Would that result in us closing? It is very possible. 

Chairman SHULER. Dr. Routman, obviously in your testimony, 

you said you just started paying it out of your own pocket. I mean, 

that’s quite alarming, but that says a lot about you as a person, 

that you go far and beyond the call of just being a doctor to the 

quality of care of the patient. So I commend you for that. 

Dr. ROUTMAN. Well, thank you, sir. I still have hope that I will 

get my DMEPOS supplier number. I have been told that they have 

40 or 50 more days to answer my last application. I have probably 

applied six times in the last year. 

But if I don’t get the supplier number, I will have to stop providing that service to Medicare patients. And then patients who 

need those devices will be on their own once they leave my office 

to try to find those devices, either in the marketplace or struggle 

to find them somehow. 

And my concern is they will find the wrong equipment or they 

won’t be able to find what they need. There will be delays that 

might cause delays in their healing or untoward complications. 

Chairman SHULER. Not to get off on a completely different subject, but the cap, how much did it play in your bidding process? 

Mr. BRANT. Which cap, the oxygen cap? 

Chairman SHULER. Yes, the oxygen cap. What role did it play in 

your bidding process? I mean, did you take that into consideration? 

29 

Mr. STANFIELD. We did. We took it into consideration considering 

that we knew that January 1st, there was going to be a change in 

reimbursement. It did not make sense to bid at a lower rate knowing that we were already going to take a significant cut on the 1st 

of January. 

If I might add, there is another piece of this. One of the things 

that occurred in our market was Mr. Wilson talked about assuring 

the service continued for oxygen patients. And it was perhaps more 

important than a hospital bed. 

Yet, there were cases where hospital beds, in fact, kept people in 

the hospital for extra days at a very high cost to Medicare because 

under the bid, there was no one available that could deliver a hospital bed within a short period of time to facilitate a discharge. 

Mr. BRANT. If I may, one of the things in the Polk County demonstration project is that it was before the legislation of the cap. 

So people bid in Polk County knowing that oxygen would continue 

to be paid. But here it began. We knew that we would be capped 

out six months after the program started. So it definitely had an 

effect on how we bid. 

Chairman SHULER. Well, thank you. 

At this time I would like to yield to the Ranking Member for his 

questions. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. Blackburn, you made a comment during your testimony, 

something to the effect that CMS disbanded the Oversight Committee. Can you elaborate on it just a little bit? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Yes. The PAOC, or the Oversight Committee, 

the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee, was directly put 

together, CMS was mandated to put this committee together, so 

they could have direct input from the industry leaders and other 

stakeholders. 

They had very few meetings and, in anticipation to this change, 

just totally ignored the fact that there was a committee there that 

could feed information to them and possibly educate them on how 

some of these aspects that would be detrimental to the patients as 

well as to providers. 

And I might add that they just announced their new committee 

just recently, within the last month. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Also, during your testimony and because you represent an association, I am curious. Have you done 

any research with regards to the effect on the quality of care as a 

result of the lack or the bidding process that is in place right now? 

Has it caused a deterioration of the quality of care of the people? 

Have you done an assessment of that? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I personally have not done one. And I don’t 

know that we have an assessment on paper that we can give you, 

but we can tell you that we have dedicated information, the two 

weeks that we had competitive bidding in play. 

And within those two weeks, we had numerous examples of patients having to go to the hospital because the contracted provider 

could not deliver their oxygen within the two to four hours that 

usually our referral sources are accustomed to receiving. They were 

told that they would be there within 12 to 24 hours and in some 

cases 48 hours. 

30 

Now, oxygen is a life-sustaining drug. So we found that totally 

unacceptable. That is just one instance. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. During your testimony also, in your written 

testimony, you have here that the current bid program as it is constituted would eliminate 90 percent of your home providers in the 

marketplace. Is that your correct assessment? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Ninety percent, yes, of providers. I used the illustration of the fact that CMS has put on paper that they anticipate contracting with less than 400 providers if this new process 

goes through. And in those nine MSAs, where they would contract 

with 400 providers, we have 4,127. The math is very simple to do. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With this constriction of the number of suppliers, have you done any research to see what kind of increased 

cost down the road this would be for Medicare? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I don’t think I can answer that right off the top 

of my head. I would say this, that we did take—one of the other 

gentlemen did mention that we took a 9.5 percent cut when the 

delay went through with MIPPA. 

It is my understanding, although I am not an expert, that the 

goal was to save one billion dollars a year. The 9.5 percent cut is 

estimated to save one billion dollars. So, in effect, we possibly have 

paid for the substitution of competitive bidding already by accepting that cut. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Well, my question is, though, because 

of the lack of competition down the road, have you done any sort 

of analysis to see what because of the lack of competition that is 

going to do to pricing? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Oh, we think definitely pricing will go up. It 

stands to reason. It stands to reason that the competitive bidding 

process, which will occur every three years, you must work on the 

given allowable at that point. 

So each time that a provider would bid on a product and they 

eliminate competition, they have the ability to garner the market. 

We feel that the cost to CMS will go up because that will be relegated to fewer providers bidding if there’s proof on—I am sorry. 

I don’t have that. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. But you haven’t done any survey or research 

to quantify that? In other words, saying that within two years because the number of competitors is going to decrease, suddenly now 

you can probably anticipate a 10, 20, 30 percent increase in the 

cost of doing business because there are fewer competitors in the 

marketplace? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I am from the Pittsburgh MSA. And my state 

associate executor director just reminded me of something that was 

very important. Robert Morris University is in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Our state association got a free market analysis, and the Robert Morris’ study determined that this was going 

to create oligopolies all across the nation, that there would absolutely be increased costs. 

And we can provide you, sir, with that study. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes. I am sure the Chairman and I would 

love to see some sort of documentation that shows what kind of increased cost we can anticipate because, you know, while the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\47056.TXT DARIEN
31 

gram is well-intentioned to try and decease costs, if it does just the 

opposite, that is exactly what we are looking for, is where this is 

going to lead to. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. We can absolutely get that to you. Congressman 

Altmire already has that. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Sure. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Brant, you had something with regards 

to—you talked about bonding folks who did bids. Can you explain 

that to me? 

Mr. BRANT. Yes. Actually, I was saying there is no bond. You 

could place a bid— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Right. 

Mr. BRANT. —without any financial accountability. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Is it normal in your business to place a bond 

on a bid? 

Mr. BRANT. No. We have never had this before, you know, even 

in the demonstration project. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. It is required in this? Are you required to do 

it now, then? 

Mr. BRANT. There is no bond. Well, just to bond your company will start in the Fall of 2009, $50,000 bond. But this competitive 

bidding project, even in the demonstration areas, you could just bid 

without a bond. And, actually, after you submit your price and you 

are awarded, if it doesn’t work out, you could just walk away. But 

the artificially low bid you created is stuck there for everyone else. 

There has never even a bond. You didn’t have to post a bond for 

your bid, and you still don’t have to— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Have you looked in the bonding process, 

whether it is going to cost you extra to be able to be bonded to participate down the road? 

Mr. BRANT. Well, again, for the bonding for the company at the 

end of the year is the $50,000. No, I can’t answer that at this time. 

I think we’re still waiting for final rules on that bond that is required. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That, of course, would increase your bid. 

Mr. BRANT. Yes. But, again, the competitive bidding it won’t. But 

yes, for sure, it would add additional cost— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Well, even with the— 

Mr. BRANT. —to operate. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. —competitive bidding, it is going to increase 

your bid because you have got to include that somehow unless 

you’re just really nice about it and are going to throw it in there. 

Mr. BRANT. Yes. Again, what I am trying to say is I don’t think 

it is understood compared to other competitive bid programs in government. For building a building or, as Mr. Stanfield say, building 

an airplane, those companies have to be bonded. There was never 

a statement that your bid had to be bonded. Your bid still does not 

have to be bonded. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. What is the average bid that you or one of 

your folks would have to a supplier or to a purchaser? What would 

the average—you know, what would you throw out for your local— 

whoever you are going to sell something to tomorrow? What would 

your average bid be? 

32 

Mr. BRANT. That is hard to say. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. A thousand? 

Mr. BRANT. It depends on which item. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ten thousand? A hundred thousand. 

Mr. BRANT. Well, I mean, on each individual item, I mean, there 

were hundreds of items that we bid on different categories. But 

considering my company only made a three percent profit over average the last few years, we couldn’t really come up with a price 

that was more—we pretty much knew when we put in our bid what 

would be just a few dollars below what the current Medicare reimbursement was because we couldn’t live with it. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Well, what I am getting at, if you are going 

to be bonded, I am trying to figure out what the size of a normal 

contract would be. 

So, in other words, if you have a $30 million business and you 

have 1,000 customers, that would be a certain amount of money 

per bid, trying to get to an idea to see if this bonding is even worthwhile. That is where I am going with it. 

Mr. Stanfield, can you answer that? 

Mr. STANFIELD. The bonding from my perspective as a representative of the independent suppliers is not a sensible process. It is 

simply going to eliminate another whole core of small businesses 

that cannot afford. As in the case of the physician here to have a 

surety bond would make it impossible for a company that only does 

a few thousand dollars a year to be able to afford that because the 

bond would exceed the return, much as accreditation would exceed 

it. 

We feel that the surety bond requirement has been far outweighed by the accreditation requirement, which is now mandatory 

and everybody agreed that that is an important part of reducing 

fraud and abuse. 

Mr. BRANT. I would say that with the amount of equipment that 

we would put out in an annual year with Medicare would be like 

$800,000. So to have a bond to be $800,000, I have checked. I think 

it was somewhere about $10,000 a year additional operating cost 

for that type of bond. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Normally I would think that a bond would be 

more beneficial in the area of services versus area of product. To 

me, if you’re going to give 100,000 of the product, you’re either 

going to deliver it or you’re not. A hundred thousand worth of services is a different situation. That is a situation where you may need 

to be bonded. 

But, I mean, Mr. Stanfield, with your association, what is the average sale of merchandise to an entity? 

Mr. STANFIELD. Well, it is an interesting anomaly because of the 

figures I gave you. I think it was about 103,000 of the total supplier numbers out there billed Medicare less than 300,000 a year. 

When you look at those raw numbers, many of those provide 

even smaller, more than 50 percent of those, supply Medicare probably less than 15 or 20,000 a year because they are pharmacybased suppliers. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So, basically, what you are saying is the accreditation of the individual or the company that is providing the 

33 

services, then, or selling this equipment is much more important 

versus the bond? 

Mr. STANFIELD. Absolutely, much more. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. We got a lot of nods on that one. 

Mr. STANFIELD. It just took a while to get there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Oh, well. This is Washington. It takes a long 

time to get anywhere around here. 

Mr. Stanfield, also I asked the same question of Ms. Blackburn 

a minute ago. Do you have any information with regards to the 

overall increase that you would see in the cost of delivering your 

goods and services if you— 

Mr. STANFIELD. Again, it is very clear. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. It is in there? Okay. 

Mr. STANFIELD. It is very clear from the Robert Morris University study. Dr. O’Roark and Dr. Foreman prepared this [This study 

is included in appendix in page 123]. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Mr. STANFIELD. And I do have a copy here that you are welcome 

to take today if you would like. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Are you willing to put that into the record as 

part of your statement? 

Mr. STANFIELD. I believe it already is. John, is that not a part 

of the record from last year? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I think this is a— 

Mr. STANFIELD. It was last year, but we can submit it again. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. From May, I believe it was, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. And also there is another study, an independent 

study, by Dr. Katzman that you have from the May hearing. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Mr. Griffin, during the course of your 

comments, something came up to me. If we had scheduled rates, 

is there anything that could be done if somebody wanted to negotiate a different rate? 

In other words, if you are going to sell a piece of equipment or 

you are going to sell the services and it’s going to be scheduled by 

CMS versus a bid, if it went to a schedule, for instance, I mean, 

hypothetically here? Is there anything? Could you not negotiate 

with someone a different rate on that or is that once the schedule 

is set, it is set? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me answer your question and then probably 

ask you a question, please, sir. Some years ago when I was president of our state association, I worked with the State of North 

Carolina and our Department of Facility Services, DFS, with 

Health and Human Services. We actually went down the fee schedule for Medicaid because the management of Medicare, of North 

Carolina Medicare, wanted to move towards competitive bidding. 

The DME providers, including myself, and people with Health 

and Human Services got together. And we went through the entire 

Medicare fee schedule item by item by item. There was give, and 

there was take from industry and from Medicare on each individual item to decide what was appropriate. Medicare knew what 

34 

we were paying for items. They also looked at and respected the 

cost that we had for delivering certain items. 

At that time, when we went through that Medicare fee schedule 

in the State of North Carolina, they came back to us to say that 

there would be a $10 million savings just on that one exercise. 

I have talked to a member of the PAOC a few minutes ago. And 

we could very easily do that with Medicare. We could sit down with 

industry insiders. We could sit down with CMS. We could review 

the entire fee schedule. We would have to do it in product categories. 

It would have to be very methodical, very analytical. We can do 

this. And there would be some give and take. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Would you suggest this be done on a stateby-state basis or at the federal level? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Possibly regional. We have got the four MACs. We 

have got the four CMS MACs. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. It could potentially be done regional. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Very good. 

Mr. Sloan, you made a comment or I think somewhere I was 

reading here that 80 percent of the suppliers are small business 

folks. Is that pretty much correct? 

Mr. SLOAN. That wasn’t my comment, but I— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I think it is— 

Mr. SLOAN. Was it about 90 percent? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ninety percent? 

Mr. SLOAN. Ninety percent. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think it is in excess of 90 percent. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. And this, the competitive bidding portion of this, says we only have to have a minimum of 30 percent 

be small business owners. In other words, we are protecting 10 percent and exposing, getting rid of 60 percent of the people, just at 

least not allowing 60 percent of the small business people to bid 

here. Is that where we’re headed with this? 

Mr. SLOAN. I believe that they say a minimum of 30 percent. I 

don’t think it has to be 30 percent, then they cut off the small providers. But yes, 30 percent is the maximum. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. What I am trying to get to, though, is, in 

other words, if we would have something in there that says 90 percent, that 90 percent of the group or 80 percent or 75 percent of 

the group needs to be small business owners versus there is only 

10 percent are large producers or large suppliers. I mean, we have 

got this kind of balance, do we not? 

Mr. SLOAN. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am just curious. You are part of the research here, I assume, the study that will show us what kind of 

impact it would have? 

Mr. SLOAN. I am familiar with it, although I was not involved 

with it. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Right. Okay. Very good. And you made a 

comment about provider numbers need be more, that CMS need be 

more scrupulous on how they provide provider numbers so there is 

less fraud. Is that a problem right now for me to be concerned 

about I need to look into? 

35 

Mr. SLOAN. I believe it is an ongoing problem. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. They are not screening these correctly or are 

allowing them—they are not accrediting the people correctly or— 

Mr. SLOAN. I believe we are not making site visits. CMS is required to make sure there is an operation in business that is applying for a Medicare provider number. These are not just taking 

place currently. 

I heard stories that through competitive bidding, it did not take 

place. So how can we trust them to maintain the integrity of the 

program, any program, for that matter if we’re not investigating 

the people who are applying for the provider numbers? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Right. 

Mr. SLOAN. Accreditation, which is part of the solution, I believe, 

is the first part of that. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Luetkemeyer, I think Ms. Blackburn can tell 

you that our national association has put together a list, I believe, 

of 13— 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. —different qualities aside from licensure, aside 

from accreditation that would insist that the provider and that 

CMS do certain things to continue to work with and provide Medicare services. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Fantastic. 

Mr. STANFIELD. Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes? 

Mr. STANFIELD. If I might make a comment as well regarding the 

site inspections? It is an interesting process. CMS contracts with 

the National Supplier Clearinghouse, which is an independent company. They subcontract with another company to oversee certain 

aspects of compliance. And they subcontract with someone else, 

who subcontracts with individual people to do the inspection on the 

sites. 

The site inspector that came to my company was a boiler inspector. He had never been to a DME company in his life. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Was a what kind of an inspector? 

Mr. STANFIELD. He was a boiler inspector. We have had elevator 

inspectors, boiler inspectors, building site safety inspectors, auditors of this type that come to our companies— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. He is an expert in medical equipment? 

Mr. STANFIELD. He came into the building and said, ‘‘I see medical equipment’’ and checked that off. And that was sort of the 

process that went through. That has been repeated numerous times 

across the country. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. If I could add one thing, it is that the NSC, who 

is contracted by CMS, the National Supplier Clearinghouse, is the 

entity that has the charge to make sure that any provider number 

that is given to a provider is legitimate. 

There is inventory. There is a store there. There is the ability to 

service a client. And not to what you read, we all read, in the newspapers, the national newspapers, the Wall Street, the New York 

Times. If you do your homework and you go back, you see that 

36 

company should not have had a number in the beginning. It was 

not a company. It was a front. 

And so we consistently go back to, how did they get the provider 

number? This is hurting our industry. And we have to make CMS 

accountable for the oversight that they are to be giving this contract. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am finished. I want to thank each of you 

personally for coming today. And I want to work with the Chairman here. We have some ideas on things that we want to do and 

certainly look forward to working with each of you. Again, I would 

be more than willing to have you contact my office to be able to 

give us further information or any kinds of questions you may have 

about it. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back. 

Chairman SHULER. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

Chairman and Ranking Member for going down this road. To me 

this is an important area. 

I am a fresh face around here, just six weeks. And I come from, 

a nonprofit community health care background, working with a lot 

of older adults, rehabilitation, and as a licensed nursing home administrator. So this is an extremely important issue. I have a couple of obvious concerns I am looking forward to expressing today. 

Thank you to the panel, too, for your testimony and all of your 

information. It is very much appreciated. 

My concerns looking at this whole topic really have to do with 

two things, probably a lot of things but primarily cost, what it does 

to cost, and what it does to complexity, cost in terms of ultimately 

concern with what this will do as we reduce competition over time 

and drive cost up in terms of access and affordability and complexity in terms of the consumer is older adults. And these are 

folks who, with medical complexities will have a real hard time 

dealing with distant suppliers, multiple suppliers, and ownership 

over equipment they need to use but they don’t understand how it 

works; some real issues. 

Now, I guess my first question I would like to throw out to the 

panel, just some general reaction, to see what your reaction is to 

those folks, like myself, who have this concern that because of what 

is proposed and what we are looking at can really take some of the 

most at-risk adults who are aging with dignity in their homes and 

would actually drive them back into institutional settings because 

of issues related to cost and the complexity. 

Any thoughts in terms of what risk we run in that situation? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I would like to start the conversation, if I may. 

I think part of the basis of competitive bidding came from the demonstration projects in Polk County and San Antonio. 

What is a fallacy is that there was a true savings there because 

anything that might have caused a patient to go to the emergency 

room, go to a hospital because he wasn’t receiving care would be 

charged to the Medicare part A budget. And there was absolutely 

no cross-referencing of spikes in Medicare part A, as opposed to 

any losses in Medicare part B. So that is the first issue. 

37 

I think one thing that we all can say is that when patients don’t 

get care—and many of them depend on our agencies, they don’t 

have family members, they don’t have spouses to care for them, 

they go to the hospital. They go to the emergency room. 

And, again, that is a cost to the Medicare budget, but it’s in part 

A. And there has never been an analysis of how that cross-references. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. And we would expect that to happen over and 

over again. 

Mr. BRANT. I would say that one problem we had in Miami MSA 

is patients received these booklets from Medicare. And I actually 

had a patient that I had for some time that the patient called me 

up and said, ‘‘Well, I don’t see you on this list. So I think I need 

to get my equipment picked up and try to find another supplier’’ 

that was listed in their city. And there was no one in their immediate city. And it was very confusing for the patient. 

We actually had a company that was a bid winner but they 

didn’t have the d/b/a name of the company listed—was sent out to 

the patients. And they told them, ‘‘Well, I need to change my supplier.’’ 

It became very frustrating for the bid winner, who had to try to 

explain to the patient, and the patient, saying, ‘‘Well, I’m sorry. I 

have got to work with my doctor and try to get one of these other 

companies to provide me the service that I need.’’ 

And that was a real problem, a lot of confusion for the patients. 

And, actually, it is still going on from the cleanup that happened 

in July. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Thompson, last week in Charlotte we had a 

very small little snow shower, but it resulted in ice. Mr. Shuler can 

probably tell you that in North Carolina, just a little bit of snow 

will shut local communities down. 

The very fact that we went in the Charlotte CBA from approximately 130 oxygen providers down to 11 oxygen providers under 

this current competitive bidding scheme should be evidence enough 

that those 11 providers cannot provide the oxygen support and 

services. If their power had gone out, if there had been ice on the 

power lines and their power had gone out, you can’t deliver oxygen 

services in that broad of an area by 11 suppliers. 

I was delivering oxygen during Hurricane Hugo. For about 11 

days I delivered oxygen tanks. And I know some of my colleagues 

here have delivered oxygen in Florida and different places. You 

can’t do it with the smaller numbers of suppliers. 

So, yes, the Medicare beneficiary is going to the hospital. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SLOAN. If I could add to that, you know, I don’t think we can 

underestimate the value of what the service is provided by the 

small provider. For many of us in our communities, these are our 

neighbors, our relatives, our friends. These are not people who are 

Medicare members or beneficiaries. They are very important to us 

as people. 

I am sure I speak to many people in this room when I say when 

certain clients come into our office, everybody knows and smiles 

and says, ‘‘It is Mrs. Smith again,’’ but we rush out and we take 

38 

care of Mrs. Smith. That is what we do. That is how we have built 

our business. 

Under a program like this, where price becomes the issue and 

our product is made more to look like a commodity, our service is 

ignored completely I think is missing the whole point of healthcare, 

which is what we are: healthcare providers. 

Dr. ROUTMAN. I would echo that sentiment, sir. I believe service 

is what we provide to our patients. As a physician, the outcome of 

my patient is important to me. I am outcome-driven. I want everyone to get a good result. That makes it important for me to make 

sure they get the right device, that it fits them properly, that I am 

sure that is going to take care of their problem. 

Medicare doesn’t reimburse me for that. That is okay. I want the 

best outcome for my patient. Medicare is busy crunching numbers 

and worried about bidding and cost. We are worried about our patients and to service our patients, which they really haven’t quantified and haven’t addressed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is certainly an inherent value I have seen 

in mom and pop providers. They care about the people. They do 

much that goes above and beyond what they are paid for. 

Mr. Chairman, it looks like my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. 

And I look forward to working with the members of the Subcommittee and the Small Business Committee as a whole to work 

through some of these issues in this legislation. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record be open for five days 

for members to submit their statements. Hearing no objection, so 

ordered. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


47056.001
40 


47056.002
41 


47056.003
42 


47056.004
43 


47056.005
44 


47056.006
45 


47056.007
46 


47056.008
47 


47056.009
48 


47056.010
49 


47056.011
50 


47056.012
51 


47056.013
52 


47056.014
53 


47056.015
54 


47056.016
55 


47056.017
56 


47056.018
57 


47056.019
58 


47056.020
59 


47056.021
60 


47056.022
61 


47056.023
62 


47056.024
63 


47056.025
64 


47056.026
65 


47056.027
66 


47056.028
67 


47056.029
68 


47056.030
69 


47056.031
70 


47056.032
71 


47056.033
72 


47056.034
73 


47056.035
74 


47056.036
75 


47056.037
76 


47056.038
77 


47056.039
78 


47056.040
79 


47056.041
80 


47056.042
81 


47056.043
82 


47056.044
83 


47056.045
84 


47056.046
85 


47056.047
86 


47056.048
87 


47056.049
88 


47056.050
89 


47056.051
90 


47056.052
91 


47056.053
92 


47056.054
93 


47056.055
94 


47056.056
95 


47056.057
96 


47056.058
97 


47056.059
98 


47056.060
99 


47056.061
100 


47056.062
101 


47056.063
102 


47056.064
103 


47056.065
104 


47056.066
105 


47056.067
106 


47056.068
107 


47056.069
108 


47056.070
109 


47056.071
110 


47056.072
111 


47056.073
112 


47056.074
113 


47056.075
114 


47056.076
115 


47056.077
116 


47056.078
117 


47056.079
118 


47056.080
119 


47056.081
120 


47056.082
121 


47056.083
122 


47056.084
123 


47056.085
124 


47056.086
125 


47056.087
126 


47056.088
127 


47056.089
128 


47056.090
129 


47056.091
130 


47056.092
131 


47056.093
132 


47056.094
133 


47056.095
134 


47056.096
135 


47056.097
136 


47056.098
137 


47056.099
138 


47056.100
139 


47056.101
140 


47056.102
141 


47056.103
142 


47056.104
143 


47056.105
144 


47056.106
145 


47056.107
146 


47056.108
147 


47056.109
148 


47056.110
149 


47056.111
150 


47056.112
151 


47056.113
152 


47056.114
153 


47056.115
154 


47056.116
155 


47056.117
156 


47056.118
157 


47056.119
158 


47056.120
159 


47056.121
160 


47056.122
161 


47056.123
162 


47056.124
163 


47056.125
164 


47056.126
165 


47056.127
166 


47056.128
167 


47056.129
168 


47056.130
169 

Æ