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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–561 2012

MEDICARE’S DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROGRAM: HOW ARE 

SMALL SUPPLIERS FARING? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–084 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Renee Ellmers ................................................................................................. 1 

Hon. Cedric Richmond ............................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Laurence D. Wilson, Director, Chronic Care Policy Group, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD ...................................................... 3 

Peter Cramton, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD ....................................................................................................... 15 

Tammy Zelenko, President/CEO, Advacare Home Services, Bridgeville, PA ..... 17 

Randy Mire, Owner, Gem Drugs, Reserve, LA ..................................................... 19 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Laurence D. Wilson, Director, Chronic Care Policy Group, Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD ...................................... 31 

Peter Cramton, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, 

College Park, MD .......................................................................................... 43 

Tammy Zelenko, President/CEO, Advacare Home Services, Bridgeville, 

PA ................................................................................................................... 62 

Randy Mire, Owner, Gem Drugs, Reserve, LA .............................................. 76 

Questions for the Record: 

Chairman Graves Questions for Laurence Wilson ........................................ 83 

Chairwoman Ellmers Questions for Laurence Wilson .................................. 85 

Answers for the Record: 

Wilson Answers for the Record ....................................................................... 86 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

Statement of the Health Industry Distributors Association ......................... 91 

‘‘Competitive Bidding for Durable Medical Equipment: An Estimate of 

the Economic Impact on Iowa,’’ by Ken Brown, Ph.D ................................ 95 

National Association for the Support of Long Term Care Statement for 

the Record ...................................................................................................... 101 

The VGM Group Statement for the Record .................................................... 106 

Statement of Charles R. Plott for the Record ................................................ 114 

Hogan Hansen Statement for the Record ....................................................... 120 

A Market Pricing Program to Fix Medicare’s Bidding System for Home 

Medical Equipment and Services Statement for the Record ..................... 131 

Response to the Congressional Hearing on Medicare’s Durable Medical 

Equipment Competitive Bidding Program by Peter Cramton .................. 136 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

MEDICARE’S DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROGRAM: HOW 

ARE SMALL SUPPLIERS FARING? 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Renee Ellmers (chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ellmers, King, and Richmond. 

Also Present: Representatives Shilling and Thompson. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Good morning, this hearing will come to 

order. I want to thank the witnesses on both panels for testifying. 

We appreciate your participation. 

I would like to at this time welcome Representative Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson is from Pennsylvania, a former committee member 

who has requested and received permission to sit on the panel for 

today’s hearing. We welcome Mr. Thompson today. 

We also have with us Mr. King from Iowa, who also will have 

some questions to submit or some statements from constituents, is 

that? Yes. Thank you again for being part of this. 

We are here today to assess the Medicare durable medical equipment competitive bidding program and its impact on patients, 

small business suppliers, and the implications for program expansion. Congress mandated the use of competitive bidding to establish payment rates for high cost and high volume DME in the 

Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Congress took this action in 

response to evidence that Medicare fee schedule payment rates 

often far exceed retail prices. In fact in some cases Medicare beneficiary copays exceeded the cost of the device on the open market. 

These generous payment rates also made the DME benefit especially vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. A successful small 

scale test required through the Balance Budget Act of 1997 showed 

that the competitive bidding for DME was feasible. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented a 

competitive bidding process for nine DME product categories in 

nine geographic areas on January 1, 2011. This first phase of implementation is known as Round One. The competitive bidding program will soon undergo significant expansion beyond the initial 

nine metropolitan statistical areas, or MSAs. The Affordable Care 

Act, which we will be referring to as ACA, expanded the program 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

so that Round Two includes an additional 91 MSAs. CMS is now 

assessing supplier bids for Round Two with the intent that competitively bid prices in these 91 MSAs take effect in mid-2013. The 

ASA directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and 

Human Services to use competitively bid prices nationwide beginning in 2016. 

The DME supplier industry as well as the many small businesses 

that operate in this industry have long had concerns about the use 

of competitive bidding. Before we expand the program more than 

tenfold it is important to understand these concerns, not only because numerous patients rely on medical equipment to keep them 

in their homes and out of the hospital, but also because many of 

the suppliers are small businesses that make up the fabric of our 

economy. 

Most of us can agree that it is important for Medicare to pay a 

responsible price for durable medical equipment so that beneficiaries and taxpayer dollars are used wisely. CMS has reported 

that the competitive bidding program resulted in $202 million in 

savings in 2011. These first year program savings are derived 

largely from competitive based payment amounts that are on average 32 percent lower than DME fee scheduled prices, and these 

lower prices mean the beneficiaries are paying less in the form of 

their 20 percent coinsurance. 

Lower prices for patients as well as for taxpayers are something 

all of us can celebrate, but how those prices are obtained and the 

methods by which the small business suppliers are allowed to participate and compete fairly are crucial to this program. We must 

seek to ensure that this program protects patient access to vital 

products needed while giving small business suppliers the environment to grow and thrive. While I strongly believe in the competitive forces of the private market, the process by which the competition is conducted must be fair and truly competitive. 

To help the Subcommittee understand the success and challenges 

associated with Round One before the program’s scheduled expansion next year we will hear from witnesses, industry experts, as 

well as small business owners who collectively provide a balanced 

range of perspective on the competitive bidding program. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses today for being here. 

And now I would like to yield to Ranking Member Richmond for 

his remarks. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this very 

productive and timely hearing. It is no secret that our Nation’s 

population is beginning to age and many of our Baby Boomers are 

now turning 65 years old. A projected 72 million, roughly one-fifth 

of the U.S. population, will be that age or older by 2030. 

As more Baby Boomers age into Medicare, the program is becoming increasingly vital to our health care system. Medicare serves 50 

million seniors and people with disabilities. That is nearly 1 in 6 

Americans. 

It is also a program served predominantly by small businesses. 

Small firms are an essential part of the health care market and fill 

many of the gaps larger businesses either cannot or will not. In 

fact small suppliers constitute over 90 percent of the Nation’s medVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 12, 2013 Jkt 077561 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A561.XXX A561

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

ical equipment providers. Today’s hearing will shed some light on 

their importance to Medicare. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Competitive 

Bidding Program for Durable Medical Equipment, or DME, was implemented in nine metropolitan areas in 2011. The initiative allows 

Medicare to award contracts for durable medical equipment to suppliers with the lowest bids. This bidding system was supposed to 

ensure beneficiary access to quality medical supplies and services 

while reducing out-of-pocket expenses and improving the effectiveness of DME payments. 

While CMS estimates the savings from the first year to be 202 

million, it is not clear that the new COMPETITIVE BIDDING 

PROGRAM is achieving this goal without driving small firms out 

of business. Instead there is evidence that many DME small business providers have already gone out of business or soon will go 

under. This issue is of particular concern to me, because New Orleans is one of the areas selected to implement competitive bidding 

in Round Two. Like a number of my colleagues, I have some concerns about the impact on small firms in my district. We should all 

be doing what we can to mitigate the impact that these changes 

will have on these firms. 

It is also important to me that CMS work with Congress and 

stakeholders to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to 

care and service from their local supplier. It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to take a hard look at competitive bidding and 

its impact on small suppliers. 

With that I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the 

witnesses for being here. I look forward to hearing your perspectives on this vital matter. Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay, at this time we will proceed and I 

would just like to ask that if any of the Subcommittee members 

have an opening statement prepared, I just ask that they submit 

it for the record. 

Just to briefly go over the light system that we have, you will 

have 5 minutes to deliver your testimony. The light will be green. 

When you have 1 minute left it will turn yellow and then it will 

turn red. I ask that everyone try to adhere to the limited time. I 

know we have a number of questions, so that will just help this 

move along. 

So with that I would like to introduce Mr. Laurence Wilson, Director of the Chronic Care Group with the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services in Baltimore, Maryland. He has responsibility for a broad range of health care benefits, including post acute 

care, home health dialysis, and durable medical equipment. Welcome, Mr. Wilson, good to see you again. You have 5 minutes for 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE D. WILSON, DIRECTOR, CHRONIC 

CARE POLICY GROUP, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning and good morning, Ranking Member 

Richmond and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am 

very pleased to be here today to discuss the durable medical equipment prosthetics, orthotics and supplies competitive bidding proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 12, 2013 Jkt 077561 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A561.XXX A561

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
4 

gram. This important initiative required under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and recently expanded under the Affordable 

Care Act has been effective in reducing beneficiary out-of-pocket 

costs, improving the accuracy of Medicare’s payments, reducing 

over utilization and ensuring beneficiary access to high quality 

items and services. 

CMS successfully implemented the program on January 1, 2011, 

in nine metropolitan areas after making a number of important improvements based on new requirements from Congress and after 

listening to feedback from our stakeholders. We are pleased to report that the program has saved $202 million in its first year of 

operation, a reduction of over 42 percent compared to 2010, with 

no reduction in access or negative health consequences for our 

beneficiaries. We are now continuing with the expansion of the program to 91 additional areas of the country as the law requires. 

CMS worked closely with stakeholders to design and implement 

the program in a way that is fair for suppliers and sensitive to the 

needs of beneficiaries. In particular, the program includes specific 

provisions to promote small supplier participation. First, CMS 

worked in collaboration with the Small Business Administration to 

develop a new more representative definition of a small supplier. 

CMS then designed policies linked to this new definition to help 

small suppliers. For example, the final regulation allows small suppliers to band together in networks in order to meet program requirements. The regulation also employs a formula to ensure that 

multiple contract suppliers are selected for each of the product categories in an area, so lots of suppliers are awarded a contract. 

Most importantly, the regulation established a special 30 percent 

target for small supplier participation in the program. CMS was 

very pleased that we exceeded this 30 percent target in the nine 

Round One areas, with 51 percent of contracts going to small suppliers. 

The program also includes numerous protections for beneficiaries. It results in a large number of winners so that beneficiaries are assured access and choice and there will continue to 

be competition among contract suppliers on the basis of customer 

service and equality. In addition, the program thoroughly screens 

bids and bidders, includes quality standards and accreditation, and 

employs financial standards and other safeguards to weed out bad 

actors while ensuring accurate and sustainable payment amounts 

and providing a level playing field for legitimate suppliers. 

CMS has carried forward the many improvements to the program made by Congress and CMS to successive rounds. These 

changes provide for a fair process that is less complex for suppliers 

to navigate and result in more effective scrutiny of suppliers’ qualifications in the integrity of their bids. We continue to be open to 

further improvements as the program expands. 

Our experience with the Round One Rebid has shown that competitive bidding brings value to Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers compared to the old fee schedule system. In fact, average 

price discounts across the nine metropolitan areas are about 35 

percent. The CMS actuary projects that the program will save 

$25.7 billion for Medicare over 10 years, and an additional $17.1 

billion for beneficiaries through lower coinsurance and premiums. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
5 

An example of the price savings, in Charlotte, North Carolina the purchase amount of a standard power wheelchair dropped $1,089. 

That equates to an $871 savings for Medicare and the taxpayers 

and a further $218 savings for the beneficiary in terms of reduced 

coinsurance. 

More importantly, our state-of-art monitoring system reveals no 

trends related to patient health status or access to care that cause 

us concern. This system tracks over 3,400 data points, including 

things like mortality, utilization, hospitalization, hospital length of 

stay, emergency room visits and many others to provide us with information about the health of Medicare beneficiaries and the services they receive. 

As the program expands in 2013, we will continue to rely on our 

extensive network built around our national ombudsman, local ombudsman, regional offices, CMS case workers, contractors and 

Medicare call center to address questions and concerns and be prepared to act swiftly on behalf of beneficiaries and suppliers. And 

in summary, we will continue to be thoughtful and diligent in our 

implementation of this important program as it expands to more 

areas of the country and opens to further improvements. 

Again, I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today and 

would be very happy to take any questions you may have. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I will begin my 

questioning. My first question has to do with the nonbinding nature of the bids. Given the significant opposition to the lack of 

binding bids as a part of the competitive bidding program as well 

as numerous testimony by both economists and auction experts, 

why has CMS chosen to make bids submitted by suppliers nonbinding? 

Mr. WILSON. Chairwoman, that is an important issue that we 

looked at very closely. We took notice of the letter sent to the administration by a number of economists and by Dr. Cramton, who 

is here today. We met with him, we looked at that issue very closely. I think there are two issues that prevented us from moving in 

that direction. One, we are talking about a health care program 

where we are providing health care services to patients in their 

homes. So forcing a supplier to provide services to a patient in 

their home may not result in the best outcome for a patient. I think 

that is one concern. 

The other concern is Medicare is a voluntary program for suppliers, for beneficiaries. Our ability to force them under current law 

to do something they don’t want to do does not currently exist. 

That is, we don’t have the authority to do that under current law. 

But again, I think one of the main concerns is what does that mean 

for beneficiaries. 

The other point that I would mention on this as well is that I 

am not aware of any particular proposal even in the industry’s legislation that would get us to the point where we could bind suppliers. The industry’s legislation merely applies a stiff financial 

penalty to small and other suppliers, and I am not sure that is fair 

either for a supplier that just can’t do it. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. One of the main concerns in that area is 

for those providers that end up turning down the contractors after 

the bid process that CMS continues to include that calculation of 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
6 

the bid amount. If they backed out, if they put the bid in play and 

they maybe realize that they can’t actually provide that and then 

they back out, why then does the bid not leave with them and then 

have a chance for another bidding or the next subsequent bid be 

considered? 

Mr. WILSON. Sure. Very good question. Another issue that we 

looked at very closely in rulemaking. I guess at the outset I would 

say that wasn’t a particular problem that we had. I think suppliers 

accepted 92 percent of the time, they accepted their contract so we 

were very pleased to see that. When you looked at the bids that 

were not accepted about half the prices were above, half were 

below. But more importantly, whether they accept the contract or 

not, the bids that they submit are scrutinized very carefully under 

a bona fide bid process. If they are on the low end, we would ask 

for price lists from manufacturers, invoices, or other information to 

validate that they could provide the item and any associated services for that price. So we are comfortable that the information we 

are putting into the price is appropriate. And, at the end of the 

day, if we were to go back and have to reset the prices if someone 

turned down a contract, then others may deny their contract and 

there would be multiple iterative rounds until we finally got all of 

the contracts in place, because even if you were to do this approach, some prices could go down for items, some could go up. Everybody provides a different mix of items and so there is no assurance that everybody would be satisfied with the ultimate product. 

So we really just have to go with the best information that we have 

up front. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Along that line is there a concern that 50 

percent of the winning bidders are offered contracts at prices that 

are less than their bids? Does that fall in line with that information that you have just given us? 

Mr. WILSON. I think that is another important issue that we 

looked at very closely in rulemaking. We considered whether to set 

the price at the pivotal bid or the high price point for the winners, 

whether to set it at the low point or whether to set it at the median 

the way we do for a number of different Medicare payment systems. This is not a procurement, a government procurement, it is 

not an auction, this is a Medicare payment system that utilizes 

competition under the Medicare statute. So it is different than 

some of the things that you may hear with respect to auctions for 

commodities and things like that. So I think what we were trying 

to do was recognize that we wanted a good price point that suppliers would accept and would result in good products, good items 

being provided to our patients, which is the most important thing 

for us. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Mr. Wilson, one of the issues that has 

been raised by many of the small business owners and the suppliers and constituents is that 80 percent, 80 to 90 percent of 

American businesses are being excluded in this program. At the 

May 9th Ways and Means hearing you used Pittsburgh as an example of success. In 2010 there were approximately 815 suppliers 

in Pittsburgh; however, there were only 60 winning suppliers in 

the program. The other 700 plus no doubt are small businesses like 

neighborhood pharmacies which offer DME as a sideline for service 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
7 

and customer satisfaction when a physician prescribes it. You 

eliminated close to 750 suppliers, or at least 93 percent of the 

Pittsburgh small businesses, thereby selectively excluding 95 percent of the industry. With such a drastic reduction in the number 

of small business suppliers in the marketplace, do you believe that 

excluding more than 95 percent of small businesses previously providing quality DME products is having a positive or a negative impact on patient access to these vital products and services? 

Mr. WILSON. I think one of the most important things for us, 

there are two goals in this program, one is to provide savings on 

behalf of our taxpayers, on behalf of beneficiaries and on behalf of 

the Medicare program. The second part is really to ensure that patients continue to get what they need. We have monitored very 

closely in all nine areas access, health status, and we don’t have 

concerns that patients aren’t getting what they need. So at the outset I would just like to be clear that we are very, very sensitive to 

that issue and are doing quite a bit to monitor that on a biweekly 

basis. 

With respect to the number of suppliers, I think it is important 

to remember, and I do recall the Pittsburgh example, I used a 

North Carolina example today, so I will provide that for you. If you 

look at a place like Charlotte, there are 951 suppliers, but only 207 

have Medicare revenues higher than $10,000. So for most of the 

suppliers, Medicare is a very small part of their business. I don’t 

want to minimize $10,000 that could be important to a small business. But, at the same time, that is not the main part of their business, it is probably a very, very small part. So, you know, a lot of 

suppliers are providing things like retail diabetic test strips. These 

are, as you said, community pharmacies, that is not even included 

in the Medicare program. Others are providing off-the-shelf 

orthotics, we have not bid those. They may be orthotists. So we are 

not excluding all of the providers. I think that is sort of an inaccurate picture of what the program is doing. 

I provide another number as well. I think when you look at the 

total number of suppliers in the nine areas in 2010, it was just over 

23,000. In 2011 that went down by about 1.5 percent. If you look 

in competitor areas that we track as part of our monitoring there 

were about 2,000, but that went down a little bit too by about negative 1.2 percent. So to the extent that we see suppliers going out 

of the program, it is very small and it is not just an occurrence in 

the nine competitive bidding areas, but it is a more general trend. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Would you say that looking at it from 

that perspective of the products that they offer, was this an effort 

by CMS to better control the small business suppliers so that you 

have a better idea of who you are dealing with or—— 

Mr. WILSON. I think there are benefits in terms of oversight to 

the program because it employs financial standards and erects 

other checks to allow suppliers to participate, so I think it has benefits for program integrity. But, our point in pursuing the program 

wasn’t to somehow eliminate suppliers. The statute requires that 

there be winners and there be losers. It also requires that suppliers 

bid. So, if you look at Charlotte again, you know, there were 207 

suppliers that had Medicare revenues over $10,000; only 115 of 

them bid, and about half of those got contracts. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
8 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay, great. I do have a couple more—— 

Mr. WILSON. I—— 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were finished. 

Mr. WILSON. I am. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. I was going say I do have a couple more 

questions but at this point I would love for the rest of the Subcommittee to chime in with theirs, so I will now turn to Ranking 

Member Richmond for his questions. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you and thank you, Director Wilson, for 

being here. 

From the comments and the calls that we received and the input 

that we sought out, what we got back about Round One was that 

people faced several problems initially in the bidding process from 

taking excessive time to input data and that data was lost or there 

was incorrect disqualification of suppliers, which I think caused 

you all to extend the time at some point on those bids. Now you 

are moving into Round Two. What have you all done or what are 

you all going to do to make sure that we don’t have those types of 

problems for Round Two? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. I think the problems that you are describing are ones that we experienced in our 2008 round, after 

which Congress delayed the program and I think the picture you 

provided does accurately describe some of the problems that we 

had. We went through a process, talking with our stakeholders 

and, of course, implementing provisions of the MIPPA law in 2008 

to make some improvements to the program. These improvements 

were things like redevelopment of the online bidding system so we 

don’t have problems with people losing information, streamlining 

the financial documentation requirements, putting in a process 

that Congress required where, to the extent a supplier was missing 

a financial document and may otherwise be disqualified, they 

would get a second bite at the apple. We would get to contact them 

and say, hey, you are missing your balance sheet, could you send 

that, and they would send it. So we put in those kinds of improvements. 

Education was very important. In the 2008 round we didn’t get 

to educate early enough and we didn’t focus in on some of the 

issues that we ultimately learned to be of concern for small suppliers so we educated earlier, and it was targeted on specific issues 

that were problematic, in particular, the financial documentation 

requirements. We really, really focused in on auditing and verifying 

the information in the bids, and checking licensing of suppliers to 

make sure only licensed suppliers were coming into the program. 

So a lot of different things that we did both on process and on sort 

of ease of use for suppliers were put in place before we went to this 

current round which was effective in 2011. And I think the reaction 

that we got was positive from those that we heard from with respect to the system. I think there are other improvements that 

could be made, there were still a few little glitches in the electronic 

system but we were able to work through those, there were no 

delays and no big issues with people losing information. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you and actually you answered probably 

a couple of my questions all in that one. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
9 

Earlier you mentioned in an attempt to help small businesses 

that they could band together and form networks to bid. How many 

actually did that? 

Mr. WILSON. In the Round One Rebid in 2011 we have three network bids and one that was awarded a contract. So, we didn’t see 

a lot of bids but we still could in this next round. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Are you all doing anything to encourage it or to 

educate the small suppliers on the ability to do that or the advantages to doing that? 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. I think we ought to be and we are educating suppliers, small suppliers about the availability of that option. So it is part of our online educational toolkit. The online bidders conferences and the other materials that we have. We do discuss this option and present the details of it. We don’t encourage 

people to bid in a certain way, they have to make that business decision on their own, but we want to provide all the information so 

that they can. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The other thing you mentioned was the 8 percent 

that were awarded a contract and ultimately declined not to sign. 

What was the predominant reason or give me a little demographic 

about that 8 percent? And I know we look at it as 8 percent, but 

I went to one of those funny little high schools where an A was 93 

to 100, so you are right around a B-plus range. So what does that 

8 percent look like? 

Mr. WILSON. The only information I have about the 8 percent— 

I don’t know why they didn’t accept, we didn’t ask them. I think 

the information that I have is what I shared with Chairwoman 

Ellmers, which is that when you looked at their bids they didn’t 

not accept because their bid was higher than the price or lower 

than the price, it sort of cut both ways. So it was obviously for 

some other business associated reason. 

And we can—I can check if there is more information available 

on that. I will go back to the staff and ask. 

Mr. RICHMOND. One other one. There appears to be two different 

criteria in the mail order diabetes suppliers, that they have to bid 

based on their complete list of diabetic supplies while small suppliers bid and win by using a smaller list of low cost products. Is 

that by design, is that accurate? 

Mr. WILSON. That is not accurate, that is not a requirement. 

What I would say is that Congress put in place a requirement, we 

call it the 50 percent rule, where under the national mail order 

program for diabetic supplies their bid must reflect 50 percent of 

the products on the market. So it is really geared towards ensuring 

that all the most popular brands are included in their bids, and 

that is what we are implementing as part of the national mail 

order program. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Do you all currently have bids out right now? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, yes, sir. Under the Round Two and national 

mail order program we received bids and are currently evaluating 

them. We would expect to, sometime later in the fall, announce the 

prices from that program; early next year announce the bid winners, and then we would put those prices and contracts into effect 

on July 2013. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
10 

Mr. RICHMOND. Okay. Madam Chairwoman, thank you and I 

yield back. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay, at this time I would like to introduce my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, for his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Wilson, I appreciate your testimony. First, I would like to introduce into the record 

three reports, one of them from the VGM Group, the durable medical equipment competitive bidding report, and competitive bidding 

report also from Dr. Ken Brown, University of Northern Iowa, that 

is dated July 18, 2012, and a Hogan-Hansen study on Medicare’s 

ability to accept beneficiary calls, that is August 13, 2013. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Wilson, I do appreciate your testimony and I know that taking the directive of Congress and turning it into actual effect is a difficult task. And a series of things I think about as I listen to your testimony and I expect there will be three witnesses behind you that would like to 

have testified first so that the questions that they might pose could 

be directed to you, and I am going to try to anticipate some of that. 

What happens under this proposal to patient choice? If there is 

a patient that has a provider that they have a tradition with and 

they appreciate the service and quality of that service, what happens to patient choice? 

Mr. WILSON. I think there are a few features of this program 

which support patient choice. One, we have a formula here for selecting the contractors that really goes towards ensuring that there 

are multiple contractors, contract suppliers selected for each region 

or each competitive bidding area. So lots of suppliers means choice 

for beneficiaries. It also means that those suppliers, they compete 

amongst each other on the basis of customer service and quality in 

order to get patients. 

Mr. KING. Can—— 

Mr. WILSON. I think it’s important to get that consistency, if I 

may, you are talking about, sir, that there is a grandfathering provision, a feature that allows suppliers to maintain their relationship for the equipment with patients and the majority of suppliers, 

even though they didn’t within a contract, and so the majority of 

suppliers did maintain relationships with their beneficiaries. 

Mr. KING. I know what the grandfather clause does, it takes 

away some of the resistance in the short term but eventually ends 

up with the same result in the long term and that would be the 

result of who are awarded the contracts. And this so it does—in at 

least one of these reports that I have introduced into the record 

will be I think an effective rebuttal to that position, whatever the 

intent is, then that result I think is perhaps different. But the suicide bid issue, and I will—just as I don’t know how many government contracts I have bid, I spent my life in the contracting business. We bid on low bid, we put a bond out on the table, a 10 percent bid bond, for example. So if we are going to bid a million dollar project we put $100,000 cash equivalent in the middle of the 

table, and that might be a certified check or it might be a bid bond, 

but it puts my capital out on the line. And what it says is I am 

serious about this bid. And if I am the successful bidder and offered the contract, and I don’t complete the contract, I don’t sign 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
11 

the contract provide performance and payment bonds to replace the 

bid bond I forfeit my bid bond. So it is ante up $100,000 to bid a 

million dollar project that says my word is good, not to finish the 

contract, just to enter into it. And then in order to enter into it I 

have to provide a performance and payments bond. 

Does the statute allow you to write rules that set standards of 

bid bonds so that you don’t have suicide bids and you don’t have 

people backing out of those contracts. 

Mr. WILSON. It does not provide us the authority to do what you 

described, sir. 

Mr. KING. What prohibits you then from enforcing such an authority at the discretion of the executive branch? 

Mr. WILSON. If that authority were put in place? 

Mr. KING. If it doesn’t specify that authority, what is out there 

in statute that would prohibit you from asserting that authority? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, this is a program with a prescription and a 

statute on how it is designed. We have talked about this issue with 

our general counsel. We don’t see that we have authority to do it. 

Mr. KING. Did you want to do that? Was it something you looked 

at from the beginning though and you wanted to put more standards in? 

Mr. WILSON. I have some concerns about an approach that forces 

suppliers, small suppliers, to pay a large penalty. I also have a concern about forcing suppliers to provide health care services to a 

beneficiary in their home when they don’t want to. 

Mr. KING. Now—— 

Mr. WILSON. But I think it is worth considering. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. You do write the specifications for the bid, 

correct, and you have the statutory authority to do that? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir, to write specifications. 

Mr. KING. And you spoke—sometimes they bid things in not exactly the same way so it is hard to match up apples to apples in 

your earlier testimony. Can’t you write those specifications so that 

they are direct and specific and then in order to get a product here 

that is going to be apples to apples and going to be legitimate bidders, can’t you come to Congress and ask us to fix this so that you 

do have the authority to have a legitimate competitive bidding 

process rather than one that opens the door up for suicide bids? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I am not aware of any suicide bids. We put 

in a process to address that issue, it is called a bona fide bid process. 

Mr. KING. Well, you can audit but don’t enter into it, so those 

would be the ones defined as suicide bids. If the chairwoman would 

indulge me. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Without objection, please continue. 

Mr. KING. I am concerned about a bidding process that leaves the 

door open to that. But the other specific question that I am very 

interested in is how you selected—how you selected the median bid 

as the standard on what to basis your award. Is a median bid out 

of three bidders, is that a legitimate measure, at what level do you 

have enough bids that a median bid tells you anything? And why 

wouldn’t you come back to us and say we want these people bonded 

and we want to award it to the lowest bidder? 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
12 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I think the way this program was set up we 

had a very high demand target, a cushion because what we are trying to guarantee is patient access, that is the most important 

thing, so lots and lots of suppliers, so we have a very high demand 

target. That makes it comfortable using a median measure when 

you have lots and lots of bidders and lots and lots of contract 

awards. So we are very comfortable that we get—and that also has 

an upward effect on price by the way. So we are very, very comfortable in terms of patient access with the approach that we use. 

And we think the prices are also quite reasonable, particularly in 

the context of many of the reports that we see from the OIG and 

the GAO on acquisition costs for oxygen, wheelchairs and other 

products. 

Mr. KING. I will just say this, large companies will like this, 

small companies will not. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. At this time I would like to 

introduce my colleagues from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for his 

questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairwoman, and the ranking member for your courtesy in allowing a former member of the small 

business committee to rejoin today on a very important topic. 

Director Wilson, Laurence, it is good to see you, I want to thank 

you for your longtime service in the chronic care division at CMS. 

This obviously, to me this is a very important topic for me when 

I not too many years ago, BC, before Congress, I was working with 

individuals facing life changing disease and disabilities. That is 

how I ran my paycheck to support my family, and my off hours I 

ran as an EMT. So I was out in homes in the middle of the night 

seeing folks who were relying on this durable medical equipment 

and the service that comes with that equipment to really be able 

to have improved quality of life and to be as independent as possible. And I have tremendous concerns obviously with the competitive bidding process. And I support competition, but this is a system that I am concerned with the competition as it is defined in 

this program. I think it is flawed. 

I was pleased to hear your willingness to make changes. You indicated that, and frankly we are right on track with the two principles, having a responsibility to the Medicare beneficiary and responsibility to the taxpayers. When you look at Pittsburgh market 

which is closest to obviously my home, 93 percent loss of providers, 

I have to hope, I would hope, but I wonder whether CMS is really 

taking a look at long-term impact of that. What we do today is for 

today, but the seeds that are planted for tomorrow I think could 

be devastating. You can’t have competition when you begin to lose 

businesses, when you shrink that competitive pole. And then there 

is the whole question of people that are bidding in this process, 

they may not be in the communities to provide the access. I can 

tell you oxygen is great as long as you have somebody that is a 

phone call away, and frankly minutes away in the middle of the 

night when you run into problems with it. You need that, in all durable medical equipment you need that access, that technical assistance. And frankly that is not something—we think about this 

pricing this thing on the equipment but it really is a full package. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
13 

So I really appreciate what you said about opening to change, so 

I am going to propose some change for you and run it by you. I 

think you are familiar with the proposal for the market pricing system with durable medical equipment. What are your thoughts on 

market pricing program as a proposal in terms of saving the same 

amount of money, fairness to providers and frankly assuring the 

beneficiaries access? 

Mr. WILSON. And good to see you, sir. Very interesting proposal. 

We have not talked with representatives of industry about it. I did 

have the opportunity to read the statutory language. I guess at the 

outset I would have a few concerns. One—we have a successful program that is working, this program would seem to require about 

8 years to implement. We have iterative, multiple rounds of rulemaking, Paperwork Reduction Act, IT development, multiple 

rounds of contracting. So I don’t see this program being implemented before about 8 years. It took about 5 years to implement 

the current program and this has again multiple processes built in 

that would require additional time. 

So I think that is a concern, because again we have a program 

that is providing beneficiaries what they need and is saving dollars 

for taxpayers and beneficiaries in Medicare. 

I think there are some other things there. We talked about choice 

a little bit today. This assigns patients essentially to certain small 

suppliers, it has a small supplier target that says they get 30 percent of the business. The only way to implement that is to assign 

a patient to a supplier and take away their choice. That is a concern for me. So I think there are some issues and concern there 

that need to be addressed, but I don’t see replacing a system that 

is working for one that has some problems. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And I think that at least from my perspective, 

I question whether it is working, I question whether we really have 

a handle on what the long-term effects of this are as we put small 

businesses out of business and as we lose jobs, as we decrease that 

pole for competition. Competition is really a good thing, it generally 

results in lower costs and higher quality. But if you create monopolies then it is an issue. So just say that my worst nightmares over 

the next period of time become a reality, does CMS have the statutory authority to implement changes that would be consistent with 

a market pricing program? 

Mr. WILSON. There are many features of the market pricing program that we would not have statutory authority to do. Some of 

them we may have statutory authority to do, I have not reviewed 

it with general counsel to I think answer all those questions. I 

think with respect to applying a bond, performance bond, that is 

something, to lock in the bidders, that is something we cannot do 

to look under the statutory language. But there are other things as 

well that I think we would have problems, but we would need to 

review that from a legal perspective I think to answer that question adequately for you. But I think some of the fundamental features would require statutory change. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, and I do have one additional 

question for you, Mr. Wilson. You mentioned the GAO and a recent 

report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that alVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 12, 2013 Jkt 077561 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A561.XXX A561

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
14 

though the first year of the competitive bidding program, Round 

One bidding process was completed, it is too soon to determine its 

full affect on Medicare beneficiaries and DME suppliers. 

GAO also found also that the first—within the first 6 months of 

2011 patient utilization of some competitively bid products declined 

in some areas. Do you agree that it is too early to call this program 

a success? You are saying the program works, but isn’t it a little 

early, especially based on what the GAO is saying, and does the 

decline in patient utilization mean seniors didn’t have access to the 

care they needed? 

Mr. WILSON. Very good question. The GAO looked at about 6 

months of data, we are working on close to a year and a half 

through our monitoring program. They don’t have that type of monitoring program. We did share that information with them. So I 

think we are very pleased with the success of the program and very 

confident at this point. I think we have to remain vigilant though 

and we have to be open to change. So I am not just comfortable 

sitting back on my laurels and telling the staff not to think about 

where we are making improvements and not to look and see that 

beneficiaries—to be sure that beneficiaries are getting what they 

need. We need to do that. So that is sort of the perspective that 

we come to on this and lots of our programs, it is the reason why 

we invested in some of the monitoring systems. We have the same 

type of monitoring system for the new ESRD system that I work 

on because we want to make sure that end stage renal disease patients are getting the services that they need in light of the fact 

that we have put in a new payment system. 

So I think that is the perspective that we bring to this and I 

apologize, Chairwoman Ellmers. I think you had another part of 

your question and I missed that. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. No, no, you basically answered for me. 

Again you feel at this point that it is successful. I guess the question was do you feel that patients’ access to the durable medical 

equipment in any way is being jeopardized? 

Mr. WILSON. No, no, I do not. We put in place a system to help 

beneficiaries and to help suppliers. So we have a national ombudsman, local ombudsman, we have case workers, we have a contractor call center, we have lots of different resources to help suppliers and help patients when they need something. So that is what 

we have invested in heavily. 

As we move to Round Two in 91 additional areas it is vitally important that we carry forward all those resources an expand them 

to meet the needs of patients. And as far as utilization goes, utilization is not a measure of whether patients have access or are receiving good quality care, it is no secret that there has been overutilization in the Medicare program, particularly in places like 

Miami and a few other places around the country. So when we look 

at utilization data and look at utilization going down, that is an expected result. When we see a significant swing, the reason why we 

monitor that allows us to go in and check. And I will give you just 

a very quick example being respectful of your time. We saw mail 

order diabetic supplies, the volume going way, way down. So we 

went out and we surveyed 200 beneficiaries to see why they were 

no longer ordering. They had ordered before in 2010, they were not 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
15 

ordering supplies in 2011. All of them had many, many months 

supply. I think over 60 percent had over 10 months supply. So we 

saw that there was rampant overutilization under the prior system, 

and that is something that we need to try to correct. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Wilson. I really appreciate your participation today. We will continue to closely monitor this program to ensure that small suppliers are treated fairly. 

You are excused now at this time, thank you. However, I would 

like to ask that you identify the person—is there someone here 

from CMS that will be staying? Great. That will be helpful to sit 

in for the second panel. And if you could just make sure that we 

submit name and title, that would be helpful. So thank you very 

much, Mr. Wilson, for your time. I truly appreciate it. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. I now call the second panel to come forward and be seated at the witness table. 

Thank you to our second panel. We appreciate your testimony. 

I just want to say, just to reiterate the button system. You will 

see the little talk button there. When you are going to give your 

testimony or answer questions you want to just push that button, 

it will shine red. You will have 5 minutes to submit your initial testimony after I introduce you. And we will just try hard to keep to 

that amount of time so we can be respectful to everyone’s time 

today. This is a very, very important Subcommittee hearing and I 

know that you have a lot of information that you would like to 

share with us. Again as far as the system goes you will have 5 minutes. It will be green, when have you 1 minute left it will be yellow 

and then it will turn red. 

I will start off by introducing Dr. Cramton, Ph.D., a professor of 

economics at the University of Maryland. Dr. Cramton has conducted research on auction theory and practice with his main focus 

with design on auctions. He received his bachelor of science and engineering from Cornell University and his Ph.D. in business from 

Stanford University. Welcome, Dr. Cramton, you have 5 minutes 

for your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF PETER CRAMTON, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD; 

TAMMY ZELENKO, PRESIDENT/CEO, ADVACARE HOME SERVICES, BRIDGEVILLE, PA, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH CARE; AND RANDY MIRE, OWNER, 

GEM DRUGS, RESERVE, LA, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF PETER CRAMTON, PH.D. 

Mr. CRAMTON. Thank you very much. 

Today I speak on a matter of great significance to our future, 

Medicare auction reform. Without the effective use of market methods to control costs, Medicare is unsustainable. 

This is why it is essential for Congress to step in and insist that 

CMS replace its fatally flawed action program with an efficient 

auction. 

My testimony is that of an independent auction expert. I have 

spent in excess of 1,000 hours studying the CMS program. My 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
16 

work has involved five main steps: Identify the problems in the 

CMS design, develop an efficient Medicare auction based on best 

practice and science, educate the stakeholders about the problem 

with the CMS design, educate the stakeholders about how the 

problems with the CMS design can be addressed, and convince 

stakeholders that a reformed Medicare auction does indeed work. 

Let me start with a point of consensus. Small businesses are the 

engine of innovation to allow the U.S. economy to grow and prosper. We only need to think of Apple, Google and Microsoft. These 

former small businesses are the true job creators. Indeed, consensus will be a theme in my remarks. There is no disagreement 

among experts about what I will say and the issue is nonpartisan. 

The fatal flaws the CMS auction design were first identified by 

auction experts in September 2010. One hundred sixty-seven distinguished experts sent a letter to congressional committees pointing out the flaws. Congress responded with numerous letters to 

CMS and HHS demanding action but CMS failed to act. As a result 

of this inaction in June 2011, an expanded group of 244 experts, 

including four Nobel laureates, wrote to the White House again 

urging action. I summarize from the letter. The flaws in the action 

administered by CMS are numerous. The use of nonbinding bids together with setting the price equal to the median of the winning 

bid provides a strong incentive for low ball bids. This leads to complete market failure in theory and partial market failure in the lab. 

Another problem is the lack of transparency. Quantities are chosen arbitrarily by CMS, enabling a large range of prices to emerge 

that have no relation to competitive market prices. The CMS competitive bidding program violates basic principles of regulation, especially the principles of transparency and of basing regulations on 

the best available science. Indeed, the current program is the antithesis of science and contradicts all we know about proper market 

design. 

Since the writing of our letter in September, several of us have 

done further detailed scientific study to explore the properties of 

the CMS design and contrast it to modern efficient auctions. 

The findings are dramatic and illustrate the power of science to 

inform auction design. 

Specifically, auction theory was used to demonstrate the poor incentive properties of the CMS design and how these lead to poor 

outcomes. Laboratory experiments were conducted at Cal tech and 

the University of Maryland that demonstrate that these poor theoretical properties are observed in the lab. 

Finally, some of us have studied extensively the Medicare settings, speaking with hundreds of DME providers and beneficiaries, 

and developed a modern auction design for the setting that is consistent with the best practice and market design methodology. 

This design step was far from a theoretical exercise. In April 

2011 a Medicare auction conference was conducted at the University of Maryland to show how the modern auction methods work 

and how to conduct a nearly full scale demonstration of an efficient 

auction. Over 100 leaders in government and the DME industry attended the event. The mock auction achieved an efficiency of 97 

percent. In sharp contrast the CMS auction exhibited efficiencies 

well below 50 percent in the laboratory. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
17 

The complete lack of transparency is inappropriate for a government auction. We know now that CMS also had complete discretion 

with respect to setting prices in a nontransparent way. It is now 

clear that the CMS design is not an auction at all but an arbitrary 

pricing process. 

Sincerely, 244 auction experts. 

In contrast, the proposed market pricing program is a reformed 

Medicare auction based on best practice and science. MPP addresses each of the flaws identified in the CMS design. Nonbinding bids 

and the median pricing rule are easily fixed. MPP makes bids binding commitments, the median pricing rule replaces the clearing 

price, the price at which supply and demand balance. MPP uses a 

simple and effective auction mechanism, the simultaneous descending clock auction. The auction format has been used for over 10 

years in many industries with great success. Through theory, experiment and practice, MPP has been shown to achieve least cost 

sustainable prices. 

One point on CMS’s assertion that the CMS auction saves 

money: I am reminded of the saying my dad taught me, ‘‘figures 

don’t lie, but liars do figure.’’ The CMS cost savings of $42.8 billion 

is a gross overestimate. The number has no basis in fact. It simply 

scales up an erroneous $202 million number to the entire country 

for each of the next 10 years. 

CMS—— 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Dr. Cramton, I am going to stop you 

there just because we have gone over a little bit, but what we will 

have you do is submit the remainder of your testimony for the 

record, okay? And then we will move on. And I know we have 

many questions for you. So thank you. 

Mr. CRAMTON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. At this time I do—our next panelist is 

Ms. Zelenko, and actually Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania is 

going to introduce her. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairwoman. It really is an honor to 

introduce our next witness, Tammy Zelenko. Tammy, Ms. Zelenko, 

is the president and CEO of Advacare Home Services in 

Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. She purchased Advacare in 1999 when 

it had 10 employees and 1 location, and today it has 47 employees 

and 4 locations. And she is testifying on behalf of the American Association for Homecare. 

Welcome, Ms. Zelenko, and thank you, Chairwoman. 

STATEMENT OF TAMMY ZELENKO 

Ms. ZELENKO. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tammy 

Zelenko, and I am president and CEO of Advacare Home Services, 

and we serve about 2,000 patients with 4 locations. 

Advacare specializes in respiratory care, which means we serve 

patients with COPD and other lung diseases, along with frail seniors who need help in order to live safely in their homes. 

You may also know us as durable medical equipment providers, 

or DME. DME is an essential and extremely cost-effective component of our Nation’s continuum of care. For a few dollars per day, 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
18 

home-care providers like me enable patients to be discharged from 

hospitals to home. We help control the Nation’s healthcare costs by 

providing the equipment and services. We allow Medicare to reap 

savings by preventing hospital and ER visits and reducing exceptionally high, expensive institutional care. 

DME represents about 1.4 percent of the annual Medicare budget; however, falling payment rates and sharply rising regulatory 

burdens make it extremely difficult to continue to provide quality 

services without compromising care. 

As a member of the American Association for Homecare and the 

Pennsylvania Association of Medical Suppliers, I am very, very 

grateful that you held this meeting. The poor designed bidding program has needlessly harmed hundreds of small providers like me 

and has eliminated 85 percent of providers from participating in 

the program in the nine areas included in round one. How can we 

truly have a competitive program if the program is designed to 

eliminate competitors? 

As the bidding program now expands to another 91 areas 

throughout the United States, small providers face severe cuts and 

arbitrary exclusion from the Medicare participation. There is no 

doubt thousands of good providers will be driven out of business as 

a result of this expansion. 

As you alluded to, 10,000 baby-boomers turning 65 every day, 

need for cost-effective home care is growing. Unfortunately this bidding program is destroying the infrastructure to help supply that 

demand. In spite of the rhetoric from Medicare about the set-asides 

for small businesses, let us be clear: This bidding program is antismall business. It is a business and job killer. 

We do not oppose market-based pricing or a well-thought-out 

auction system. In fact, we endorse an alternative system developed by auction experts who design bidding systems for a living. 

We are often the eyes and ears of the elderly living in their homes. 

We create a customized care plan based on physician orders and 

patient-specific goals, and we communicate critical information to 

the physician. This is what enables patients with acute care or 

chronic needs to remain in their homes, safe and independent. 

However, there are costs to providing this level of care. 

These are not simple commodities we are providing. As a business owner, I have always been able to compete against the local, 

regional and national providers within my market. Each year I 

gain market share, grow my business and receive recognition due 

to the outstanding service that my company provided. But all of 

that changed overnight when I lost the Medicare bid. 

The bidding program for me and thousands of providers like me 

has created the biggest barrier to my company’s survival. The government should not ration benefits or otherwise bar qualified providers from serving Medicare beneficiaries. 

As I prepared for the bidding program, I made my business as 

lean and as efficient as possible. I invested in electronic medical 

records, purchased GPS tracking devices, and invested in a new 

billing system. And I really believed that that would save me and 

that that would prepare us for the bidding program. I was wrong. 

This is the first year that I did not grow my company, the first 

time that I had to pass on all of the healthcare premium increases 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
19 

to my employees, and the first time that I had to limit reimbursement for continuing education, and the first time I had to give 

away my Medicare patients. 

Before the bidding program began, my company competed based 

on the level of service we provided through education, clinical assessment and follow-up. But now, because of the severe design 

faults, this bidding system has eliminated my opportunity to compete in my communities where I have invested in physical locations, inventory, vehicles, and highly-trained staff. 

In closing, more than 200 economists and auction experts have 

warned CMS that the current bidding program will fail if significant modifications aren’t made. These experts designed an alternative program called the Market Pricing Program. It achieves sustainability, market-based pricing; it preserves access to quality 

care; and it gives small providers like me a fighting chance for survival. Please give us this chance by enacting the market pricing. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. 

Zelenko. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. At this time we will be introducing our 

last panelist Mr. Mire, and my colleague Mr. Richmond will do 

that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chairwoman, it is my pleasure to introduce our next witness, Randy Mire, the owner of Gem Drugs located in my district, actually two locations. Gem Drugs has been 

in business for over 35 years and offers a wide range of medical 

services to the community. 

Just this year Mr. Mire was awarded the Small Business of the 

Year Award from the River Region Chamber of Commerce. He is 

testifying today on behalf of the National Community Pharmacists 

Association, which represents pharmacists, owners, managers, and 

employees of more than 23,000 independent community pharmacies 

across the country, and he has just survived Hurricane Isaac, so I 

am glad to have you here today. 

Welcome, Mr. Mire, Ms. Zelenko, and Dr. Cramton. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY MIRE 

Mr. MIRE. Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing on Medicare’s competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment. I would also like to take this 

opportunity to thank Chairwoman Ellmers for her cosponsorship of 

H.R. 1936, the Medicare Access to Diabetes Supply Act. 

I am honored to be here to discuss my experience as a small 

business community pharmacy owner and what impact competitive 

bidding would have on my business as well as access to care for 

the patients that I serve. My name is Randy Mire, and I own Gem 

Drugs in Reserve and Gramercy, Louisiana. I attended Tulane University, where I was a commissioned officer in the Army; also Loyola University, where I received a bachelor’s of science degree and 

a doctor of pharmacy degree from Xavier University College of 

Pharmacy. 

With over 25 million people, or 8.3 percent of the population of 

the United States, suffering from diabetes, this is a national issue. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
20 

In my State of Louisiana, over 10.3 percent of the population have 

been diagnosed with diabetes, which is far above the national average. The patients I serve are mostly minority populations that are 

indigent, with limited mobility. On a daily basis I witness patients 

who do not receive their DME supplies through the mail on time 

and need a short supply from me to get through. And I have seen 

firsthand this problem with the recent flooding in Louisiana. 

My patients turn to me and my pharmacies to provide them with 

the DME supplies that they desperately need when they have nowhere else to turn with their mail-order supplies. With countless 

hoops that the community pharmacies must already undergo to 

provide DME, I do not provide these supplies solely for profit. Obtaining DME accreditation, possessing a surety bond, complying 

with the burdensome documentation requirements, and receiving 

much slower-than-normal payments are all in order for me to provide a spectrum of care to all of my patients. 

I am honored to spend time with my patients in face-to-face 

counseling, monitoring their adherence, decreasing overutilization, 

and making certain that they know how to use the products properly. 

My pharmacies, like all community pharmacies, play an essential 

role in providing and improving healthcare outcomes, while decreasing long-term healthcare costs. If community pharmacists are 

not exempt from the competitive bidding program—and I repeat, if 

community pharmacies are not exempt from the competitive bidding program—and are forced to undergo drastic cuts in reimbursement for DME, many of these pharmacies like myself will have no 

choice but to stop providing these services to patients. Whether 

these drastic cuts are seen from subjecting all retail pharmacies to 

competitive bidding or competitive bidding pricing for diabetic testing supplies by 2016 by CMS’ inherent reasonableness authority, 

community pharmacies cannot continue to provide access to these 

essential supplies while undergoing such drastic cuts. 

If I were to cease providing these services in the areas that my 

pharmacies serve, it is bad enough that the patients would have to 

go 5 to 10 miles to obtain their diabetic testing strips from a large 

chain pharmacy, but it could be—and this is so very important for 

everyone to realize—it could be over 50 miles to obtain other DME 

supplies such as wheelchairs. And as I stated earlier, mail order 

is not a viable option for beneficiaries in these areas. 

This is not just an issue of convenience. This is about providing 

reasonable access to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries do not access 

their Part B supplies, this decreases adherence, decreases the quality of care beneficiaries receive, and drives up the overall 

healthcare costs. 

In order to preserve this access to care I would strongly urge all 

members of the subcommittee to follow the lead of Chairwoman 

Ellmers and cosponsor H.R. 1936, the Medicare Access to Diabetes 

Supply Act. H.R. 1936 has bipartisan support and was introduced 

by Representatives Schock and Welch. The bill would exempt small 

pharmacies from competitive bidding and preserve patient access to 

diabetes supplies. This legislation will protect patients, keep the 

importance of face-to-face interactions with their independent pharmacist for effective diabetes monitoring, and ensure that all beneVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 12, 2013 Jkt 077561 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A561.XXX A561

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
21 

ficiaries have immediate access to the specific diabetic testing supplies that they need. 

My pharmacy is one of very few pharmacies still in the area that 

provides essential DME supplies to patients. To me, this is more 

than just a prescription. I provide DME supplies in order to make 

certain that beneficiaries have access to the supplies that they 

need. If I were to decide not to offer these DME supplies because 

the burden of offering such supplies has become too high and costs 

too much, then these beneficiaries would have nowhere else to turn 

to receive the face-to-face consultations and quality supplies that I 

provide to them and that they deserve. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today to speak, and I look 

forward to any questions that members of the subcommittee may 

have. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. At this time we will start our questioning. Dr. Cramton, I will start with you. And, Mr. Mire, I think 

I mispronounced your name initially, so I apologize, and I will try 

not to do that again. 

Dr. Cramton, in your expert opinion, what are the fundamental 

issues you see with the competitive bidding program as it pertains 

to the—and I am going to just say it, and you can correct me if I 

am wrong—the DMEPOS. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Correct. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay—as established by CMS, and do 

other experts agree with you? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, let us look at the basic principles of an auction. The basic principles of a government auction like this are efficiency, transparency, simplicity, and fairness. The CMS auction 

gets a letter grade of F on each dimension. This is not good. And, 

in fact, all experts agree with me, and, in fact, that was the point 

of the letters from originally 167 and then 244, including 4 Nobel 

laureates. 

So there is unanimous consent on this, and, in fact, I have been 

working on this for 2 years. I have talked to people around the 

world, and, indeed, I have never heard anybody disagree with the 

remarks that I presented today and that are presented in my written testimony before you. 

So the two biggest problems are the nonbinding bids and the median pricing rule. Those combine to create a perfect storm effectively. When thinking about how to bid in the auction, I often advise bidders in high-stake auctions in various industries, and so I 

often will think like a bidder. And I am asked to figure out what 

a good strategy would be in this auction. 

Well, in this auction the first thing to note is you don’t have to 

think about your costs at all when submitting bids. The bid is simply you are able to get an option to say yea or nay to the price that 

is offered subsequent to the bid. There is very little chance that 

your bid is going to impact the price, and so your incentive is to 

bid the smallest number that you can get away with. So this is why 

the first go-round in November 2008, the original round one, Congress had to step in days after the auction and cancel the auction 

because the bids were crazy. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
22 

So, the response to that was to introduce this concept of the bona 

fide bid, which is effectively a floor on how low you can bid. It is 

quite clear to any expert and, I suspect, anybody here that when 

you are doing a procurement auction, and the idea is to get the 

lowest competitive price, if the auction needs to have a floor, that 

is sort of strange. In fact, it is very common for procurement auctions to have ceilings in order to protect in the event of insufficient 

competition. But floors are exceptionally unusual, and it is an artifact of this extremely poor design. 

In the words of Mr. Wilson, he said, quote, ‘‘This is not an auction.’’ This is one thing I completely agree with Mr. Wilson about, 

it is not an auction, and that is a very damning critique for the following reason: In 2003, Congress passed legislation that required 

that CMS conduct a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment. Competitive bids and auction are the exact same 

thing. So he is saying that CMS is not abiding by the law, and I 

would agree with him on that point. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Dr. Cramton. 

Ms. Zelenko, what do you consider to be—and you were very detailed in your testimony as well, so I am basically going to be asking you to reiterate—but what would you consider to be the most 

troubling problems with the current competitive bidding program? 

Ms. ZELENKO. It is the nonbinding bids. It is absolutely to allow 

providers to come in and bid the lowest that they can bid without 

being responsible for that bid or that care is probably the most 

damaging of the program. 

The lack of transparency of the winning bids is another area. We 

have asked for transparency to find out how they determined the 

bid, and the median price is—and not allowing that price to increase when providers chose not to take the contracts. I was a provider that chose not to take a walker contract, so I was in that 8 

percent, and I can tell you the reason why is because the price was 

too low. I could not provide that service at that price. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. And just briefly, it sounded to me from 

your testimony that you are in favor of the market pricing plan. Is 

that—— 

Ms. ZELENKO. It eliminates the problems that we have discussed 

with the current bidding program. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. And so something, a solution like that 

would be something you would support? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Yes, it is. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay. Mr. Mire, what impact has the 

DME competitive bidding been on your pharmacy as a business 

owner? 

Mr. MIRE. Yes, ma’am. We service many patients, and I have patients that come in that are not just your diabetic patients, but if 

we were just to talk about a diabetic patient, sometimes they experience amputees, and they need wheelchairs, walkers, so forth, 

rollators to help with that situation. For us to have to tell them 

that they have to go 50 miles because someone won a bid 50 miles 

away, it is just not practical for them, and they are not going to 

be compliant. They do not get the training on the equipment if they 

were to find a family member or someone that could bring them 

there. Transportation is a major issue. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
23 

So there are a lot of problems that the patients are experiencing. 

Accessibility would be a major one; adherence, and being compliant 

to know how to use the equipment, because they are not going to 

be able to go 50 miles away coming from a rural area to get the 

proper training and everything as discussed, and a lot of times they 

just give up on it. They may decide to just stay bedridden and so 

forth, and they begin to get more issues, bedsores, etc. And they 

miss that one-on-one counseling that a healthcare professional can 

give them, as opposed to just a delivery driver or someone showing 

up 50 miles away, if they do have delivery services, to bring them 

this equipment. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. You bring up an excellent point. As a 

nurse, I know. These are patients who have multiple problems, and 

when we are being so shortsighted on how they are able to obtain 

the equipment that they need, you know, we are not considering 

that, and I think that is one of the big flaws. So thank you. 

At this time I would like to yield to Mr. Richmond for any of his 

questions. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I will start with Mr. Mire. You basically answered the first one, which is the award to companies with no connection or location in close proximity to the community, and the effect it has especially on our large diabetic population in New Orleans. Let me ask you this one: According to Mr. Wilson, in response 

to complaints from suppliers having difficulty navigating the process, CMS launched a new bidder education program. Since you are 

going through it now, have you had any interaction with that program? Is it helpful? 

Mr. MIRE. Actually, sir, there was no one to even point out the 

program. Nobody from CMS ever contacted us. I speak for many 

pharmacies that participate in this. There was no knowledge or 

education of the program that was even out there for people to 

maybe come together and bid as a group, or even an educational 

program that would help you just as an individual pharmacy. 

There was no knowledge that any of us were privy to until I found 

that out today. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And, Ms. Zelenko, your first round did not go as 

you would want it and as we would want it. If you had that program or access to that education program, do you think it would 

have helped? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Well, actually, I won the oxygen bid in the round 

one, and it was at a price that I felt that was sustainable. Unfortunately, when we had to go through round 1.2, I did not win. 

The education comes from our national and State associations, 

and not through the government. So we had many opportunities to 

learn, but it was not through the government, and when we did 

have the government, they weren’t able to answer our questions 

and asked us to submit them, and they would get back to us. So 

all of the education that we had was through our own industry. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Professor—Dr. Cramton, not about the market 

approach, this is something that just strikes me kind of out there, 

and I would be interested in your economic assessment of it. The 

competitive bidding program does not allow for adjustment of bids 

for economic factors. And I believe that you are locked in for 3 

years, and considering the volatility of energy costs, gas prices, you 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
24 

name it, how could you create an adjustment structure without 

completely reopening bids, or can you do that? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, the way to do it is to have a proper auction, 

and, in fact, the reason that we are having an auction is because 

CMS doesn’t know what the right price is. They want to identify 

the least cost-competitive, sustainable price, and an efficient auction does exactly that. And so the MPP actually occurs every year 

and uses simple econometric models to establish the price in 

those—on those products or regions that are not competitively bid 

that year. But all products and regions are competitively bid over 

time, so it is much more fluid pricing that is consistent with the 

dynamics that we see in our economy. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And I guess this question could be either for Ms. 

Zelenko or Dr. Cramton. When price becomes the primary factor for 

determining a Medicare contract, suppliers must feel tremendous 

pressure to eliminate high-quality products. Is that pressure real, 

or do you see it in terms of the quality of care, the quality of the 

products that are out there? 

Mr. CRAMTON. If I may, this is a very common problem in the 

procurement setting, and this is a procurement setting. The government is procuring on the behalf of beneficiaries durable medical 

equipment. The problem is called ‘‘the race to the bottom.’’ And if 

the auction is not well designed, that is, if there is not proper qualification, proper deposits, proper bid bonds, proper performance 

bonds, there will certainly be a race to the bottom. This is observed 

again and again in government procurements throughout the 

world. 

The way it is avoided is with a properly designed auction that 

elicits the competitive price. That is done by eliciting the true costs 

from the providers. The current system does not elicit the true 

costs from the providers. Mr. Wilson stated that in his response, 

and I quote, ‘‘The winners rejected or accepted not based on their 

bid.’’ 

That is, the consideration was just what Ms. Zelenko said. The 

consideration in accepting or rejecting was whether she thought 

she could provide the goods and services at the price. Okay? So it 

has nothing to do with her bid. And in a competitive, efficient auction, the trick of making an efficient auction is to elicit the bidder’s 

true costs, and then, in fact, the acceptance or rejection would be 

based upon the bid. And that is exactly what an efficient auction 

does when it identifies the clearing price. Those that bid below the 

clearing price are accepted; those that bid above are rejected. 

Ms. ZELENKO. And I think it is important that we understand 

when we talk about true costs, it is not the cost of the equipment. 

The cost of the equipment is a fraction of what our costs are. Our 

costs are in the service sector of what the services we provide. It 

is the education for our staff. It is the respiratory therapist, and 

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of teaching and 

training to go out to that beneficiary’s home. We have all of the 

regulatory agencies that we need to adhere to, joint commission accreditation. 

These are all costs, and every day we are faced with those costs. 

And not to mention, we cannot pass on any of those costs. We absorb every single one of those costs. When we look at the fuel—I 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
25 

mean, I still have to give raises to my staff or I can’t keep my staff. 

I have to be able to compete in my own marketplace. 

So the misconception that our costs—that we are paid too much 

because of what the equipment costs is a misconception. It is not 

about our equipment. We are a service industry. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you for those responses. 

And now I will turn to my colleague Mr. King for his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the witnesses. 

First, Ms. Zelenko, I would ask you if you could take us through 

the walker bid, I think you referred to it as. And a series of questions come to mind for me and the narrative I think could be helpful. How many bidders were there? Where did you fit in that rank 

order? How did it turn out that you were the successful bidder, but 

on 2.1, I think you said, you were—you had to turn it down because they offered you something below your costs. Could you explain how that went; just go through that process so that I can fit 

in my mind’s eye. 

Ms. ZELENKO. Well, initially we went into round one, and obviously I put in an enormous amount of time, my staff put in an 

enormous amount of time to really look at what our true costs are. 

We based it off of activity-based costing, which is—you know, pulls 

in all of your costs from intake to delivery, to assessment, and determined the price that I felt that I could continue to provide quality services. And I am a for-profit. The risk is there. It is all here 

on my shoulders to make sure that I can take care of payroll and 

everything else that comes along with that. So it was a very informed and realistic price. 

When round two came out, or—— 

Mr. KING. Where did you fit in the rank order? How many bidders and generally how big of dollars are we talking about? 

Ms. ZELENKO. I will need to get back to you on that, and I can 

put it in writing. 

Mr. KING. The number of bidders, don’t you have a kind of range 

so we have got a concept to work with today? 

Mr. CRAMTON. No data. The data is not available. 

Ms. ZELENKO. That is part of it. 

Mr. KING. That is part of the problem? You don’t know who you 

are bidding against, but you were successful because they selected 

you as the median bidder, but you don’t know the median of what 

the range were? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Correct. 

Mr. KING. You don’t know how many suicide bids were out there. 

He says that there aren’t suicide bids, but the data shows there are 

at least 8 percent that are, and it could be a lot more than that. 

And I don’t know that I would qualify you, under this scenario, as 

a suicide bidder under this scenario that we are talking about. 

That is people at the bottom that puts you in the median. 

Ms. ZELENKO. Correct. 

Mr. KING. And so for me it is a bizarre bidding process to have 

no transparency. 

What about qualified bidders? Do they only accept bids from 

qualified bidders? You said your accreditation is a piece of this. Is 

that a component as well? 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
26 

Ms. ZELENKO. Yes, it is. 

Mr. KING. You have to be qualified. 

Ms. ZELENKO. You do have to be qualified. 

Mr. KING. This is, to me, and I am trying—I can’t get into this 

world, but I would like to go to Dr. Cramton in the time that clock 

that is now moving against me. Do you believe that CMS has the 

statutory authority to require a bonding process for bid bonds and 

performance bonds? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Absolutely. The government and pretty much 

across the board in all of the proper auctions that I am aware of 

in government, not just the United States, you know, the individual States, around the world, all have protections with respect 

to bid bonds or deposits. In the case—in the case of an auction actually rather than a bid bond, a preferable instrument is a deposit. 

And that is because a deposit can be used because performance 

with respect to a bid is easy. You either sign the contract at the 

end of the auction or not. That is the performance. Then there is 

performance after you sign the contract, and that might be a little 

bit gray. But performance with respect to an auction is black and 

white, and so—— 

Mr. KING. Were you astonished to hear Director Wilson testify 

that they didn’t have the statutory authority to require bonding? 

Mr. CRAMTON. I was astonished, absolutely astonished. When I 

talked with him, he did say that I did talk to them, and when I 

marched in and talked to CMS the first time, they told me the reason that they can’t have binding bids is because they can’t have 

contracts. And that is nonsensical to me. After all, they sign a supply contract. You are a contract supplier. They even use the word, 

and, in fact, you do sign something. 

Ms. ZELENKO. You do. 

Mr. CRAMTON. So they said, well, it can’t be—it has to be voluntary. An auction by its nature is voluntary. Nobody is forced to 

bid, and, in fact, you get to bid what you like. And especially in 

a proper auction you are not constrained by a floor and a ceiling. 

Mr. KING. What about the grandfather clause? I would ask Ms. 

Zelenko. What happens with companies that are grandfathered in? 

Do you see that being in effect 10 years from now, these companies 

that are grandfathered in, or how does that affect the way you do 

your business? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Well, I chose to grandfather in, and one was because I was hoping that we would be able to eliminate the current 

program or repeal and replace it. So I kept my patients that I have 

had. It is hard to say what is going to happen, because the players 

are changing probably as we speak. And, you know, the small providers that were part of that initial round one are no longer going 

to be here. 

Mr. KING. Well, thank you. 

Here is my concluding observation, and that is having started up 

a business from scratch, dealing with large institutionalized companies, I know that they have an ability to sit down with the people 

who write the specifications for the bidding process, and if you are 

a little old company trying to get a toehold, and there are big companies in there that are at the table negotiating how this bidding 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
27 

process goes, that gives a tremendous advantage to the people that 

write the specs. 

And I don’t know who Director Wilson is meeting with from the 

independent companies out there, but the pattern of this is a pattern that I have seen for my entire business life, which spans about 

38 years now. And that pattern is big companies are at the table 

writing the specifications for the bidding process—as bizarre as 

this is, I would suspect that they had a voice in this—and small 

companies are on the outside trying to figure out how to compete 

while they are playing in a set of rules that are written to keep 

their competition out. 

And so I appreciate your testimony. I am completely convinced 

there is a lot more in all of this document that we didn’t get to 

hear today, and I hope the other panelists are able to review this 

and our staff is, and we can come with a real solution to this. 

Thank you, Madam Chair and the witnesses, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. 

And now, Mr. Thompson, did you have any questions? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Zelenko, you talk about true costs. I was curious. Is there— 

among those true costs is there a cost for you in terms of the cost 

of compliance with—specifically with Medicare regulations? Is that 

a part of your cost of doing business? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Oh, absolutely. It is an enormous amount. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, any idea of a percentage? 

Ms. ZELENKO. Well, offhand I can’t give that to you, but I 

can—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is significant. 

Ms. ZELENKO. It is significant. The price of the equipment is 

probably 12 percent of what we do. So that is a very small component of our costs. The costs really come down into the intake, getting prescriptions to and from the physician, and then managing 

that patient. We are managing their care. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right. These gas prices probably don’t help your 

business at all either. 

Ms. ZELENKO. And we cannot pass on any of this. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. 

Dr. Cramton, I don’t know if you are familiar with H.R. 1041. It 

is a bill I have been proud to be a sponsor of, Fairness in Medicare 

Billing Act. There is 172 cosponsors, so there is a strong recognition in Congress that competitive bidding is flawed. 

Now, it is a start to repeal competitive bidding. I think working 

with the industry, there has kind of been a middle ground that has 

been identified that is the Market Pricing Program. Can you explain how the Market Pricing Program would improve the bidding 

process and, frankly, the allocation of DME to Medicare beneficiaries? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Certainly. Well, let me just go back to the four 

principles that I mentioned earlier: efficiency, transparency, simplicity and fairness. With respect to efficiency, what the Market 

Pricing Program is doing is using a very well-established auction 

procedure that has performed extremely well in theory, in the lab, 

and in the field for many decades, and some elements of it for actuVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 12, 2013 Jkt 077561 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A561.XXX A561

smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
28 

ally thousands of years. It is really the fundamental market clearing price where supply and demand balance. 

With respect to transparency, the Market Pricing Program is extremely highly transparent. It is quite responsive, so that rather 

than taking the bids and then waiting 1 year before announcing 

what the prices are and who the winners are, in fact, the prices 

and winners can be identified in less than 1 second. So a dramatic 

improvement. 

Also with respect to transparency, the data would be available, 

and this is very important, and the data would not just be available to the public, but it would be available to the Independent 

Market Monitor. This is an extremely important innovation that 

began actually after the California electricity crisis in 2000–2001. 

Now every electricity market in the United States has an Independent Market Monitor. The market monitor has access to all of 

the data. They are watching the market. They write a detailed annual report about how the market is doing, what can be improved, 

proposals. When they see a problem, they immediately jump on the 

problem and address the problem. So this is an important element 

of transparency and also in fine-tuning the process. 

If one takes a look at the 1-year report that CMS did, which I 

think was released on April 17th of 2012—it is on my Website, it 

is on their Website—you will see a 16-page report that does not address any of the issues that all of the experts agree are extremely 

serious problems with their program. Not one word about any of 

the issues. So it is not a critique, it doesn’t give data, it just makes 

and assertion. 

In contrast, in my written testimony I give a link for the independent market monitoring report of PJM, which is our electricity 

market here, and you will see that there is just a—this is a small 

business. The Independent Market Monitor, it is a company of 25 

full-time employees, an incredibly sophisticated and detailed analysis of the market, the process, everything. It just is night and day. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Director Wilson had talked about that it would 

take 8 years to implement this. Now, I understand from your testimony you implemented a—and I recognize it was a pilot, a mock 

auction through the University of Maryland, so I have to wonder 

if the 8 years, is that the speed of CMS, or—— 

Mr. CRAMTON. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Is it denial with all of the—you know, in public 

policy we—frequently in debate we get wrapped into emotion, you 

know, a lot of emotion. But, you know, I love the fact that there 

is a lot of science that you have brought to this issue, and a lot— 

over 260 colleagues who have weighed in on this. 

How long do you think, in your opinion, would it take to really 

implement an MPP? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, the longest lead time is with respect to the 

regulatory process, but it could be streamlined and accomplished by 

congressional instruction in 8 to 12 months. And I say that with 

a great deal of experience. So not 8 years; 8 months. That is what 

we are talking about if it is done properly, if the experts are engaged. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
29 

With respect to, for example, the system that performs the auction, this can be procured through competitive bid by government, 

as the Federal Government does. So, for example, the FCC routinely involves experts in their design, which has been incredibly 

successful, so successful that this is their design for spectrum auctions. It has been implemented throughout the world. 

So I think that there is no question that if it is mandated by 

Congress, and Congress does give CMS detailed instructions on 

what to do and the timetable for doing it, that, in fact, this can be 

done in—8 to 12 months would be—that would be the fastest, I 

would say. But certainly the—yeah, 8 years is just crazy. 

I would like to say one other thing that was raised, and that is 

who this harms or helps. It has been suggested that this harms 

small businesses. That is absolutely true. This existing program obliterates, will obliterate thousands of small businesses. It already 

obliterated about 4,000 in the round one rebid. But it is also the 

case that this is very bad for big businesses and medium-size businesses. This is bad for all businesses. It is not the case that there 

is some special interest of providers that has been lobbying and rigging the rules in a particular way. In fact, I don’t know of any providers, any providers, small, medium, large, who like the existing 

rules. They are just crazy. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, and thank you so much for 

our panel and your testimony and your answers to our questions. 

It is helping us to get a better grasp of the situation and what we 

need to do to rectify it. 

So at the beginning of this hearing, I said that we were here to 

assess the impact of the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment 

Competitive Bidding Program. Our intent was to understand the 

program’s impact on patients, small business suppliers, and the implications for the program expansion. At this point I would say we 

have gotten great insight into how the program operates and some 

of the struggles it is going through, some of which are very troubling. 

Certainly all of us can agree that lower prices means the patients 

are paying less for the DME products and services they must have. 

These lower prices are something all of us can celebrate; however, 

how those prices are obtained and the methods by which the small 

business suppliers are allowed to participate and compete fairly are 

critical to this program. This hearing began the process, but, going 

forward, we must seek to ensure that this program protects patient 

access to the vital products and care that they need. While I 

strongly believe in the competitive forces of the private market, the 

process by which the competition is conducted must be fair and 

truly competitive. 

I want to thank each of you for your testimony today and helping 

the Subcommittee understand the successes and challenges associated with the round one system, and hope that we have shed light 

on a number of things that should be changed before the program’s 

scheduled expansion next year. 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
30 

I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days 

to submit statements and supporting materials for the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
31 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 71 77561A.001

STATEMENT OF 

LAURF:NC~:P~ WILSON 

DIRECTOR 

CHRONIC CARE POLICY GROUP 

CENTER FOR MEDICARE 

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID S}\:Rjlt~S'!;> 

ON 

il\E~ICARE'S D(JRABLE MEDICAL EQ~i~~Jl!:E~~'BlDDlNG PROGRAM: HOW ARE sMA'tt StJ)~~LIERS~ARING? 

U.S. HOUSi'C()MMit'l'EE ON SMA'LL BIJSINESS 

SU~COMMITTEE ON HEALti~1~'~N~ i~~iINOLOGY 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 
32 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 72 77561A.002

Hearing on Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program: How Are 

Small Suppliers Faring? 

U.S. House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology 

September 11,2012 

Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) to discuss the competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, 

prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS). This important initiative is reducing beneficiary 

out-of-pocket costs and program outlays, while ensuring continued access to high quality 

DMEPOS items and services, establishing Medicare's DMEPOS payments based on competitive 

market pricing, and helping combat supplier fraud. On January 1,2011, CMS launched the first 

phase of the program in nine major metropolitan areas for nine product categories. I am pleased 

to report that in its first year of operation, the DMEPOS competitive bidding program saved the 

Medicare fee-for-service program approximately $202.1 million, and according to CMS's 

Independent Office of the Actuary, the program is projected to save the Medicare Part B Trust 

Fund $25.7 billion between 2013 and 2022, with an additional $17.1 billion in savings for 

beneficiaries during that period.! CMS has worked to ensure that small suppliers remain an 

important part of the DMEPOS program, and I am pleased to report that small suppliers (defined 

as those with annual gross revenues of$3.5 million or less), made up 51 percent of the winning 

suppliers. 

Overview and Program History 

CMS is the largest purchaser of health care in the United States, serving more than 100 million 

Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries. Each year, 

DMEPOS suppliers provide items and services, including power wheelchairs, oxygen 

equipment, walkers and hospital beds, to millions of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2010, before 

competitive bidding took effect, combined expenditures (including beneficiary cost-sharing) 

were approximately $14.3 billion for DMEPOS. About 15.5 million Medicare beneficiaries used 

DMEPOS in 20]0. 

il1lJ,ienlem'atiim Update, April 17, 2012: 
33 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 73 77561A.003

The current Medicare DMEPOS benefit is plagued by an obsolete pricing methodology, grossly 

inflated prices, and a well-documented proliferation of fraudulent practices fueled by these 

inflated prices 2 With the exception of the 9 areas where competitive bidding is now in effect, 

Medicare Part B currently pays for DMEPOS items and services using fee schedule rates for 

covered items. In general, fee schedule rates are calculated per the statute using historical 

supplier charge data from more than 20 years ago that are often much higher than market prices. 

Relying on historical charge data has resulted in Medicare payment rates that are often higher 

than prices charged for identical items and services furnished to non-Medicare customers. 

Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers bear the cost of these inflated fee schedule rates. The 

Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG)3, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), and other independent analysts have repeatedly warned that the 

fee schedule prices paid by Medicare for many DMEPOS items are excessive, as much as three 

or four times the retail prices and amounts paid by commercial insurers or customers who 

purchase these items on their own. These inflated prices in tum increase the amount 

beneficiaries must pay out-of-pocket for these items. 

To provide greater value to the Medicare program, beneficiaries and taxpayers, Congress 

established the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program in the Medicare Prescription 

Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (p.L. 108-173). The program was 

modeled after the successful demonstration projects in Polk County, Florida and San Antonio, 

Texas between 1999 and 2002, which resulted in 20 percent savings for Medicare and 

beneficiaries without any negative impact on access to equipment or quality of care for 

beneficiaries. Under the MMA, the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program was to be phased 

into Medicare so that competition under the program would initially begin in 10 metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs) in 2007. Consistent with the statutory mandate, CMS conducted the 

Round 1 competition in 10 areas and for 10 DMEPOS product categories, and implemented the 

program on July I, 2008, for two weeks. The program's single payment amounts resulted in a 

'Sec Health Care Fraud and Abuse Conlrol Program Annual ReportJor Fiscal Year 2011 for examples ofDME 

related fraud: http://oig.hhs.gov/publicalions/docs/hcfac/hcfacreport20 II.pdf 

3 Sec. for example, Comparison oJPricesfor Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Pumps, OEI-02-07-00660, March 

2009; POlFer H71eelchairs in the Medicare Program: Supplier Acquisition Costs and Serl'ices. OEI-04-07-00400, 

Au!,'Ust 2009: Medicare Home Oxygen Equipment: Cost and Servicing. OEl-09-04-00420. September 2006. 

2 
34 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 74 77561A.004

projected savings of approximately 26 percent compared to the traditional Medicare fee 

schedule. This indicated the potential for substantial savings for Medicare beneficiaries and 

taxpayers upon full scale implementation of the program. 

On July 15,2008, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of2008 (MTPPA) 

(P.L. 110-275) delayed the start of the program. MTPPA terminated the Round 1 contracts that 

were in effect and reinstated fee schedule payment rates, required rebidding of the first round at a 

later date, and imposed a nationwide 9.S percent payment reduction for all Round 1 items in 

2009. MIPP A required competition for Round 2 of the program to be conducted in 2011 in 70 

additional MSAs. In addition to the delay, MIPPA mandated certain changes but maintained the 

competitive bidding program. The Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148 and P.L. 111-152) 

subsequently expanded the number of Round 2 MSAs from 70 to 91 and mandates that all areas 

of the country be subject either to DMEPOS competitive bidding or payment rate adjustments to 

the fee schedule using competitively bid rates by 2016. 

CMS implemented a variety of operational improvements to the program prior to rebidding the 

first round as required by MIPP A. CMS incorporated all of the program improvements required 

by MTPPA, including the "covered document" review process. This process gives bidders who 

submit their proposal by the covered document review date the opportunity to be notified of 

missing financial bid documents and submit the missing documents. In addition, CMS 

implemented a number of other important improvements based on lessons learned from the 2008 

bidding process, feedback from stakeholders, and advice from the Program Advisory and 

Oversight Committee (PAOC). Some examples of these key operational improvements include 

an upgraded bidder education program completed prior to the opening of the bid window; a new 

and improved online bidding system; and enhanced bid evaluation processes such as a 

comprehensive upfront licensing verification process, a more rigorous bona fide bid evaluation 

process to verify the sustainability of very low bids, and increased scrutiny of expansion plans 

for suppliers new to an area or product category. 

3 
35 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 75 77561A.005

Considerations for Small Suppliers 

In developing the competitive bidding program, CMS worked closely with suppliers, 

manufacturers and beneficiaries through a transparent public process. This process included 

many public meetings and forums, the assistance of the PAOC (which included representation 

from the small supplier community), small business and beneficiary focus groups, notice and 

comment rulemaking, and other opportunities to hear the concerns and suggestions of 

stakeholders. As a result, CMS' policies and implementation plan pay close attention to the 

concerns of these constituencies, in particular those of small suppliers. 

During the implementation of this program, CMS adopted numerous strategies to ensure small 

suppliers have the opportunity to be considered for participation in the program. For example: 

CMS worked in close collaboration with the Small Business Administration to develop a 

new, more appropriate definition of "small supplier" for this program. Under this 

definition, a small supplier is a supplier that generates gross revenues of $3.5 million or 

less in annual receipts including Medicare and non-Medicare revenue rather than the 

previous standard of$5 million. We believe that this $3.5 million standard is 

representative of small suppliers that provide DMEPOS to Medicare beneficiaries. 

Further, recognizing that it may be difficult for small suppliers to furnish all the product 

categories under the program, suppliers are not required to submit bids for all product 

categories. The final regulation implementing the program allows small suppliers to join 

together in "networks" in order to meet the requirement to serve the entire competitive 

bidding area. 

In addition, to help ensure that there are multiple suppliers for all items in each 

competitive bidding area (CBA), each bidder's estimated capacity, for purposes of bid 

evaluation only, was limited to 20 percent of the expected beneficiary demand for a 

product category in a CBA. This policy ensures that multiple contract suppliers for each 

product category were selected and that more than enough contract suppliers are selected 

to meet demand for items and services in area. For most areas and product categories, the 

result of this policy will be an increase of the number of contracts awarded by CMS 

beyond the statutory threshold of two contracts per product category per CBA. 

4 
36 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 76 77561A.006

The financial standards and associated information collection that suppliers must adhere 

to as part of the bidding process were crafted in a way that considers small suppliers' 

business practices and constraints. We have limited the number of financial documents 

that a supplier must submit so that the submission of this information will be less 

burdensome for all suppliers, including small suppliers. We believe we have balanced the 

needs of small suppliers and the needs of beneficiaries in requesting documents that will 

provide us with sufficient information to determine the financial soundness of a supplier. 

The regulation also established a 30 percent target for small supplier participation in the 

program. 

Round 1 Rebid 

With improvements and protections in place, CMS implemented the Round 1 Rebid of the 

competitive bidding program in nine MSAs on January 1,2011, covering nine DMEPOS product 

categories. 4

.

5 CMS awarded 1,217 DMEPOS competitive bidding program contracts to 356 

suppliers. All contract suppliers were thoroughly vetted during bid evaluation to ensure that they 

were in good standing with Medicare and met Medicare enrollment rules, quality and financial 

standards, and accreditation and state licensure requirements. CMS also screened and evaluated 

all bids to ensure that they were bona fide and based on real supplier costs. Only qualified 

bidders with bona fide bids were offered contracts. The bid evaluation process ensured that there 

would be more than enough suppliers, including small suppliers, to meet the needs of the 

beneficiaries living in the competitive bidding areas (CBAs). Approximately 51 percent of the 

winning suppliers from the Round 1 Rebid are small suppliers, well exceeding the 30 percent 

goal established by CMS. Ninety-two percent of suppliers that were offered a contract accepted 

the contract terms. 

"' In addition to the larger programmatic changes described above. MIPP A exclnded the Puerto Rico MSA and 

negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices from the Round I Rebid. 

S ROlUld I Rebid product categories arc: O)(ygen Supplies and Equipment; Standard Power Wheelchairs. Scooters, 

and Related Accessories: Complex Rehabilitative Power Wheelchairs and Related Accessories (Group 2); MailOrder Diabetic Supplies: Enteral Nutrients. Equipment, and Supplies: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP). 

Respiratory Assist Devices (RADs). and Related Supplies and Accessories; Hospital Beds and Related Accessories: 

Walkers and Related Accessories: and Support Surfaces (Group 2 mallresses and overlays) in Miami only. 

5 
37 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 77 77561A.007

While only nine MSAs currently participate in competitive bidding, the program is already 

generating significant savings for the Federal government and the approximately 2.3 million 

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries residing in the areas where competitive bidding is in 

effect. According to CMS's analysis of claims from 2010 and 2011,6 the competitive bidding 

program has reduced DMEPOS spending by approximately $202.1 million-or 42 percent 

overall-in the nine Round 1 Rebid areas. The program has significantly reduced payment 

amounts, with an average price reduction of 35 percent from the fee schedule. For example, if 

Medicare suppliers in the nine CBAs had instead been paid the 2011 Medicare fee-schedule 

amounts, Medicare suppliers would have been paid $173.31 per month for stationary oxygen 

equipment (e.g., oxygen concentrators), of which the beneficiary would have paid 20 percent in 

cost-sharing. The supplier would have received $2,079.72 over the course of the year, of which 

the beneficiary would have paid $415.94 in cost-sharing. Under the competitive bidding 

program, the average Medicare allowed monthly payment amount for stationary oxygen 

equipment in the nine competitive bidding areas has been reduced by 33 percent from $173.31 to 

$116.16. Further, a beneficiary's cost-sharing responsibility for stationary oxygen equipment 

rental for a year has been reduced by an average of$137 in the nine areas. 

The Round I Rebid contract period for all product categories except mail-order diabetic supplies 

expires on Dec 31, 2013. CMS is required by law to recompete contracts under the DMEPOS 

Competitive Bidding Program at least once every three years. Earlier this year, CMS announced 

plans to recompete the supplier contracts awarded in the Round I Rebid and conducted a prebidding awareness program to encourage suppliers to prepare for bidding. On August 16, 2012, 

CMS announced the bidding schedule for the Round 1 Recompete and started a comprehensive 

bidder education program. Bidder registration began on August 20, 2012, and the 60-day bid 

window is scheduled to open on October 15, 2012. 

"Medicare fee-for-service claims. Savings derived by comparing 2010 (0 2011 Part B-allowed charges, which 

inclnde progrdm expenditures and beneficialY cost-sharing. Claims for 2011 arc estimated to be 98 percent 

complete. 

6 
38 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 78 77561A.008

Monitoring of Beneficiary Health Statns and Access 

CMS has closely monitored the results of the competitive bidding program since implementation 

to ensure that savings goals of the program have been achieved and more importantly to 

ensure that beneficiary access to appropriate supplies and equipment has not been compromised. 

To ensure effective monitoring, CMS implemented a real-time claims monitOling system which 

analyzes the utilization of the nine product categories. CMS' claims monitoring system was 

designed to pay particular attention to potential changes in key secondary indicators such as 

hospital admissions, emergency room visits, physician visits, and admissions to skilled nursing 

facilities before and after the implementation of the new payment model. To conduct this 

monitoring, the system looks at three comparison groups of beneficiaries over time: I) all 

Medicare beneficiaries living in one of the nine areas compared to beneficiaries living in a 

similar geographic area not yet subject to competitive bidding (e.g., Orlando vs. Tampa); 2) 

beneficiaries most likely to use a particular item living in one of the nine areas compared to 

beneficiaries most likely to use the item in a similar geographic area; and 3) beneficiaries 

actually using an item living in one of the nine areas compared to beneficiaries actually using an 

item living in a similar geographic area. Beneficiaries are considered likely to use a 

competitively bid item based on the presence of particular health conditions (for instance, 

patients with pulmonary disease are monitored for use of oxygen therapy). 

For the tirst year of the program, CMS' real-time claims monitoring and subsequent follow-up 

has indicated that beneficiary access to all necessary and appropriate items and supplies has been 

preserved in the nine CBAs. Moreover, utilization of hospital services, emergency room visits, 

physician visits, and skilled nursing facility care has remained consistent with the patterns and 

trends seen throughout the rest of the country. The results of our claims monitoring are regularly 

posted on the CMS website. 7 

Using the information generated by the real time monitoring, CMS has conducted follow up as 

necessary. For example, CMS' monitoring revealed declines in the use of mail-order diabetes 

test strips and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CP AP) supplies in the CBAs. In response 

Health status monitoring summaries are available at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-ServicePayment/DMEPOSCompetitiveBid/Monitoring.html. 

7 
39 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 79 77561A.009

to these utilization declines, CMS initiated three rounds of outbound phone calls to users of these 

supplies in the nine CBAs, two rounds of calls for users of mail-order diabetes test strips and one 

round of calls to users of CP AP supplies. In each round, CMS staff randomly identified 100 

beneficiaries who used the items before the program began but had no claims for the items in 

2011. The calls revealed that in virtually every case, the beneficiary reported having more than 

enough supplies on hand, often multiple months' worth, which would suggest that beneficiaries 

had historically received excessive replacement supplies before they were medically necessary. 

As a result of this monitoring, CMS concludes that the competitive bidding program may have 

curbed previous inappropriate distlibution of these supplies. 

In addition to careful monitoring of beneficiary health status, CMS is tracking the number of 

inquiries and complaints made to our regional offices, I-800-MEDICARE, and the Medicare 

Competitive Acquisition Ombudsman's Office. During pre-implementation education, CMS 

aggressively marketed the 1-800-MEDICARE call center as a primary information tool for 

beneficiaries. In 2011, CMS received 127,466 beneficiary inquiries regarding the competitive 

bidding program, which represented less than I percent of total call volume at the 1-800-

MEDICARE call center. The vast majority of inquiries were about routine matters such as 

questions about the program or finding a contract supplier. The number of overall beneficiary 

complaints, defined as inquiries that express dissatisfaction with the program and cannot be 

resolved by a call center operator, continues to be minimal. All complaints were assigned to 

program experts for prompt resolution. In the fourth quarter of2011, CMS received complaints 

from only six beneficiaries. This is a minute fraction of the 2.3 million fee-for-service 

beneficiaries residing in the nine CBAs. 

Table I: Beneficiary Complaints by Quarter, 2011 

The small number of beneficiary inquiries and complaints further corroborate the positive results 

shown in the real-time claims monitoring data. 

8 
40 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 80 77561A.010

Round 2 Expansion and National Mail Order Competition 

Building on the success of the Round 1 Rebid, CMS is expanding the competitive bidding 

program to 91 additional areas as required by MIPPA and the Affordable Care Act. The bidding 

process is very similar to the process used successfully in the Round 1 Rebid, with minor 

adjustments. In addition to the items included in the Round 1 Rebid, CMS has expanded the list 

of items bid by combining standard manual wheelchairs, standard power wheelchairs, and 

scooters to form a new expanded standard mobility device product category; expanding bidding 

for support surfaces throughout all Round 2 areas; and adding negative pressure wound therapy 

pumps and related supplies and accessories as an additional product category. CMS is also 

conducting a national mail-order competition for diabetic testing supplies at the same time as 

Round 2. The national mail-order competition includes all 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The bidding window was 

open from January 30 to March 30,2012. CMS is currently evaluating the bids received and 

expects to announce the payment amounts and begin the contracting process in Fall 2012, with 

an announcement of contract suppliers in Spring 2013. We anticipate that the Round 2 and 

national mail-order program contracts and prices will be implemented in July 2013. 

CMS is continuing to make additional improvements in the bidding process for Round 2, 

focusing on increasing the scrutiny of bids and enhancing the successful bidder education 

program. CMS already used a rigorous bona fide bid review process in Round 1 to protect 

against unrealistic low bids. During the Round 1 Rebid bid evaluation, we found that about 8 

percent of bids were extremely low in comparison to other bids, so we asked these bidders to 

send us invoices and rationales explaining how they could furnish items at the bid price. Bidders 

were able to prove that 67 percent of these comparatively low bids were feasible. We rejected all 

of the bids that were not proven feasible, and we did not offer contracts to these suppliers or 

include the rejected bids in the calculation of single payment amounts. CMS is strengthening 

this rigorous process for Round 2 by focusing more on the highest costs, highest volume items 

and subjecting more bids to additional review beyond the initial screening and evaluation 

process. CMS also improved bidder education materials to emphasize more strongly the need to 

submit bids that include the cost for the supplier to buy the item, overhead, and profit. 

9 
41 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 81 77561A.011

To help the large number of suppliers in these MSAs understand the process, CMS launched a 

bidder education program in November 2011. This program was designed to ensure that all 

DMEPOS suppliers, including small suppliers, interested in bidding received the information and 

assistance they needed to submit complete bids in a timely manner. Comprehensive information 

on an array of topics, including bidding rules, user guides, policy fact sheets, checklists and 

bidding information charts, was made available at http://www.dmecompetitivebid.com. The 

educational materials explained the small supplier protections provided by the program. Bidders 

could also call a toll free help desk with expanded hours with any questions about the bidding 

process. The bidder education program featured numerous enhancements such as improved 

Request for Bids instructions, updated fact sheets, and a series of educational webcasts. The 

webcasts were posted online and could be accessed 24 hours a day to ensure maximum 

opportunities for suppliers to review them. 

CMS recognizes that the success of Round 2 will require significant efforts to educate 

beneficiaries, beneficiary partners, providers, stakeholders and contract suppliers about the 

program and, accordingly, is preparing to scale up the successful education and outreach efforts 

used in Round 1. The primary goal of this education campaign will be to keep beneficiaries, 

caregivers, referral agents (e.g., hospital discharge planners and physicians), and other 

stakeholders infonned about the program and how it affects them. Outreach to beneficiaries will 

include fact sheets, brochures and booklets, Frequently Asked Questions and other postings on 

medicare.gov, newsletters, an update to the annual Medicare & YOll Handbook, emails, and 

letters. In addition, our I-SOO-MEDICARE customer service representatives and direct service 

caseworkers are being trained and educated so they are better able to assist beneficiaries who 

may come to them with questions about the program. 

CMS will deploy our central and regional office staff, along with local ombudsmen to work with 

providers of health care services, established networks of providers, and beneficiary advocacy 

organization partners to keep beneficiaries informed. Outreach to physicians, social workers, 

referral agents, discharge planners and others will be delivered through the various listservs, and 

through the Medicare Learning Network (MLN), via MLN Matters articles, fact sheets, 

brochures, and national provider calls. Educational materials for medical professionals will be 

available on the cms.gov website and are also communicated through national and State/local 

10 
42 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 82 77561A.012

provider associations covering all provider types, as well as through the Medicare fee-for-service 

contractors via their web sites, listservs, bulletins and educational seminars. eMS plans to begin 

Round 2 outreach activities in the coming months, working first to make beneficiaries and 

stakeholders aware of the program and its benefits, while allaying potential concerns or 

confusion. 

Conclusion 

The DMEPOS competitive bidding program is saving money for Medicare and beneficiaries, 

while continuing to provide access to high quality supplies to those who need them. Over a year 

into the program, eMS has demonstrated that the program has had no negative impacts to the 

health of our beneficiaries and has curbed inappropriate use of certain items. As we seek ways to 

strengthen and preserve Medicare, DMEPOS competitive bidding serves as part of the solution, 

generating significant long-term savings to the Medicare Part B Trust Fund. 

eMS looks forward to building on this success with the implementation of Round 2 of the 

program and will strive for continual improvement as it expands to serve more beneficiaries. 

Throughout the implementation process, eMS has appreciated the interest and feedback of 

Members of this Subcommittee and your constituents as we strive to make the program as 

effective as possible for the suppliers and beneficiaries in your districts. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you on this important initiative. 

11 
43 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 83 77561A.013

Medicare Auction Reform 

Prepared Testimony of Peter Cramton 1 

Professor of Economics, University of Maryland 

Chairman, Market Design Inc. 

Before the Subcommittee on Health care and Technology 

United States House Committee on Small Business 

11 September 2012 

Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, and members of the House Committee on Small 

Business, I am honored to appear before you today and have this opportunity to speak to such a critical 

committee on a matter of great significance to our future: Medicare auction reform. Without the 

effective use of market methods to control costs and encourage efficient supply and demand, Medicare 

is unsustainable. This is why it is essential for Congress to step in and insist that the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)' replace its fatally-flawed competitive bidding program for 

Durable Medical Equipment with a modern auction based on best-practice and science (see Market 

Pricing Program Summary 2012). CMS has had ten years to adopt a sensible auction, but has refused to 

do so. Congress must give CMS more specific instructions. 

My testimony is that of an independent auction expert who has spent well in excess of 1,000 hours 

studying the CMS DME competitive bidding program. All of this work-with the exception of my first few 

hours of study-was unpaid. Further, although I often provide auction services to governments, I am not 

seeking nor do I desire to provide such services to CMS. 

My work has involved five main steps: 

Identify the problems in the CMS design. This was the easiest step, since the main flaws are 

obvious. (See Ayres and Cramton 2010, Cramton and Katzman 2010, 2011c, and letter from 167 

Experts, Cramton 2011e, Cramton 2012) 

Develop an efficient Medicare auction based on best-practice and science. This step drew on my 

considerable experience and skills designing and implementing complex auctions markets for 

many related products. The step included hundreds of hours of working with providers, 

1 My specialty is the design of complex auction markets. Since 1993, I have contributed extensively to the 

development of innovative auctions in many countries and industries, I have advised nineteen governments on 

major auctions, including the United States. I am currently advising the governments of the United Kingdom, 

Canada, and Australia on the design and implementation of major auctions in telecommunications, electricity, and 

timber. I frequently advise bidders in major auctions around the world. I have written over fifty practical papers on 

auctions and market design published in peer-reviewed journals. This research is available at 

www.cramton.umd.edu and citations of my work are available here. I thank the Honorable Nancy Johnson, the 

twenty-four-year Congresswoman from the great state of Connecticut. She first introduced me to the Medicare 

auction problem and has been unfailing in her wisdom and encouragement throughout this difficult ordeal. 

2 Throughout I will refer to those responsible for the CMS competitive bidding program simply as CMS. I do so with 

apologies to the many staff at CMS who are worthy of praise and not critique. I am well aware that CMS has many 

outstanding public servants like any large government organization. 

1 
44 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 84 77561A.014

beneficiaries, and government leaders to understand well the market for durable medical 

equipment. (See Cramton 2011a) 

Educate the stakeholders about the problems with the CMS design. The participants and 

government leaders quickly understood the problems of the CMS design. CMS has thus far failed 

to respond. (See Cramton 2010a,b,c, Cramton 2011b,c,e,f, Cramton 2012, Cramton, Ellermeyer, 

and Katzman 2012) 

Educate the stakeholders about how the problems with the CMS design can be addressed. The 

result is a market that identifies the least-cost sustainable prices and the efficient suppliers who 

can provide quality goods and services at those prices. Again the participants quickly understood 

the benefits of the proposed design, but CMS has thus far failed to respond. (See Cramton 

2011b and Cramton 2011f) 

Convince stakeholders that a reformed Medicare auction does indeed work. This step required a 

great deal of work, especially to convince providers that fixing the flawed CMS design is 

preferable to a repeal of the legislation that mandates auctions for DME.3 A key event in this 

step was the April 2011 Medicare Auction Conference held at the University of Maryland. The 

event brought over 100 stakeholders from government leaders to providers to beneficiaries to 

experts together to discuss the flaws in the current program and develop an alternative based 

on best-practice. The event included a nearly full-scale mock auction in which fifty bidding 

teams competed to supply 56 products. The mock auction was conducted using a state-of-art 

auction platform customized for the Medicare setting. The auction realized 97% of the potential 

gains from trade. In sharp contrast, the CMS auction realized less than 50% of the potential 

gains from trade in experimental laboratories at the Caltech and the University of Maryland 

despite a much simpler economic environment (Merlob, Plott, and Zhang 2012 and Plott 2012). 

(See Cramton 2011b, Cramton 201lf, Cramton, Gall, and Sujarittanonta 2011, Letter from 244 

Experts, and Medicare Auction Conference 2011) 

Let me start with a point of consensus: Small businesses are the engines of innovation that allow the US 

economy to grow and prosper. We only need to think of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. All started as 

small businesses-one or two youths in a garage or a university cubical. These tiny businesses without 

capital, but with vision, are the true job creators. 

Indeed consensus will be a theme of my remarks. There is no disagreement among experts about what I 

will say and the issue is non-partisan. I have spent two years working hard on this issue-talking and 

sharing with experts, government leaders, Congressional staff, providers, beneficiaries, Democrats, and 

Republicans-I have yet to hear a serious logical criticism to the arguments made here. CMS stands 

alone in arguing that their competitive bidding program should not be changed-yet CMS has to date 

failed to present any rational argument for the status quo. 

3 Indeed strong evidence that I was not and am not a "hired gun" for the provider special interest is that I 

advocated for many months a position that the providers did not endorse: Medicare auction reform, rather than 

the repeal of the DME competitive bidding legislation. Providers only recently (I believe about December 2011) 

began to support auction reform. 

2 
45 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 85 77561A.015

The fatal flaws in the CMS auction design were first identified by auction experts in September 2010. 

The auction community-167 distinguished economists, computer scientists, and engineers engaged in 

auction and market design-sent a letter to many Congressional committees pointing out the flaws and 

urging action. Congressional offices responded with numerous letters to CMS and HHS demanding 

action, but CMS failed to act. As a result of this inaction in June 2011, and expanded group of 244 

auction experts including four Nobel laureates wrote to the White House again urging auction. Since the 

letter articulates well the CMS design flaws and a path forward I quote it directly: 

We are economists, computer scientists and engineers with expertise in the theory and 

practice of auctions.4 In September 2010, many of us signed a letter to Congressional leaders 

pointing out the numerous fatal flaws in the current Medicare competitive bidding program 

for durable medical equipment (DME). We also emphasized that the flaws could easily be fixed 

by adopting modern auction methods that have been developed over the last fifteen years and 

are now well-understood. 

The flaws in the auctions administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) are numerous. The use of non-binding bids together with setting the price equal to the 

median of the winning bids provides a strong incentive for low-ball bids-submitting bids 

dramatically below actual cost. This leads to complete market failure in theory and partial 

market failure in the lab. Another problem is the lack of transparency. For example, bidder 

quantities are chosen arbitrarily by CMS, enabling a wide range of prices to emerge that have 

no relation to competitive market prices. 

We write today, nine months later, to report that-much to our dismay-there are to date no 

signs that CMS has responded to the professional opinions of auction experts or taken any 

serious steps to fix the obvious flaws to the competitive bidding program. Rather CMS 

continues to recite the mantra that all is well and that CMS does not plan to make any changes 

to the program as it expands from nine pilots to the entire United StatesS 

We find this especially distressing and unreasonable given your Executive Order of 18 January 

2011 on regulation. In that order, you layout numerous sensible principles of regulation that 

administrative agencies must follow. The CMS competitive bidding program violates all of the 

principles, especially the principles of transparency and of basing regulations on the best 

available science. Indeed, the current program is the antithesis of science and contradicts all 

that is known about proper market design. 

4 The views expressed here are our own and do not represent the views of any organization. None of us 

are paid to provide our views; we provide our independent views as experts who understand the 

advantages and challenges of market methods. For additional information please contact Peter 

Cramton, University of Maryland, pcramton@gmail.com. 

5 For example, "Laurence Wilson, a Medicare official overseeing the bidding process, said his agency is 

'very pleased' with how the nine-city rollout has gone and has no major changes scheduled before the 

new system starts in large cities." (QlliforniaYYatch~ 26 May 2011, Christina Jewett) 

3 
46 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 86 77561A.016

Since the writing of our letter in September, several of us have done further detailed scientific 

study to explore the properties of the CMS design and contrast it to modern efficient auctions. 

The findings are dramatic and illustrate the power of science to inform auction design. 

Specifically, auction theory was used to demonstrate the poor incentive properties of the CMS 

design and how these lead to poor outcomes.6 Laboratory experiments were conducted at 

Caltech and the University of Maryland that demonstrate that these poor theoretical 

properties are observed in the lab. Moreover, simple efficient auctions perform extremely well 

in both theory and in the economic laboratory.7 Finally, some of us have studied extensively 

the Medicare setting, speaking with hundreds of DME providers and beneficiaries, and have 

developed a modern auction design for the setting that is consistent with the best practice and 

market design methodologies: 

This design step was far from a theoretical exercise. On 1 April 2011, a Medicare auction 

conference was conducted at the University of Maryland to show how the modern auction 

methods work and to conduct a nearly full-scale demonstration of an efficient auction. Over 

100 leaders in government and the DME industry attended the event. The results are 

documented at www.cramton.umd.edu/health-care, including a complete video and transcript 

of the event. The mock auction achieved an auction efficiency of 97%.9 In sharp contrast, the 

CMS auction exhibited efficiencies well below 50% in the laboratory, even in simplified 

environments. Despite these sharp results, CMS continues to assert that all is well and that no 

significant changes are required. 

The problems with the CMS auction grow worse upon closer inspection. The complete lack of 

transparency is inappropriate for a government auction. For example, we now know that CMS 

has almost complete discretion with respect to setting prices in a nontransparent way. CMS 

can and did manipulate the quantities reported by bidders during qualification.lO These 

quantities are essential to forming the supply curve, which ultimately sets the price in each 

product-region. To this date we know little about what quantities were used in the price 

6 Cramton, Peter, Sean Ellermeyer, and Brett E. Katzman, "Designed to Fail: The Medicare Auction for 

Durable Medical Equipment," Working Paper, University of Maryland, March 2011. Ip.Qfl 

7 Merlob, Brian, Charles R. Plott, and Yuanjun Zhang, "The CMS Auction: Experimental Studies of a 

Median-Bid Procurement Auction with Non-Binding Bids," Working Paper, California Institute of 

Technology, April2011.l.J:1.Qf.l 

8 Cramton, Peter, "Auction Design for Medicare Durable Medical Equipment," Working Paper, University 

of Maryland, June 2011.l.J:1.Qf.l 

9 Cramton, Peter, Ulrich Gall, and Pacharasut Sujarittanonta, "An Auction for Medicare Durable Medical 

Equipment: Evidence from an Industry Mock Auction," Working Paper, University of Maryland, April 

2011.l.J:1.Qf.l 

10 Tom Bradley, Chief of the Medicare Cost Estimates Unit at the Congressional Budget Office, describes 

this manipulation in his remarks at the Medicare Auction Conference at minute 49:13, "What they did 

was they selected bidders up to the quantity well over the amount needed to clear-to serve the given 

market, and then from that vastly expanded pool, they selected the median. Fundamentally, that's an 

arbitrary number. It's a number that bears no relationship to the market clearing price." l.J:1.Qf.l 

4 
47 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 87 77561A.017

determination. As a result of this lack of transparency, it is now clear that the eMS design is 

not an auction at all but an arbitrary pricing process. 

Given that nine months have passed and given the disregard by eMS of the market design 

recommendations received from recognized experts, we call upon the executive branch to 

direct eMS to proceed otherwise. We also ask that you consider supporting new legislation 

that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct efficient Medicare 

auctions, consistent with the best practice and the best science. 

There is much at stake. Unfunded Medicare expenses are estimated to be in the tens of 

trillions of dollars going forward. Medicare is unsustainable without the introduction of 

innovative market methods and other fundamental reforms. The DME auction program 

represents an important first step, especially since failures in homecare will inevitably lead to 

much more expensive care at the hospital. 

We believe that proper design and implementation of market methods can bring gains to all 

interested parties: Medicare beneficiaries benefit from receiving the quality goods and 

services they need, Medicare providers benefit from being paid sustainable competitive prices 

for the quality goods and services they deliver, taxpayers benefit by paying the least-cost 

sustainable prices for these products, and eMS benefits from the numerous efficiencies that 

result from conducting an effective program, largely free of complaint, fraud, and corruption. 

We believe that government plays an important role in establishing effective market rules. For 

the Medicare auctions, the impediments to reform are not special interests or a lack of 

knowledge, but bureaucratic inertia. This is an important setting and change of the prior 

administration's regulations is required to contain Medicare costs and assure quality services 

for Medicare beneficiaries. We are counting on your leadership to bring effective reform. 

Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. 

Sincerely, [244 auction experts] 

In sharp contrast to the design process followed by eMS, the modern auction design process begins with 

the government staff engaging auction experts via competitive RFP to help them in the auction design. 

Just as you would consult a bridge expert to build a bridge or consult a dermatologist to address a skin 

disease it makes sense to engage auction experts. Missing this initial step was I believe a main source of 

the eMS disaster that still continues after over ten years. 

Once experts are engaged, the market design process involves a number of interrelated steps: 

Use auction theory to inform the basic design 

Use simulation to test the design 

Test critical features of design in experimental lab 

Test design in pilots in the field 

5 
48 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 88 77561A.018

With each step refine the design to better achieve objectives 

CMS failed at all five steps. The only one that was at least partially followed was the conduct of pilots in 

the field. However, CMS neglected to scientifically design the pilots and then examine the results of the 

pilots to refine the design to better achieve its objectives. 

I now summarize the Market Pricing Program (MPP), which is a reformed Medicare auction based on 

best-practice and science. The draft legislation for Market Pricing Program is not being refined and 

should be introduced in the House soon. 

The proposed design addresses each of the flaws identified in the CMS design. 

The most important flaws: non-binding bids and the median pricing rule are easily fixed. First, we make 

bids binding commitments. This is done through rigorous qualification one month before auction. A 

deposit proportional to a bidder's capacity is made before bidding begins. Once the auction concludes 

the bid deposit is returned to losing bidders and transformed in to a performance deposit for winning 

bidders. Again the performance deposit is proportional to a winner's capacity. Second, the median 

pricing rule is replaced with the clearing price rule: the price that each winner is paid is the clearing 

price-the price at which supply and demand balance. More specifically the price is set at the last 

excluded bid, the lowest price that is rejected. In this way, the auction establishes a clearing price for 

each product in each region. 

The MPP uses a simple and effective auction mechanism, the simultaneous descending clock auction 

(Ausubel and Cramton 2004, 2006). The auction format has been used for over ten years in many 

industries with great success and it was the approach used in the mock auction conducted at the 

Maryland Auction Conference in April 2011. The format is a generalization of an English auction, as 

Sotheby's or e8ay would conduct, but the many related products are auctioned together. 

There is one price "clock" for each product category and region. The prices initially are high. For each 

category and region and its associated price, the bidder says "in" or "out." If "out" the bidder provides 

an exit bid indicating the price the bidder wishes to drop out of the category. Once a bidder drops out of 

a category, the bidder cannot return to the category. This is called the activity rule. It prevents the bidsniping that is often seen on e8ay. 

The auctioneer lowers the price on each category for which there is excess supply. Again the bidders 

respond with "in" or "out." This process continues until supply and demand balance for all product 

categories. 

Importantly, in the MPP, capacities are based on historic supply. This avoids the arbitrary pricing of the 

CMS format in which opaque decisions of CMS determine the prices. 

An incumbent's capacity is its historic supply. Each qualified new provider is assigned a capacity of 1 

block (either y, percent or 1 percent depending on the particular product-region). Winning a particular 

product-region comes with both rights and obligations. Any provider may supply more than its capacity, 

but its capacity is assumed in matching supply and demand and in setting performance obligations. 

6 
49 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 89 77561A.019

Notice that capacities are determined in objective manner. The auction administrator (CMS) has no 

discretion in setting capacity and therefore price. 

In the MPP format auction, competition comes from new entry. Given the relatively low entry costs, 

especially from providers supplying in other regions or other categories, ample new entry can be 

expected at prices above competitive levels. Further the financial guarantees (bid deposits) ensure that 

bidders will exit at prices below competitive levels. 

Winning bidders and prices are determined as follows. As soon as supply falls to 100 blocks or less, the 

clearing price is set at the exit bid of the bidder that caused supply to fall to 100 or less. Each bidder still 

"in" wins its capacity. If supply is less than 100 blocks, the blocks won are scaled up to 100/Supply. 

An important advantage of the MPP approach is that post-auction competition motivates quality. After 

the auction, the winners compete for Medicare beneficiaries by offering quality products and services. 

Medicare beneficiary choice is an important driver to motivate providers to provide high quality 

products and services. 

An important simplification in the MPP design is that prices of individual products are relative to price of 

the lead product in the category. This avoids the bid-skewing problem observed in the CMS pilots 

(Katzman and McGeary 2008). In qualification stage, for each category of interest, each bidder reports 

the relative price of each product as a percentage of lead product's price. The auctioneer computes the 

relative price index for each product in each category as the capacity-weighted average of bidder 

reports. The auction then determines the price of each lead product in each category; other individual 

product prices are determined from the relative price index. 

A sample reporting form is shown in the table below for the Walkers category. 

7 
50 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 90 77561A.020

~,~,,""~ y" . Walkers and Related ,"'" 

Index to Enter for each Non- Example of Pricing 

Cunent lead Lead Product the % (You Enter Lead HCPCS HCPCS Code Definition of Ohio Fee Product Relationship You Product Price You Code DeSCription a Bidding Unit Schedule Price at Believe the Product 

Allowable should have to the Believe is Current Fee Appropriate) Schedule Lead Product Price 

Enter Price Below 

E0143 Walker, Folding, purchase of one LEAD VVheeled, Adjustable Or $92.49 N/A PRODJCT* Fixed Height (1) new ttem .... 

VValker, Enclosed, Four 

E0144 Sided Frarrnd, Rigid Or purchase of one $288.20 311.6% $0.00 Folding, VVheeled Wdh (1) new item 

Fbsterior Seat 

Walker, Foldmg (Ackup), purchase of one E0135 Adjustable Or Fixed $69.34 75.O"h $0.00 He~ht 

(1) new item '. 

E0154 RatformAttachrrent, purchase of one $54.24 58.6% $0.00 VValker, Each (1) new item 

E0155 VVheel Atlachrrnnt, Rigid purchase of one $24.28 26.3% $0.00 Rck~UpWalker, Per Pair (1)ne\;,; item 

Walker, Heavy DJty, purchase of one E0149 VVheeled, Rigid Or $202.00 218.4% .$0.00 Fo~in9. Any Type (1) ne.N item 

Product categories, products, and regions should be re-optimized for new approach. Indeed the product 

and region configuration should be revisited periodically, but especially during the initial design process. 

The approach can easily accommodate more product categories, products, and regions. The 

optimization of categories, products, and regions is an essential task in the product design step with 

major input from HME providers. 

My recommended approach is to auction a representative 10% each year for two-year contracts. This 

approach does not disrupt the market structure excessively. Indeed to minimize disruption, it is 

desirable to auction only about two categories in each region (one-fifth of the current total). This keeps 

the emphasis on establishing competitive prices, rather than excluding suppliers. 

Under this approach of auctioning a representative 10% each year for two-year contracts, 20% of the 

product-regions are under auction contracts. Only winning suppliers of the particular product-region 

may supply the particular product in the particular region. It is this possibility of exclusion that motivates 

competitive bids. 

What happens for the remaining 80% of product-regions that are not under auctioned contracts? For 

these non-auctioned product-regions, we apply competitive bid-based prices using a simple 

econometric model. Thus, 100% of the product-regions are competitively priced: 20% directly from the 

last two auctions and the remaining 80% indirectly from an econometric model that estimates the 

competitive price for the particular product-region from the two most recent annual auctions. 

Each year a different 10% is auctioned, so over 10 years each product-region is auctioned once. To be 

clear, in the auctioned product-regions, only the winners can supply during the two-year commitment 

8 
51 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 91 77561A.021

period. However, the winners still must compete to supply within the product-region. For the nonauctioned product-regions, any certified supplier can supply. This competition in non-auctioned 

product-regions is a strong motivator for a provider to supply quality goods and services. 

The MPP auction format is easy for bidders to understand and participate in. This was demonstrated in 

the mock auction conducted at the Medicare Auction Conference in April 2011. First, the price process is 

easy for bidders to manage. Bidders interested in a particular category can focus on that category in all 

regions. Similarly, bidders interested in a particular region can focus on that region in all categories. 

Bidders with other interests can focus on the most relevant categories and regions for them. Second, 

proxy bids allow small bidders to bid as in a sealed-bid auction. That is, they can enter in the first round, 

their minimum price for each product-region they desire. There is no need from them to track every 

round of the dynamic bidding process. 

The Market Pricing Program is highly transparent. Qualification and financial guarantees are reported 

publicly well in advance of the auction. Capacities are determined in objective manner. The auction rules 

including product definitions, performance obligations, and penalties are known two months before 

auction. Following each bidding round, excess supply at current prices as well as prices for next round 

are publicly announced. Winners and quantity won are immediately announced at the conclusion of the 

auction. Finally, an independent market monitor reports on auction outcomes and any problems within 

two weeks of the auction end. 

The use of an independent market monitor is an important innovation that began in electricity markets 

following the California Electricity Crisis of 2000-2001. The original auction rules were designed by a 

committee of stakeholders and included numerous market flaws that ultimately led to market failure in 

2001. An independent market monitor would have identified the market flaws in advance of the crisis 

and even if it did not, the independent market monitor would have identified the crisis and quickly 

propose fixes to get the market on track. Now all electricity markets in the US have an independent 

market monitor. The independent market monitor is one reason the US electricity markets, following 

the California Electricity Crisis, have been so successful and have become models of electricity market 

design worldwide." 

The proposed design is based on proven methods. The clearing-price approach is commonly used across 

all countries and industries, including health care. The design emphasizes beneficiary choice, which 

helps avoid the race to the bottom by motivating quality goods and services. Transparency is another 

11 One of the important duties of the independent market monitor is to prepare an annual State of the Market 

Report. This report provides extensive analysis of the operation of the market and critically evaluates the markets 

performance. Any problematic issues are raised and solutions are proposed. The reports of the independent 

market monitor of PJM, the largest US electricity market, provide an excellent example of the reports and the 

roles, see http://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM State of the Market/20l2.shtm!. The contrast 

between the PJM state of the market report and that of CMS' (2012) annual report is dramatic. The CMS report 

provides no critique of the market, is not independent, is not conducted by experts, and does not raise or resolve 

the numerous serious issues raised by hundreds of prominent auction experts. Interestingly, the PJM report is 

produced by a small business of25 employees (30 including contractors). CMS has 4,477 employees. 

9 
52 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 92 77561A.022

key feature of the MMP auction. Transparent auctions are commonly used in highly successful 

government auctions. 

In sharp contrast, the CMS design with non-binding bids and the median pricing rule has never been 

used in any country or industry. CMS stands alone defending a mechanism with proven and wellunderstood failings. 

Through theory, experiment, and practice, the Market Pricing program has been shown to achieve leastcost sustainable prices. An important advantage of the approach is that it motivates efficient least-cost 

providers that supply quality goods and services. 

Throughout my testimony and indeed throughout the vast set of materials that I cite I make every effort 

to be transparent, objective, and honest. Truth matters. All that I say is readily confirmed from the 

supporting papers, data, video, and transcripts that I provide at the end of my testimony. I mention this 

at the outset, because CMS has not used the same standard in the discourse on this issue. CMS conceals 

the data and makes misleading statements. When CMS uses numbers I am reminded of the saying that 

my Dad taught me: "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." I elaborate on two important examples in the 

appendix. Below I briefly describe CMS' claim of substantial cost savings. These cost savings are a gross 

overestimate. The details are in the appendix and the supporting documents 

The 18 April 2012 HHS Press Office (2012) News Release states, "According to the report, the program 

saved $202 million in its first year in nine metropolitan statistical areas - a reduction of 42 percent in 

costs and, as the program expands under the Affordable Care Act and earlier law, it could save up to 

$42.8 billion for taxpayers and beneficiaries over the next 10 years." This is the second sentence of the 

News Release and the "$42.8 billion savings" also is in the subtitle, "Health care law expands second 

round, program will save up ta $42.8 billion", so it is clear that the number is central to the argument. 

Given that DME Competitive Bidding is an important pilot program within CMS, an organization with 

4,477 employees and a budget of $606.9 billion, you may think that there is a lot of analysis in the $42.8 

billion number. There is not. Here is the logic: The total DME market currently is about $10 billion a year. 

A savings of 42 percent is estimated in the pilot program's first year, which covers about 9 percent of 

the us. Assume the same savings percentage throughout the country and assume the same savings in 

each year for ten years: then the roughly $100 billion spend gets cut by 42 percent or $42 billion. Easy. 

Here is the problem: the $202 million savings number on which the house of cards is based is wrong. I 

do not have time to go into all of the serious problems with this number and others but let's look at one 

important example, which will be instructive: diabetes test strips.'2 This is one of the most important 

products in the DME program. It accounts for $51 million of the $202 million total savings for all of DME. 

However, the $51 million number is "simply not mathematically possible." (Milam 2012, p.2, bold-italics 

in original) 

12 I urge the Committee to look at Lewis (2012) for a critique of CMS' methodology. 

10 
53 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 93 77561A.023

Thomas Milam, an expert in the diabetes market and a member of the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding 

Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOe), gives the correct calculation for diabetes test strips 

in his letter of 10 September 2012. There are basically three sources of "savings" in the $51 million: 

1. Beneficiaries getting the test strips they need from a mail-order provider at the reduced postcompetitive-bidding price. Both Medicare and the beneficiaries enjoy this savings. 

2. Substitution to non-mail-order. Beneficiaries are unable to get the test strips they need for their 

particular glucometer and so go the retail pharmacy for supplies. Non-mail order is not included 

in the DME Competitive Bidding Program and the prices are much higher, $37.55 rather than 

$14.65, a 256% increase. These much higher prices are born by both Medicare and the 

beneficiary. Both are made worse off. 

3. Substitution to cash. Alternatively the beneficiary may decide that it is too difficult or impossible 

to get test strips from a contract supplier that CMS would allow. Instead the beneficiary pays 

cash, likely at the retail pharmacy price that is much higher than the mail-order DME 

Competitive Bidding price. CMS records this as a huge savings. This denial of access results in 

zero cost to Medicare, where in the pre-CB period Medicare paid the vast majority of the cost of 

the beneficiaries test strips. The result is a large apparent savings for Medicare and a large cost 

increase for the beneficiary. 

These three possibilities are depicted below: 

As shown in the figure only the first of the three possibilities-allowed mail-order diabetes supplyresults in a cost savings. The other two possibilities-substitution to allowed non-mail order or cash 

purchase-result in cost increases either for both the Medicare and the beneficiary or just the 

beneficiary. The CMS data, the little that is available, confirm extensive substitution away from allowed 

mail-order (Milan 2012). As a result, the $51 million cost savings is a gross overestimate. 

For the other product categories access also is seriously impaired. The Accredited Medical Equipment 

Providers of America (AMEPA 2012) shows a 35% decrease in portable auction allowed post-CB; 

similarly, there is a 65% reduction in walkers allowed post-CB. At best these declines, which are 

comprehensively shown in Cramton (2012), show that the cost savings is a gross overestimate. However, 

11 
54 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 94 77561A.024

it is also likely, based on CMS data reported in Cramton (2012), that the loss in access has serious 

adverse health consequences. I am awaiting further data from CMS to confirm this result. 

The chart below shows the number of contract suppliers both pre- and post-competitive bidding by 

supplier size, where supplier size is measured as by the company's total allowed claim amount for the 

year. I show the number of firms pre-CB (2010), post-CB based on the posting of winners in November 

2010, as well as a revised posting of CB winners in the beginning of 2011. About 4,000 small businesses 

are wiped out under competitive bidding, over 90%. 

5,000 

~ 4,000 .!!l 

'ii 

0-

iil 3,000 

1l 2,000 

E 

z " 1,000 

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 > 4.0 

Allowed claim amount (million $) 

ill Pre-CB (2010) ill Original CB winners (2011) Revised CB winners (2011) 

The next chart looks at the percent of supplies by size. As we can see, the vast majority of supplers both 

pre- and post-CB are small businesses. This is not surprising given the low economies of scale and the 

service advantage stemming from local service. 

~ 

.!!l 

'ii 

0-

iil 

'0 

1: 

<II 

!::! 

<II 

0-

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 > 4.0 

Allowed claim amount (million $) 

ill Pre-CB (2010) ill Original CB winners (2011) Revised CB winners (2011) 

12 
55 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 95 77561A.025

From the above it is clear that the current CMS competitive bidding program is bad for small businesses. 

However, it is bad for small and big businesses-all efficient (low cost) providers are harmed by the 

status quo. They either get thrown out of the market altogether or are forced to supply at a price that 

may well be below their cost. 

The great injustice is that these businesses-both small and large-are not being wiped out because 

they cannot compete, but because the CMS auction is so flawed. The auction does not select the lowcost providers, but rather the suppliers that were "successful" in the low-ball bidding. This inevitable will 

lead to a "race to the bottom" -a frequent problem in poorly administered procurement auctions. Here 

the race would be especially rapid but for CMS' ability to manipulate the auction prices in a nontransparent way as describe earlier. 

It breaks my heart to learn of the demise of one business after another as a result of unsustainable 

prices. Just a few days ago, I received an email from Esta Willman (2012) saying that she was shutting 

down her small business. For twenty-five years she and her husband have run Medi-Source Equipment 

& Supply, providing life-supporting oxygen and other durable medical equipment to beneficiaries in a 

rural area in San Bernardino County, California. I remember well having dinner with Esta in the Fall of 

2010. We discussed the fatal flaws in the CMS program and how they could be readily fixed with modern 

auction methods. As a PAOC member, she was fascinated by the prospect of reform and fought for it 

until the end. The only thing she can cherish now is the love of the many beneficiaries who received 

quality supplies and services from her company for so many years and the knowledge that she worked 

tirelessly and without pay to reform the system that killed her company. Now the beneficiaries she 

served are without any local supplier of oxygen and other home medical equipment. 

Generally, I am opposed to including specific design details and timetables in enabling auction 

legislation. Congress is not well-versed in the details of auction design and there is a real danger that 

including details in the legislation will hard-wire a flaw that then is difficult to change. 

However, in the case of the DME auction, the administering agency, CMS has demonstrated gross 

incompetence with respect to auction design and implementation. CMS settled on a design roughly ten 

years ago and has pursued that flawed design through several pilots with only minor ineffective tweaks. 

For example, following pilots in early 2000, CMS switched from an average-price methodology to a 

median-price methodology, a switch that actually exacerbates the terrible incentive problem created by 

the poor pricing rule in conjunction with non-binding bids. Then when the 2008 Round 1 was held in 

pilot regions, Congress had to step in just days after the pilot and by law cancel the auction. As a result, 

CMS made a few minor tweaks such as tightening the floor on bids. The fact that CMS had to but in a 

tight floor on bids is clear evidence of strong incentives for low-ball bidding. Procurement auctions 

routinely have a ceiling on bids-or a clause to allow the buyer to reject all bids-to protect the buyer 

from an absence of competition, but floors are extremely rare. 

It is not the case that complex auctions cannot be implemented effectively by government agencies. The 

agencies simply have to follow best-practice and science. This can be accomplished at extremely low 

13 
56 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 96 77561A.026

cost by retaining the services of experts. The best approach for such retention is through competitive 

bid. Indeed, very early on in this project in the Fall of 2010, I sent CMS a number of sample Request for 

Proposals from several governments seeking to retain expert auction services. I did this because CMS 

clearly did not even know that expert services were required, let alone how to acquire them. 

Indeed, as I have previously testified before Congress, some agencies have done an outstanding job in 

designing and implementing complex auction markets (Cramton 2011d). The two leading examples are 

the Federal Communications Commission-spectrum auctions since 1994-and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission-electricity markets since about 1998. In both cases, the agencies have sought 

and received significant expert advice. 

In my most recent testimony to Congress (July 2011) on auction issues-the incentive auction legislation 

that Congress ultimate passed later that year-I said, "The incentive auction is complex. Its design is 

best left to experts. The FCC has an outstanding record of innovation in the auction arena and requires 

only limited guidance from Congress on the basic objectives and principles. It would be a mistake for 

Congress to prevent the FCC from adopting the best auction design by mandating auction details and 

other restrictions in the enabling legislation. 

"Given the FCC's outstanding record in designing and implementing auctions, the legislation should 

provide the FCC with broad auction authority, focused on basic objectives and principles. To me, there 

are two key objectives: 1) transparency and 2) economic efficiency. What is needed is a statement of 

these objectives. Including specific details is apt to do more harm than good." I stand by those words. 

In sharp contrast to the FCC and FERC, given CMS' dismal track record (see also Coulam et al. 2009), it is 

not only wise but essential that Congress specify each of the key features of an efficient auction based 

on best-practice and sciences together with a rigid and aggressive timetable. Doing less will lead to 

continued failure and will retard the use of effective market methods in other health care applications. 

The cost of such a failure likely is measured in trillions of dollars looking forward. 

Unfortunately I am powerless to change this terrible injustice. Only Congress can insist on Medicare 

auction reform. By passing the Market Pricing Program, Congress can ensure an efficient, transparent, 

and fair market for durable medical equipment. The market-rather than illustrate government 

failure-can become a brilliant example of the government using market mechanisms in health care for 

the benefit of society. Taxpayers, providers, and beneficiaries will applaud your insistence. 

All of the references below are available at www.cramton.umd.edu!papers!health-care, including 

complete data sets, data visualizations, transcripts, videos, and other supporting material. 

AMEPA (2012), "Reductions in Allowed Claims Prove limited Patient Access." 

Ausubel, lawrence M. and Peter Cramton (2004) "Auctioning Many Divisible Good~"- (with lawrence M. 

Ausubel) Journal o/the European Ecanomic Association, 2, 480-493, April-May 2004. 

14 
57 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 97 77561A.027

Ausubel, Lawrence M, and Peter Cramton (2006) "Dynamic Auctions in Procureme.J:lh: in Nicola Dimitri, Gustavo 

Piga, and Giancarlo Spagnolo (eds,) Handbook of Procurement, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 

Press, 2006, 

Ayres, Ian and Peter Cramton (2010) "Fix Medicare's Bizarre Auction Program" (with Ian Ayres), Opinion 

Pages, New York Times, 30 September 2010, 

CMS (2012) "Competitive Bidding Update-One Year Implementation Update," DMEPOS Competitive Bidding 

Program Update, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 17 April 2012. 

Coulam, Robert, Roger Feldman, and Bryan Dowd (2009) "Don't Forget to Save Medicare: Competitive Pricing, Not 

Price Controls," American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 17 July 2009, 

Cramton, Peter (2010a) Email Correspondence to Jonathan Blum on Sample RFPs for Auction Services, 23 and 27 

October 2010, 

Cramton, Peter (2010b) Email Correspondence to Jonathan Blum on Second Data Request,S and 17 November 

2010 and 12 December 2010, 

Cramton, Peter (201Oc) Letter to Deputy Administrator Blum (CMS) on Medicare Auction,S November 2010, [Data 

£!lllijest, 17 November 2010] 

Cramton, Peter (2011a) "Auction Design for Medicare Durable Medical Equipment." Working Paper, University of 

Maryland, March 2011. 

Cramton, Peter (2011b) Competitive Bidding Congressional Update-What You Need to Know, Longworth House 

Office Building, sponsored by U,S, Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC), 24 May 2011. 

Cramton, Peter (2011c) "Early Pilots of Medicare Auctions Bring No Solace to Auction Experts" (with Brett E, 

Katzman), The Economists' Voice, July 2011, 

Cramton, Peter (2011d) "Incentive Auctions and Spectrum Policy," Testimony of Peter Cramton before the United 

States House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 15 July 2011. [Responses to questions] 

Cramton, Peter (2011e) "Medicare Auction Failure: Early Evidence from the Round 1 Rebid," Working Paper, 

University of Maryland, June 2011, [Raw Data and Tableau Packaged Workbook, Tableau Reader, FOIA Data 

~~, Follow-up FOIA Data Request] 

Cramton, Peter (2011f) "Medicare Auction Reform," a 12-minute video with problems and solution from leading 

experts, July 2011, 

Cramton, Peter (2012) "The Hidden Costs of a Flawed Medicare Auction," University of Maryland, January 2012, 

[~ Follow-up FOIA Data Request] 

Cramton, Peter, Sean Ellermeyer, and Brett E, Katzman (2012) "Designed to Fail: The Medicare Auction for Durable 

Medical Equipment" (with Sean Ellermeyer and Brett E. Katzman) Working Paper, University of Maryland, 

August 2012, 

Cramton, Peter, Ulrich Gall, and Pacharasut Sujarittanonta (2011) "An Auction for Medicare Durable Medical 

Equipment: Evidence from an Industry Mock Auction", Working Paper, University of Maryland, June 2011, 

[Appendix, Data visualization and raw data, Tableau Reader] 

Cramton, Peter and Brett E, Katzman (2010) "Reducing Healthcare Costs Requires Good Market Design" The 

Economists' Voice, 7:4, October 2010, 

HHS Press Office (2012), "New Report: Competitive bidding saving money for taxpayers and people with 

Medicare," News Release, U,S, Department of Health and Human Services, 18 April 2012, 

Katzman, Brett and Kerry Anne McGeary (2008) "Will Competitive Bidding Decrease Medicare Prices?" Southern 

Economic Journal, 74:3, 839-856, 

1!;tter f(01)1167 Cont;erned Aus:tion Expeili.J21LMedicarli.Q!lli2etitive Bid<ilDJl.ErQlllam to Chairman Stark, Health 

Subcommittee, Ways and Means, US, House of Representatives, 26 September 2010, 

15 
58 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 98 77561A.028

Letter from 244 Concerned Auction Experts on the Medicare Competitive Bidding Program to President Obama, 

the White House, 17 June 2011. 

Lewis, AI (2012) letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebeli"s on Program Evaluation 

Methodology, August 2012. 

Market Pricing Program Summary, July 2012. 

Medicare Auction Conference (2011) Inn & Conference Center, University of Maryland, 1 April 2011. Video of 

entire conference (6 segments, 260 minutes) [Transcript] 

Merlob, Brian, Charles R. Plott, and Yuanjun Zhang (2012) "The CMS Auction: Experimental Studies of a Median-Bid 

Procurement Auction with Non-Binding Bids," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127,793-782, May 2012. 

Milam, Thomas J. (2012) Letter to Peter Cramton on the costs of competitive bidding in diabetes, 10 September 

2012. 

Plott, Charles R. (2012) "Statement of Charles R, Plot, Professor of Economics and Political Science, California 

Institute ofTechnology," u.s. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business, 11 September 2012. 

Willman, Esta E. (2012) Letter to US House of Representatives Committee on Small Business, 11 September 2012. 

16 
59 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 99 77561A.029

I emphasize my independence because I have been told several times by Congressional staff that CMS 

staff have attempted to discredit my work by characterizing me as a "hired gun" to special interests or a 

"consultant seeking to sell auction services to CMS." These CMS staff should be ashamed at their 

baseless assertions. My work has been totally without pay aside from my first 12 hours on this project 

more than two years ago. I have spent well over 1000 hours on this project at huge opportunity cost to 

myself. I have more auction work from governments and companies at professional rates than I can 

handle. I would be delighted not to work for CMS on the design or implementation of Medicare 

auctions. If I were motivated by money, then I would have stopped my work on this project over one 

year ago, certainly by mid-April of 2011, when it became clear that CMS had no intention to reform their 

competitive bidding program. 

During the Fall of 2010 and the Spring of 2011, I worked hard to constructively collaborate with CMS on 

both the auction design flaws of the current program and how best to remedy these flaws. I believe my 

efforts are well documented in two short email streams (Cramton 2010a,b). My efforts included not only 

working with CMS but educating other government agencies that I thought would be helpful in assisting 

CMS in improving their program. 

Here are two examples, both of which come from the same CMS (2012) report that presents an update 

on the competitive bidding program after the first year in the nine regions that were under the pilot 

program. Both are "4 Pinocchio" statements.13 The statements are made with the intent to deceive and 

the misrepresentation is central to the writer's argument. 

The summary of CMS' 17 April 2012 "Competitive Bidding Update-One Year Implementation Update" 

(CMS 2012) states, "CMS real-time claims monitoring has found no disruption in access to needed 

supplies for Medicare beneficiaries. Moreover, there have been no negative health care consequences 

to beneficiaries as a result of competitive bidding. CMS claims monitoring results are supported by the 

fact that the agency has largely received routine beneficiary or caregiver inquiries with only minimal 

complaints." These are sentences two-four in the lead-off one paragraph summary of the report, so it is 

clearly central to the writer's argument that the program is successful. 

13 This is my judgment based on the Washington Post's Pinocchio Test: 1 Pinocchio = "Some shading of the facts. 

Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods." 2 Pinocchio = 

"Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician 

can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to 

ordinary people. 1I 3 Pinocchio = "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." 4 Pinocchio = 

"Whoppers". What makes a 'Whopper" is the statement is made with the intent to deceive and the 

misrepresentation is central to the speakers or writer's argument 

17 
60 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 100 77561A.030

I will talk about access and health consequences in the second myth. For now let's focus on the evidence 

CMS gives for the "minimal complaints" claim.'4 CMS received 127,466 calls on the competitive bidding 

program in the competitive bidding areas during 2011, the first year of the program. This I do not 

dispute. But they go on and highly that of these 127,466 calls only 151 were complaints. This does not 

pass the laugh test.'s The reason is simple: even if CMS was that perfect agency that never receives a 

complaint, they should have recorded well in excess of 151 complaints due to errors in coding the calls. 

To explain the "151 complaints" we must look more closely at what CMS means by a "complaint" which 

Encarta Dictionary defines as "a statement expressing discontent or unhappiness about a situation." 

CMS' definition is different: "inquiries that express dissatisfaction with the program and cannot be 

resolved by a call center operator." The CMS logic then looks like this: 

The complaint number is rendered completely meaningless, because CMS fails to define what is meant 

by "resolved by a call center operator." For example, the definition of resolved may be, "the call center 

operator hung up on the beneficiary or the beneficiary hung up on the operator." That is certainly one 

way to "resolve" calls. Consider our perfect agency that never has a complaint, but miscodes noncomplaint calls as complaints 1% of the time (that is there is minimal coding error). If the agency 

received 127,466 calls then it would wrongly code 1,275 of the calls as complaints, vastly more than 

CMS, who presumably does receive calls from unsatisfied beneficiaries about the DME program. 

The bottom line: The only thing we learn from the "151 complaints" is that CMS knows little about 

numbers or thinks its audience is so na"ive about numbers to accept such a claim without laughing. 

This example is presented in the main body of my testimony. Here I simply want to point out one 

weakness of the data used in Cramton (2012), which is acknowledged on page 3 of the report: "If there 

is a lag between the date of service and the date of receipt by CMS, then I would be underreporting 

2011 claims by the length of the lag. For example, if the average lag between date of service and receipt 

by CMS is 30 days, then I should scale up claims by 365/(266 - 30) = 365/236. The size of the reductions 

14 It is on the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 (CMS 2012). 

15 I remember laughing out loud on 5 April 2011 when CMS Director Jonathan Blum triumphantly announced "only 

43 complaints" out of many tens of thousands of calls on competitive bidding in the first quarter of 2011. My 

judgment: 4 Pinocchios. 

18 
61 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 101 77561A.031

in claims is so large that it seems implausible that this could be the result of long lags in the receipt of 

claims." To address this limitation, I have for many months sought through a Freedom of Information 

Request the same data fields but for the entire 2011 year and from an up-to-date claims database. Thus, 

far my request for data has not been filled. My request and the subsequent response is here. 

See Cramton (2010a). In my email I included four complete RFPs and stated, "The best approach for 

identifying the best experts is a well-written RFP and a competitive procurement of services. I have 

attached three recent RFPs as examples from three different industries (energy, telecommunications, 

and transportation) and two different countries (U.S and Canada). I encourage your staff to begin 

looking at these examples and think how they may need to be adjusted for the Medicare application in 

the event that CMS should decide to seek expert help in designing and implementing auction programs. 

Typically, this is done as a two-step process (design RFP followed by implementation RFP) and 

sometimes three steps (design RFP, testing RFP, and finally implementation RFP). The testing step in the 

three-step version is advisable when especially innovative auction methods are used, or the stakes are 

extremely high. Then experimental laboratory tests are desirable to test and fine-tune particular 

elements of the design. 

I am sending these materials now, since I believe preparation of a suitable RFP is on the critical path to 

moving forward with improvements to your auction programs. Please let me know if you have any 

questions." I never received a reply and CMS made no effort to seek expert auction advice via RFP or 

otherwise. 

See Cramton (2011d). "Among all US agencies, the FCC gets the highest grade on auction design and 

implementation. At the other extreme is CMS, which gets the lowest grade among all US agencies for its 

design and implementation of the Medicare auctions for durable medical equipment. The CMS auction 

program is certain to fail at considerable cost to taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries if Congress does 

not act to replace the current CMS auction with an efficient auction. Unlike the FCC, CMS requires much 

more direction from Congress. CMS over the last ten years has so far only demonstrated an inability to 

design and conduct auctions. Specific recommendations to the administration and Congress were 

provided in a June 2011 letter to President Obama from 244 concerned auction experts, including four 

Nobel laureates in economics. A wealth of supporting documents on this matter is available at 

www.cramton.umd.edu/papers/health-care. Like incentive auctions, Medicare auctions are of great 

importance to this committee; like incentive auctions, Congressional action is required and the proper 

course is clear." 

19 
62 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 102 77561A.032

Testimony of Tammy Zelenko 

President and CEO, Advacare Home Services, Bridgeville, Pa. 

On Behalf of the American Association for Homecare 

Before the Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology 

House Committee on Small Business 

On 

Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program: 

How Are Small Suppliers Faring? 

September 11, 2012 

Chairman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, and members and staff of the House Small 

Business Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology, my name is Tammy Zelenko. I am 

president and CEO of Advacare Home Services, a small business in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. 

Advacare is a provider of home oxygen therapy, obstructive sleep apnea therapy, nebulizers, 

suction therapy, continuous passive motion therapy, hospital beds, wheelchairs and bathroom 

safety items. My company furnishes virtually all medically necessary physician-prescribed 

home and respiratory medical equipment and related services to Medicare beneficiaries. 

Through four locations in the Pittsburgh area, we provide high quality care to approximately 

2,000 patients annually and employ 49 full-time associates. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing to examine the 

impact the Medicare competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment is having on 

small health care practices across the country. I am pleased to share my personal experience 

with the initial round of the Medicare bidding program and make constructive 

recommendations on how Congress can help support small health care providers and the 

patients they serve. 

I am a member of the American Association for Homecare (AAHomecare) and I am testifying on 

their behalf. I also serve on the executive committee of the Pennsylvania Association of Medical 

Suppliers (PAMS), my state organization representing home medical equipment and service 

providers (HME), where I am the past president. 

1 
63 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 103 77561A.033

AAHomecare is the national trade association for home medical equipment service providers, 

manufacturers and other stakeholders in the homecare community. Nearly 80 percent of 

AAHomecare members are considered to be small businesses. AAHomecare members serve 

the medical needs of Americans who require home oxygen therapy, mobility assistive 

technologies (standard and complex wheelchairs), hospital beds, diabetic testing and medical 

supplies, inhalation drug therapy, home infusion and other home medical products, services 

and supplies. 

We believe that home medical equipment is a vital component of the continuum of care and is 

a fundamental component to controlling health care costs by keeping beneficiaries in the most 

cost-effective and patient-preferred setting-their homes-rather than providing acute care in 

emergency departments and extended care institutional settings. 

My goal before this Subcommittee today is to tell you about the negative impact the Medicare 

bidding scheme is having on small health care providers who are also small businesses. Myaim 

is not to argue against competition. In fact, both the Association and I support healthy and fair 

competition. 

HME providers compete every day to provide quality health care items and services to 

Medicare beneficiaries and embrace the opportunity to continue to compete to serve our 

patients. Competition breeds medical innovation, improved care and creates well-paying jobs 

in communities across the country. However, the competitive bidding program designed by the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is anti-small business, it is a job killer, and it 

will negatively impact the quality of care that our nation's most frail and elderly depend on to 

remain independent in their homes. 

My testimony will highlight the flaws of the current competitive bidding program and 

recommend a sound, sustainable and budget-neutral alternative-the Market Pricing Program 

(MPP) for home medical equipment-that can be implemented on the same timeline as the 

current bidding program. 

Advacare's Story 

When I started Advacare Home Services, my goal was to grow a company that would provide 

only the highest quality of care to people in my community. I could compete with any provider 

because I offered better service. We provide trained and competency-tested service 

technicians and registered respiratory therapists in the home to instruct, educate, and train our 

patients and their caregivers on the use of home medical equipment so that patients with acute 

care or chronic needs could remain in their homes. We provide a comprehensive education, 

assessment and coaching program that empowers our patients to better understand their 

2 
64 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 104 77561A.034

disease, make proactive changes in their self-management techniques and help them remain 

independent. 

We are often the eyes and ears of the elderly and the conduit between the patient, caregiver, 

physician, and community. We communicate critical information to the physician. We support 

patients in their home environment with self-assessment tools. We create a customized care 

plan based on physician orders and patient-specific goals. There are costs to providing this type 

of care, and I have spent the last 24 years investing my time, energy, resources, technology and 

money into building a reputation on quality and outstanding care in my profession. 

I always felt that if I worked smart, not just hard, that I, too, could have the "American Dream." 

I come from a family of seven children. My father parked cars for a living, and I was the only 

child to go to college and receive a Master's degree. I put myself through college while working 

full-time at a home medical equipment company. 

In 1986, I started out at my first home medical equipment company in the billing department, 

and worked my way through each of the departments and into management. In 1997, I was 

hired as the Director of Operations by seven local hospitals to start up their HME company. 

As a small business owner, I was able to compete against the local, regional, and national 

providers within my market. Each year I gained market share, grew my practice, and received 

recognition due to the outstanding service that my company provided. However, all ofthat 

changed overnight when the bidding program went into effect. The bidding program, for me 

and thousands of providers like me, has created the biggest barrier for my company to survive. 

I firmly believe that the government deserves to pay fairly for the items and services that HME 

providers furnish. Serving Medicare beneficiaries is a privilege, not a right. However, I am 

equally as passionate that the government should not be able to pick "winners" and "losers" 

and bar otherwise qualified providers from serving Medicare beneficiaries. 

But even more troubling is the longer-term effect ofthis bidding program. Its design is neither 

sustainable nor based on sound economic principles. I am not aware of any auction or bidding 

program that is designed in the same manner as eMS' program. 

In my role as a member of my state association, I get to speak with HME providers who share 

similar stories and no longer want to participate in the bidding program because it perverts the 

marketplace. It arbitrarily selects winners and losers, it arbitrarily sets reimbursement rates 

that are not sustainable, and it arbitrarily forces providers to trim the services they provide to 

frail and elderly patients to meet unrealistic reimbursement rates. 

3 
65 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 105 77561A.035

Competitive bidding has been in the design phase for a number of years. During this time, I 

recognized that change was coming and I would have to prepare and become more efficient. 

just could not have anticipated that Medicare officials would design a program that is so antibusiness that it has been panned by every professional auction expert and economist who has 

looked at it. I began investing in technologies years ago to promote better efficiencies in 

preparation for competitive bidding. I invested in electronic medical record technologies. I 

purchased GPS devices for service technicians and state-of-the-art medical equipment and 

technology and invested in a new billing system and software. I believed these changes would 

prepare us for the bidding program. I was wrong. 

This is the first year that I did not grow my company, the first time that I had to pass all of the 

healthcare premiums increases on to my employees, the first time that I could not offer 

reimbursement for continuing education. 

Negative Impact on Small Businesses 

The serious design flaws of the bidding program have had a substantial negative impact on my 

operations, to the detriment of: the patients Advacare services; my business; my staff; and, my 

local community. While larger regional or national HME providers have been able to subsidize 

some of the loss in revenue from the arbitrarily low bid prices through locations that are not yet 

subject to bidding, small businesses like mine cannot. Cost shifting should not be a survival 

technique and it cannot go on indefinitely as this program expands nationwide. 

The following are some ofthe direct effects that the bidding program is having on small 

provider practices: 

• Revenue, Staffing and Benefit Changes 

~ Drastic decrease in Medicare revenue since the bidding program began; 

", Shifting health care cost increases to employees; 

~ Eliminating employer coverage of continuing education credits for respiratory 

therapists; 

~ Limiting allowances for educational seminars and travel; 

", Allowing staffing positions to go unfilled when employees left Advacare; and, 

~ Subcontracted to a contracted oxygen provider in order to stay in the Medicare 

market. 

• No longer Able to Support local Community 

Advacare has been providing outstanding clinical care to Medicare beneficiaries for 15 

years. We have supported our local communities and hospitals in a range of ways such 

as donating supplies to aid in disaster relief, participating on local foundation boards, 

4 
66 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 106 77561A.036

and contributing to local health care organizations and hospitals. The decreased 

revenue due to the low bid rates and not being awarded contracts means that I am 

unable to support the local community. Providers located outside of the area who won 

contracts are not contributing to the community, so my local organizations are suffering 

from the poorly designed bidding program as well. 

• Sales and Marketing Impacted 

Competitive bidding has created enormous barriers to gain new Medicare customers, 

making it very difficult to compete with the winning contractors. 

Negative Impact on Patients 

• Quality and Services Are Reduced 

Before bidding, we competed on the level of service we provided. We furnished our 

patients with customized care plans to ensure proper levels of education, assessment, 

service and follow up to allow beneficiaries to receive care in their homes rather than 

more costly institutional settings. Because the competitive bidding rates are too low, we 

can no longer provide that level of service. Our respiratory therapists can no longer 

provide the clinical follow up on our oxygen patients that we have managed for years. 

The continuity of care that we had with the patient, caregiver, physician, and 

community resources no longer exists, and patient-centered care is compromised. 

• Patients Are Forced to Switch Providers 

We experience challenges every day working with Medicare beneficiaries who can no 

longer stay on Advacare's services, and we can no longer bill for their supplies. Advacare 

is forced to try to find a contracted supplier to take our patients who have been on our 

service for years even though patients do not want to switch providers. 

• Patients Must Receive Services from Multiple Providers 

Often, our customer service department receives orders for multiple items all of which 

we could supply before the bidding program. Now, we can only provide the items that 

are not part of bidding, and we then help the referral source find other companies for 

items that Advacare can no longer provide. This means that beneficiaries must now 

receive HME items from multiple companies, which creates confusion and disrupts the 

continuum of care upon which they previously could rely. 

5 
67 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 107 77561A.037

Flaws in the Competitive Bidding Program 

Experts in the design and operation of auctions have explained in great detail why the CMS 

bidding program will fail. CMS is the only group predicting that the program is sustainable over 

the longer term and operating flawlessly. They are basing this on a short-lived, small sample in 

nine markets-a program that even CMS officials call a "pilot." Yet, Round 2, with 91 markets, 

is more than 10 times as complex as Round 1. AAHomecare and small businesses like mine are 

on the front lines and can see fundamental flaws that need to be addressed immediately. And 

244 experts from across the world have weighed in identifying similar problems and have told 

CMS, Congress and the Administration that the program will fail. 

These are our main concerns: 

1. Providers' Bids Are Not Binding Commitments 

In Medicare's bidding program, bidders are not bound by the prices they bid. Any HME 

provider can decline to accept an offered contract from CMS after the prices, called Single 

Payment Amounts, are announced by the government. And because of CMS' decision 

about pricing, 50 percent of all bidders' prices will be lower than their best submitted bid. 

Medicare's rule undermines the credibility and integrity of bids, and, without binding 

commitments, encourages low-ball bids from providers. 

To add insult to injury, if HME providers turn down contracts, their bid prices are still 

included in Medicare's calculation of bid amounts, and other bidders invited to participate 

are forced to choose between accepting the low price that they did not influence or losing 

their business altogether by not participating. 

CMS states that 92 percent of contract awardees accepted their contract offer. But to 

decline a contract would immediately imperil a provider's practice because Medicare 

typically represents 40-60 percent of an HME provider's revenue. Now that we are in the 

second year of the Round 1 program, we are seeing both contracted and non-contracted 

providers exit the market, change their business model, close down or sell. What has 

propped this program up is its limited scope-it is being run in only 9 areas across the 

country. HME providers have been able to subsidize their competitive bidding markets with 

revenue from non-competitive bid areas. Yet, this cross-subsidization will evaporate as: 1) 

bidding is expanded to 91 additional areas in 2013, 2) private payors adopt competitive bid 

rates, and 3) CMS applies bid pricing to non-bid areas, including all rural areas in the U.S., as 

early as 2015. 

6 
68 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 108 77561A.038

2. The Pricing Calculation Is Flawed 

Rather than paying contracted providers the clearing price (the last-accepted bid) which is 

the standard in bidding and reverse auction programs, Medicare's bidding program 

establishes prices at the unweighted median among the winning bids, resulting in 50 

percent of the winning bidders being offered a contract price less than their bids. We know 

of no other auction or bidding program that has such a perverse rule where bidders are 

offered contracts at less than the amount they submitted during the bidding process. 

3. Composite Bids Are Distorted 

A composite bid is an average of a bidder's bids across many products weighted by the 

government's estimated demand. The composite bid methodology as designed by eMS 

provides strong incentives to distort bids away from market prices. Only heavily weighted 

(based on utilization) products within a category will impact the composite bid. Providers 

can "game" the system by bidding very little off the current Medicare allowable for certain 

products with little weight while bidding more aggressively on other items with a higher 

weight. This creates a program where individual products are not closely related to costs 

and providers participating in the program can "game" the system in order to manipulate 

the single payment amount. In addition, Medicare set a maximum for all items bid-again 

distorting the bidding process by not permitting bidders to fairly bid based on their true, 

fully-loaded costs. 

4. lack of Transparency Is Overwhelming 

eMS has shared virtually no data with the public on the selection of contracted providers, 

calculation of historical demand (capacity), calculation of the single payment amount for 

products and services covered by bidding and outcomes-related findings to evaluate the 

program. Instead, eMS has made generalized statements that point to the so-called success 

of the program. Even the Agency's first year update after the implementation of the 

program is based on generalizations with little data to back up its findings. 

Moreover, the savings numbers recently quoted by eMS appear to "double-count" savings 

resulting from anti-fraud and abuse initiatives that were implemented concomitantly with 

this program. For example, new provider screening tools, real-time claims monitoring and 

an avalanche of incremental pre- and post-payment audit activity have been implemented 

since the program began in 2011. It is surprising and shocking to us that Medicare has 

elected to audit contract winners in Round One markets so heavily when, in fact, eMS has 

stated that the program should, on a stand-alone basis, root out fraud and abuse. 

7 
69 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 109 77561A.039

Under the current program, pricing can be easily manipulated through subjective 

adjustments to the capacity that a provider lists on its bid forms. During the announcement 

of the Round One Rebid pricing, a eMS official stated the following about contract winners' 

financial stability. During a press call on July 2, 2010, the eMS official stated -

"We do screen bids that are on the low side (to) determine whether or not the 

provider can actually provide the service or the item at that price. That includes 

looking at invoices ... and the provider's financials, including their liquidity and credit, 

and their ability to expand into a market area. Where we do not feel comfortable, we 

may not count their capacity at all, or to the degree that they wish us to, in 

determining the number of winning providers. In fact, we did that 30% of the time. 

So we have been very careful in selecting providers and in scrutinizing these bids, in 

terms of prices and sustainability. I think we're comfortable, when we look at the 

prices that we see. " 

This fact calls into question the validity of the payment rates established by the program 

and the supposed objective process that eMS established for the program and published in 

its Final Rule. The above public comment confirms that eMS may adjust a provider's stated 

capacity if it questions the provider's bid because it was considered low. By adjusting 

capacity, eMS manipulated the single payment amount and subjectively decided how many 

winners were needed. The bidding program then just becomes another way to apply 

administered pricing rather than letting the market set reimbursement rates. This 

subjectivity is playing with the very viability of numerous small businesses across the 

country. 

5. The Bidding Program Is Designed to Be "Gamed" 

Due to the methodology concerning how payment rates are calculated, the impact of nonbinding bids and the ability to manipulate the capacity that a provider self-reports, the 

program is built to be "gamed." eMS even appears to acknowledge this fact in its first 

annual report on the bidding program when they state that, "we are strengthening our 

bona fide bid review process ... to check that very low bids are sustainable by checking more 

of those bids." Questioning the sustainability of very low bids implicitly brings into question 

a program where the single payment amount offered by eMS is, by definition, lower than 

SO percent of the accepted bids presented. If the bid amounts represent the lowest pricing 

while maintaining quality service, how can a program that reduces the pricing additionally 

be sustainable over the long term? 

Under a "win at any cost" program, providers would do well to submit an unreasonably low 

bid-"a suicide bid"- in order to win a contract. These providers then would be assured of 

8 
70 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 110 77561A.040

a contract but they must hope that other providers bid more rationally so that the single 

payment amount would be higher than their submitted bid. From here, providers facing 

low reimbursement rates could agree to furnish competitively bid items but subsidize their 

revenue from non-Medicare or non-competitive bidding patients. CMS has never shared 

with the public how many of the 356 original contract providers have sold their businesses, 

gone out of business or simply did not bill Medicare for competitively bid items. This is a 

critical question for Congress to consider, because there were 6,922 unique HME providers 

submitting claims/providing services in 2010 in the nine bidding areas. 

6. eMS Monitoring Is Weak and Non-Transparent 

When the bidding program was first implemented, CMS required HME providers to provide 

the exact brand and model of equipment they were providing to Medicare beneficiaries. 

CMS also stated that it would begin to measure the patient satisfaction of beneficiaries who 

received HME services. This equipment report was intended to allow the Agency to 

determine if contracted providers began to substitute lower quality equipment under the 

program than was previously furnished to beneficiaries. However, CMS modified this 

requirement one quarter of the way into the pilot, so there is no way to monitor the quality 

of equipment Medicare beneficiaries are receiving. And to date, we have seen no 

beneficiary satisfaction data whatsoever, despite the program's 16-month implementation. 

7. There Is No Due Process 

Currently, there are no due process protections or appeals processes in place for providers 

to appeal CMS' methodology for establishing payment rates, making contract awards, 

designating bidding areas, deciding on the phased-in implementation approach, selecting 

items and services or the bidding structure and number of contractors. Numerous 

companies were initially qualified due to a technical error on CMS' fault, and yet it took 

over 120 days to resolve the issue-a date past the implementation date of 1/1/11. 

8. Bidding Areas Are Too large 

eMS has created bidding areas that make it difficult, if not impossible for small providers to 

service. The Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covers more than 5,000 square 

miles and includes the city of Pittsburgh, seven surrounding counties and pieces of seven 

other counties. The Philadelphia MSA, which is part of the second round of competitive 

bidding, covers more than 9,000 square miles. 

9 
71 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 111 77561A.041

THE BIGGER PICTURE 

The CMS program distorts the marketplace and, by ignoring the pricing methodology used in 

the original demonstration projects in Florida and Texas where the "clearing price" was used 

(i.e. setting the reimbursement rate using the highest contract supplier's bid), the program goes 

against the original intent of Congress when it voted to implement the program in 2003. It 

radically reduces the number of providers (competitors), thereby creating oligopolies in the 

marketplace at a time when our senior population is growing rapidly. 

According to a recent Bloomberg Government report, "the bidding process employed by CMS 

will likely reduce the number of market participants and spur a wave of consolidation within 

the highly fragmented home medical equipment industry ... As a result of the new program, the 

government awarded Medicare contracts to just 365 providers for 2011 in those same nine 

markets [of Round 1 of competitive bidding], an 85 percent reduction." 

Moreover, it not only allows bidders to "game" the system's pricing rules but it actually 

encourages such manipulation during the bidding process. And it forces providers to reduce 

supportive services in order to meet drastically lower reimbursement rates that were obtained 

through a fundamentally flawed process. 

These deficiencies, which I experienced first-hand, have been highlighted numerous times 

before the Congress. Meanwhile, CMS staff touts high cost savings and low negative 

beneficiary impact. However, the program is only running in nine markets, or six percent of the 

country. The competitive bidding program is particularly devastating to small businesses from 

day one. While larger regional or national providers, in the first year of a three-year fixed 

pricing contract, have been able to offset excessive and arbitrary price reductions in the bid 

areas with revenue from non-bid areas, this is not the case for small companies like mine. 

AAHomecare does not stand alone in raising concerns with the current program. In fact, well 

over 200 economists, computer scientists, statisticians and auction experts from around the 

world have advised CMS that significant modifications need to be made to the bidding program 

to make it sustainable over time. Moreover, more than 30 consumer and beneficiary groups 

believe that the bidding program is flawed and needs to be changed. 

AAHomecare has worked with auction experts to create an alternative to the current model 

that would give CMS a sustainable market-based pricing program for home medical equipment. 

This alternative preserves the concept of competition and ensures future beneficiary access. 

10 
72 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 112 77561A.042

Cost Effectiveness of Homecare 

HME offers an efficient and cost-effective way to allow patients to receive care they need at 

home. The need for HME and HME providers will continue to grow to serve the ever-increasing 

number of older Americans. Homecare represents a small but cost-effective portion of the 

more than $2.3 trillion national health expenditures (NHE) in the United States, and 

approximately 15.5 million Medicare beneficiaries require some type of home medical 

equipment annually, from rather simple bedside commodes for people who have hip 

replacements to high-tech ventilators for quadriplegics. 

Yet, not all products are created equal: some require licensed or credentialed clinicians to be on 

staff or cost $15,000 just to procure. And while Congress and the Office of Inspector General 

have shed light on products they believe to be overpaid, many others are unprofitable for us to 

provide even before the bidding program. The high cost offuel, labor, rent and utilities and 

regulatory compliance associated with billing and collections, audits, HIPAA privacy, identity 

theft, IT security, Sarbanes-Oxley, waste disposal, beneficiary and employee safety, OSHA, DOT 

and FDA regulations continues to escalate year after year. Anyone who has ever required HME 

or had a relative who needed it can attest that our service includes much more than just the 

equipment. 

The more that people receive quality equipment and services at home, the less that is spent on 

hospital stays, emergency room visits, and nursing home admissions. Home medical equipment 

is an important part of the solution to the nation's healthcare funding crisis. The facts bear this 

statement out as private health care plans have contracted for our services for decades and 

reaped the cost savings along the way. Even the current Administration is trying to develop 

programs to manage chronically ill Medicare patients in the home through new demonstration 

projects and the Innovation Center. 

Fixing the Bidding Program 

Congress's objective in requiring Medicare to use a competitive bidding model to establish 

payment amounts for HME was to reduce Medicare expenditures and ensure that beneficiaries 

have access to quality items and service. This objective cannot be met because CMS has 

designed a program that does not hold bidders accountable, does not ensure that bidders are 

qualified or capable to provide the products in the bid markets, and, due to the arbitrary nature 

of the capacity analysis, has produced bid rates that are financially unsustainable. 

As I mentioned previously, auction experts and economists have warned that the Medicare 

bidding program is unsustainable in its current form. It will create significant barriers to access 

and will destroy the HME infrastructure that seniors and people with disabilities depend on as 

the program expands and providers cannot offset bid pricing with non-bid revenue. 

11 
73 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 113 77561A.043

Unfortunately, the recommendations of auction experts, beneficiary and consumer groups, the 

Medicare Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOC)-the panel created by Congress 

to advise CMS on the design and implementation ofthe program-and AAHomecare and other 

interested groups have not been acted upon. We now look to Congress to fix systemic 

problems so that Congressional intent is followed. 

To fix the fundamental flaws in the bidding program, an alternative market-based pricing 

program for HME has been developed, which has been specifically tailored to the HME 

marketplace. The proposal, known as the Market Pricing Program (MPP), would require 

changes to ensure a financially sustainable program. MPP uses an electronic state-of-the-art 

reverse auction to establish market-based reimbursement rates for HME around the country. 

These changes are consistent with Congress' original intent: to create a program that is based 

on competition while maintaining beneficiary access to quality items and services. The MPP 

would be implemented on the same timetable and apply to the same DME product categories 

as the current program, and will reduce government spending for DME items nationwide. It is 

intended to be budget-neutral. 

The following are key components of the Market Pricing Program: 

1. MPP would require that providers stand by their bids if offered a contract. This feature 

is known as a "binding" bid. 

2. MPP would establish reimbursement rates at the "clearing price" (the last bid accepted) 

rather than the "median price," which CMS currently uses. Under the CMS 

methodology, half of all contract providers are paid less than they actually bid. 

3. MPP would bid areas that are much smaller so that any provider could service an entire 

area subject to the auction. 

4. MPP would bid the same product categories as the current competitive bidding 

program, but all products would not be bid in each area. MPP would bid 2 product 

categories for exclusive contracts in certain areas and apply the reimbursement rate to 

economically similar areas. This feature encourages competition, eliminates the 

incentive to submit unrealistic (suicide) bids, and allows providers to remain in practice 

until the next auction cycle commences. 

Other important elements of MPP include: 

Timeline 

MPP would be effective on July 1, 2013. The design of the program would be developed 

through a collaborative, transparent process, involving all stakeholders (HME providers, 

CMS, beneficiaries), with the guidance of an auction expert and the oversight of the market 

monitor, to establish market rules, to set market-based and sustainable reimbursement 

12 
74 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 114 77561A.044

rates, and protect beneficiary access to, and choice of, quality HME products, services, and 

supplies. The use of an auction expert to help the Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services design the auction program and a market monitor to help the 

Secretary ensure that the program is operating effectively and efficiently are common 

among public auctions. 

Auction Operation 

MPP would auction a representative 20 percent of the market (counties eligible for bidding) 

with two-year contracts. The remaining market areas eligible for the program would be 

served by any eligible providers furnishing HME at the reimbursement rates determined by 

the auction. The reimbursement rate established through the auction would apply to 

similar geographic areas (i.e., urban to urban, suburban to suburban) and be adjusted for 

regional characteristics. 

Each year thereafter, MPP would auction a representative 10 percent of the market 

(counties eligible for bidding) with two-year contracts starting on July 1 of the year of 

auction. 

An additional 10 percent of eligible market areas would be subject to auction each 

subsequent year until market pricing programs are occurring in 100 percent of eligible 

market areas throughout the United States. The process would continue and the Secretary, 

in consultation with the auction expert, would continue to select additional eligible market 

areas on an ongoing and rotating basis. This design would create the most accurate 

competitive market payment methodology in the Medicare program. 

Rural Exemption 

The same areas that are exempted under the competitive bidding program would be 

exempted under MPP. 

Transparent Process Required 

In establishing MPP, the Secretary would utilize an open and transparent process that 

includes all relevant stakeholders in the market. Provider and beneficiary education would 

be required in consultation with the auction expert and market monitor. 

How MPP Benefits Small Businesses 

For small businesses like mine, MPP has a number of key improvements over the current 

bidding program that will help my chances of survival. The smaller market areas mean that I will 

still be able to provide to patients that are nearby but not in the contracted area. The 

13 
75 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 115 77561A.045

Pittsburgh MSA includes seven counties. If CMS bid just one county under MPP, and pricing was 

applied to the other six, even if I did not win a contract, I would still have the opportunity to 

service patients in the other six counties at the market-based rate. Additionally, reducing the 

products bid in each contracted area to two items will allow me to continue servicing patients 

for all of the other categories, easing the burden of not being awarded contracts since I will no 

longer fear being completely excluded from the marketplace for every product category. 

Further, utilizing the "clearing price" methodology to set the market price means that I will not 

be paid less than my bid. Making bids binding will ensure that providers cannot game the 

system and then reject their contract award if the price is too low. Finally, the state-of-the-art 

auction system utilized in MPP will allow me to more easily understand my own business costs, 

and it will provide transparency throughout the bidding process for me and my competitors. 

Conclusion 

Small businesses are the backbone ofthe American economy. In these difficult economic times, 

Congress should take action to protect small providers and the patients and communities they 

serve. To do this, Congress must stop the current bidding program and replace it with MPP, 

which will allow small businesses to compete and ensure patients have access to the medically 

necessary HME items and services that they need. 

14 
76 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 116 77561A.046

Statement to the 

United States Honse of Representatives Committee on Small Business Suhcommittee on 

Healthcare and Technology 

Hearing 011 Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program: How are 

Small Suppliers Faring? 

September 11, 2012 

Chairwoman Eimers. Ranking Member Richmond. and Members of the Subcommittee, the National 

Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) is plcased to submit the following written comments for inclusion 

in thc record of today' s hearing on the Mcdicare Durable Medical Equipment Competitivc Bidding Program 

(CBP). We commend you for holding this hearing given the impact that competitive bidding will likely havc on 

beneficiary access to needed diabetic testing supplies (DTS) and other DME supplies as well as the ability of 

community phamlacies to serve the DME supply needs of Medicare Part B beneficiaries. 

NCPA represents the interests of pharmacist owners. managers, and employees of more than 23.000 

independent community pharmacies across the United Statcs. NCPA has a strong intercst in this issuc because 

independcnt community pharmacies hold onc-half of all active DME supplier numbers and serve as a critical 

access point for DME supplics. especially DTS. for the largc fragilc population of Medicare Part B beneficiaries 

suffering from diabetes in the United States. According to a 20 II survey by NCPA. 67% of our members provide 

DME products to patients. It is important to note that independent community pharmacists provide DME not as a 

profit center, but in order to make certain that the beneficiaries they sen1e have access to the supplies they need at 

a single point of care. Only 6%-8% of an average independent pharmacy's annual sales are from DME. 

NCPA's Primary Points 

1. Communi(v pharmacists are indispensable. From face-to-face counseling to the DME they dispense, 

independent communi(v pharmacists play an e'''''sential role ill improving health care outcomes and 

decreasing long-term health care costs. 

2. Independent communi(r pharmacists must alread.v comply with multiple criteria in order to participate 

in Medicare Part R including: obtaining expensive DME accreditation; possessing a surety bond; 

paying to obtain the actual product; complying with e,.ytreme(v burdensome documentation 

requirements; and working with a secondary payer in order to receive payment; all the while receiving 

much slower than-normal payments. 

3. Community pharmacists must bear all of these burdensome regulations even when only 6%-8% qf an 

average independent pharmacy's annual sales are from J)MEPOS. 17ter~fore, independent 

community pharmacists general(~' sell diabetic testing supplies to provide a service to beneficiaries and 

not because of profit. 

4. Forcing community pharmacists to participate in the CBP or to take the CBP reimbursement for J)ME, 

which will become a reality in 2016, woultl decrease benejiciary access and increase health care costs. 

At a time where Congress and CMS are trying to move towards a coordinated care approach, it is 

unacceptable to drastical~)! reduce access to J)ME and drive up costs, which will lead to increased 

hospital stays and decreased quality (~f care. 

)'(CPA Statement for SCpk'lllber 11, 

PHARMACISTS 

~S~f~~ ASSOCIATiON 
77 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 117 77561A.047

5. According to an August 20I2 survey that NCPA conducted of over 400 independent community 

pharmacists regarding consequences of a sharp reduction in payment for diabetes test .... trips, 92% of 

the pharmacies said they would like~v drop out {~f the program if forced to either (I) take a 

reduction in payments for diabetes testing strips, or (2) take a competitively-bid chain or mail 

order price to continue to provide Medicare diabetes testing supplies. 

6. The significant impact {if independent pharmacies dropping out of the Medicare Part B program is 

certainly to befell disproportionate(~' in rural areas. Independent community pharmacies are/ar more 

like(v than chain pharmacies to operate in traditi()nal~v underserved and rural areas where patient 

accessibili(l' is a deep concern. Community pharmacies in these areas serve some of the frailest 

M el/icare beneficiaries. 

7. Prohibiting community pharmacies ji'om delivering DTS to homebound Medicare patients is 

unconscionable. The way in which CM .. \l has deJined the term umail order" wi/I prevent community 

pharmacists ji'om delivering 1)1;'1 to homebound beneficiaries beginning on .Ju(V 1, 20l3. We urge 

Congress to address eMS' oversight and to ensure some of the frailest Medicare beneficiaries are no! 

faced with the harsh reali(l' that the}' have no way to receive the supplies they need to stay alive. 

8. While eMS i.~ considering drastical(v cutting DME reimbursement for non-mail order diabetes testing 

supplies via an inherent reasonableness authori(r, C~lS is wasting millions of dollar.",' 011 mail order 

diabetes testing supplies that are automatically shipped to patients that are never used. Waste is 

rampant in Medicare Part B mail order diabetes testing supplies. CMS turns a blind "ve to this fact in 

its ho(v grail pursuit of lower mail order DTS prices. One should look no jitrther than the One Year 

Implementation Update to Round 1 published this past April to see the large amount of waste being 

generated by mail order supplies. 

9. eMS' recent efforts to use inherent reasonableness as a substitute for the L1lP in an effort to 

drastical(v cut reimbursement for non-mail order J)ME is misused and would decrease access to care 

and ben~ficiary health. CMS has presented no evidence that the current fee schedule is grossly 

excessive a,'\ compared to the cost to independent pharmacies to purchase these supplies. Congress 

must take action to ensure that eMS cannot use this authori~l' in a manner that would decrease access, 

decrease overall health care, and increase overall health care costs. 

10. Congress should pass HR 1936, The Medicare Access to Diabetes Supplies Act. In light of the negative 

impact (if a CBP for DIS on the ability of community pharmacies to continue to supply 1)1;'1, NCPA 

urges Congress to pass H.R. 1936 and perma/1ently exclude small independent pharmacies from the 

CBP and CBP pricing. 

Community Pharmacies Will be forced to Cease Supplying DTS When Faced witb Drastic Reimbursement 

Cuts Decreasing Patient Access and Driving up Health Care Costs 

While the Round I Rebid for mail order DTS in nine competitive bid areas (CBAs) has been in place for 

over a year, within the next year CMS will fullv implement the national mail order competitive bidding program 

for diabetic testing supplies (DTS). For the time being, CMS has excluded, from competitive bidding, DTS 

supplied by retail phannacies. We arc grateful for this exclusion. However, by 2016, all DME suppliers, mail 

order and retail, will be subject to competitive bidding or competitive bidding pricing for DTS. In addition, 

unfortunately, in the context of the national mail order CBP, CMS is prohibiting retail phammcies from 

providing home delivered DTS unless such a phannacy wins a national mail order CBP contract. 

PHARMA(';ISTSASSOCIATION 

tiff1~ 
78 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 118 77561A.048

From face-to-face counseling to the DME they dispense. independent community pharmacists play an 

essential role in improving health care outcomes and decreasing long-tcnn health care costs. Community 

phanl1ucists are indispensable to helping combat diabetes, whether it is the counseling they offer. the medications 

they dispense, the lifestyle modification classes they provide, or the wide variety of testing supplies they carry. 

Also. it is oftentimes the case that independent pharnlacists service very distinct and culturally diverse 

populations. Many of these beneficiaries do not speak English as their first language and arc accustomed to 

seeking services from a community phannacist they can effectively communicate \vith, which certainly can"t be 

replicated by their mailbox or a 1-800 number 

Independent community pharnlacists must already comply with multiple criteria in order to participate in 

Medicare Part B including: obtaining expensive DME accreditation: possessing a surety bond; paying to obtain 

the actual product: complying with extremely burdensome documentation requirements; and working with a 

secondary payer in order to receive payment~ all the while receiving mueh slower than~nonnal payments. 

Community pharmacists must bear aU of these burdensome regulations even when only 6%-80/0 of an average 

independent phanllac{s annual sales are from DMEPOS. Thus, community phanllacists generally sell diabetic 

testing supplies to provide a service to beneficiaries and not because of profit. Even eMS in the preamble to its 

2010 Proposed Rule on competitive bidding noted the value of 'Oa licensed phanllacist [being I on hand to offer 

guidance and consultation to the beneficiarv. " 

11,e inability of small independent pharmacists to remain viable DTS suppliers is further demonstrated by 

comparing the average supply fee schedule reimbursement for retml DTS with the Round 1 CBP average 

reimbursement amounts for mail-order DTS. The average National retail single payment amount for diabetes 

testing supplies is $37.67 whereas the average Round 1 Competitive Bidding Program single payment amount, 

across nine geographic regions. was $14.62. Small business retail community phannaeies will not be able to 

continue providing DTS to Part B beneficiaries, ,,,hen faced with over a 60% decrease in reimbursement. 

Additionally. according to an August 2012 survey that NCPA conducted of over 400 independent 

community phannacists regarding negative consequences for a sharp reduction in payment for diabetes test strips, 

92% of the pharmacies smd they would likely drop out of the program if forced to either (I) take a reduction 

pa~ments for diabetes testing strips, or (2) take a competitively-bid chain or mail order price to continue 

Medicare diabetes testing supplies. In addition, 86% of respondents said that their average Medicare 

visits the pharmacy two or more times a month for counseling. 

This significant impact is certainly to be felt disproportionately in rural areas. Independent community 

phammcics arc far more hkely than chain pharmacies to operate in traditionally· undcrservcd and nirai areas 

where patient accessibility is a deep concern. A study conducted by the RUPRI Center for Health Policy 

Analysis and the North Carolina Rural Health Research & Policy Analysis Center found that 91 % of all sole 

community phammcies arc located in rural communities, and that 220/0 arc located more than 20 miles from the 

next closest retail pharnmcy.l In addition, mral community phannacies generate $26.9 billion in annual revenue 

and hire 71,000 full-time employees. Unfortunately. the number of retail pharmacies located in rural areas has 

declined. From March 1,2003 to December 1, 2011, 852 independently owned rural pharmacies closed.' 
79 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 119 77561A.049

Thus. as our Medicare population continues to grow. the amOtmt of suppliers that can provide DTS to 

beneficiaries as well as the number of brands offered in the suppl\-' chain continues to decrease. Even with the 

decrease of suppliers that can provide DTS to beneficiaries and the nwnber of brands offered in the supply chain, 

eMS is proposing drastic cuts in reimbursement for DME and prohibiting retail phannacies from providing home 

delivered DTS unless such a phannacy wins a national mail order CBP contract. 

Prohibiting Community Pharmacists from Delivering DTS to Homebound Medicare Patients will Decrease 

Access and Healthy Outcomes 

There is an urgent need for legislation to exempt small community phannaeies from the eBP for DTS and 

eBP pricing. In 2013, eMS will apply a national eBP to mail order DTS. In doing so, CMS has defined the tcnn 

"mail order" to mean "any item. . shipped or delivered to the beneficiary's home, regardless of the method of 

delivery." Conversely, CMS has defined the tenn "non-mail order" as "any item . that a beneficiary or 

caregiver picks up in person at a local phatmacy or supplier storefront." Essentially, these two definitions prevent 

small independent pharmacies, which are not a part of thc eBP, from providing home delivery, which is a 

valuable and necessary service for some beneficiaries who have difficulty getting to a phannacy. 

According to an August 2012 survey, 94% of independent community phannacies regularly deliver 

diabetes testing supplies to patients (often free of charge) with almost 20% making 30 or more deliveries per 

month to differcnt beneficiaries. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that 40-50% of Medicare beneficiaries do 

not pick up their phannaceutical drugs or supplies themselves, meaning they are either delivered to the 

benefIciary b:y the independent community phannacy or picked up at the pharmacy by a caregiver. 

As of July L 2013, these community phannacists will no longer be able to deliver to homebound 

Medicare patients the DTS they desperately need. Three scenarios further demonstrate the problems with 

prohibiting community phammcies from engaging in some home delivery ofDTS. 

First. many Medicare Part B beneficiaries that are in need of DTS arc homebound and may not have a 

caregiver available to pick up DTS from the local independent phannaey. Many beneficiaries, especiallY in mral 

areas, receive all their mail at a P.O. Box location that is miles from their home. and arc unable to get to their P.O. 

Box more than once a week or every few \vceks. In these instances, the beneficiary relies upon the independent 

phannacy to deliver supplies to their home. This is done for the benefit and convenience of the beneficiary. and 

not to undennine the eBP. 

The second scenario occurs when a small independent phannacist temporarily delivers supplies to a 

patient. This scenario involves the "snowbird" patients, ,vho live in the North during the summer and head south 

to places like Florida in the winter. Their phannaeist in the North, for the convenience and benefit of the patient, 

may be willing to mail winter supplies to the patient at their southern address. ll1is is a temporary arrangement 

and is not done to undercut the eBP, yet the proposed definitions would prohibit small independent phannaeists 

from performing this helpful service. Notably, under either of the above scenarios the independent pharmacist 

obtains a receipt that the item was received by the beneficiary, the same documentation that the pharmacist 

receives from at1 in-store pick-up. 

The third scenario involves community phamlacies that routinely deliver medications to assisted living 

facilities for residents. Again, under eMS' rule, these phannaeies will no longer be allowed to deliver supplies to 

these facilities, which is completely unacceptable and must be addressed. Almost 50% of all community 

phannaeists deliver DTS to assisted living facilities. Asking frail homebound patients, as well as those in 

assisted living facilities, to visit a store front to obtain their supplies while having their other medications 

delivered to their place of residence, makes no sense. 

Pf-tARMACISTS 

ri~f1~ ASSOCIATION 
80 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 120 77561A.050

eMS is Wasting Millions of Dollars on Mail Order Diabetes Testing Supplies 

The result of small independent pharmacists potentially tenninating their sales of DTS is that patients will 

be forced to usc mail order, will lose access to care, and the patients and the health care system will incur 

unnecessary costs in the long-tcnn. Through mail order, patients will also lose access to care because they will 

lose access to the valuable consultation, fitting and monitoring services provided by independent pharn1acists. 

Medicare Part B pays for billions of dollars each year in diabetes test strips the majority of which are 

dispensed through mail order. Y ot, community phannacists continually hear storics from patients about how the 

mail order company continues to send strips to the beneficiary, even if they don't need them. Some patients 

indicate they have closets full of these strips' This meaus that either the mail order company is disregarding "stop 

orders" and has placed the person on automatic rcnc\val even if they don't need the strips, or the person is not 

testing correctly, which could lead to further diabetes complications. This is a lose-lose situation for Medicare and 

the beneficiaries. Medicare pays for strips that aren't needed, while patients are not being managed well because 

they are getting their strips from a mail order finn rather than being managed by their community pharmacist. 

Recently, eMS released a report touting positive health outcomes and significant savings from the Round 

1 Rebid for mail order DTS. eMS claimed that the Round I Rebid yielded over $51 million in savings with few 

beneficiary complaints and no negative health care outcomes. We believe that CMS' s report docs not paint a 

complete picture and is too quick to jump to conclusions. 

For exanlple, eMS claims that the Round 1 Rebid resulted in a decrease in ovemtilization of DTS. They 

reach this conclusion by looking at the decrease in mail order DTS utilization follo\\'ing implementation of the 

Round 1 Rebid. However, eMS neglects to mention, per the Round I Rebid parameters, that beneficiaries in 

CBAs \vere not required to use mail order competitive bidding suppliers. Beneficiaries had the choice to move to 

retail suppliers outside of competitive bidding if they wanted. Accordingly, even tJlOugh eMS found that mail 

order diabetic testing supply utilization decreased following implementation of the ROlmd I Rebid, this could 

mean that patients in CBAs chose to go to retail over mail order in order to receive more face-to-face high touch 

carc. 

Even if eMS is correct that the Round I Rebid resulted in a reduction in DTS waste through a reduction 

in overutilization of DTS, such a reduction was only measured with regard to mail order suppliers. The fact that 

eMS found that beneficiaries had excess mail order supplies prior to the Round 1 Rebid reinforces our position 

that mail order waste, not rct:'lil waste, for DTS is the major waste problem in Medicare Part B. Accordingly, a 

similar reduction in DTS utilization may not be apparent once the CBP expands to retail pharmacy. In contrast to 

mail order suppliers, small retail pharmacies do a better job of monitoring \,"hen and how often patients need 

refills and when and how often patients' testing regimens change. Mail order, on the other hand, through its autorefill policies. generates substantial stockpiling waste of DTS for patients and measures adherence through 

whether an auto-refill was delivered. not whether it was actually and appropriately used by the patient. 
81 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 121 77561A.051

CMS' Actions to Cut DTS Reimbursement by its Inherent Reasonableness (IR) Authority as a Substitute 

for the CBP will Decrease Access to Care and Beneficiary Health 

Recently, CMS has started exploring its inherent rcasonableness authority to cut DTS reimbursement to 

community phannacists as a substitute for competitive bidding. eMS announced in its notice, 77 Fed. Reg. 

38,067, on June 26. 2012, that it "auld bcgin accepting oral and writtcn comments as to whctherthe usc oflR is 

justified. IR can be used as a substitute for the CBP where CMS wishes to make drastic cuts to DTS. 

NCPA strongly disagrees with CMS' decision to usc its IR authority to drastically cut reimbursement for 

DTS and urges Congress to act to make certain these drastic cuts do not take place. CMS' decision to cut 

reimbursement via the IR process on the assumptions that (I) retail pharmacies and mail order pharmacies 

purchase DTS at the same cost; and (2) the savings seen in placing mail order DTS in the CBP due to waste will 

also be present within the retail sector. In fact, CMS is nsing the infounation from the Round I Rebid for mail 

order supplies in dctennining that the fcc schedule amounts in retail are grossly excessive. 

CMS states in the notice of the [R meeting. "[a]lthough we recognize that there arc pricing differences 

benvccn mail order and non-mail order diabetic testing supplies because of the delivery methods for these 

supplies, infonnation about the prices of mail order diabetic testing supplies can inform the analysis of prices for 

non-mail order diabetic testing supplies because several key cost components arc identical for both, such as 

product acquisition costs and administrative costs, including claims processing and papcf\:~;ork C05tS.-' eMS is 

acting under the assumption that there is no difference in purchasing in different pharmacy channels, and as such, 

eMS is viewing mail-order prices as reasonable for the retail sector. That is simply not the casco Product pricing 

in the retail and mail order channels is in fact different. 

While CMS has presented no evidence that thc current fee schcdule prices arc inconsistent with the 

purchasing costs for community phannacists_ independent community phannacics carmot purchase diabetes test 

strips at the same prices as large sclf~warchousing chains or mail order pharmacies. Contrary to eMS' statements, 

there arc different costs for acquiring the product Since CMS uses the quantity of 50 test strips for the basis of 

pricing for the CBP, NCPA also looked at acquisition costs for community phannacists for multiples brands of 

50-count test strips. According to data that NCPA has collected, independent community phaunacists average 

acquisition costs for multiple brands of 50-count test strips is multiple times more than tllC average supply fcc 

schedule reimbursement for the Round I Rebid CBP (which was $14.62). Moreover, only 6%-8% of an average 

independent phannacy's annual sales come from DMEPOS. With the low margin on those supplies and drastic 

price reductions, many independent pharmacists will likely be forced out of the program and terminate sales of 

DTS. 

Furthennore. the products which independent phannacies and mail order stock arc also very different 

Community phamlacists arc motivated to stock products which local physicians prescribe and local beneficiaries 

prefer. Thus, community phannacists playa kev role in the spectnlln of providing tailored, personal care to the 

beneficiary. Due to the customized treatment that diabetes demands, DTS should not be treated as 

interchangeable, 

On the other hand. mail order suppliers promote a limited range of products based on having the lowest 

cost. potentially questionable quality. and generally direct beneficiaries to these products. From its study AADE 

concludes, that '"[ulnder the CBP, CDntract suppliers have powerful incentives to maximize profit margins by 

purchasing and offering a limited range of products. and only the lowest cost products available.'" Thus, the range 

of products offered between retail and mail order differs, the acquisition costs of these products differ, and the 

choice available to beneficiaries also differs. 

3 Competitive Bidding Program for Mail-Order Diabetes Testing Supplies· Product Availability Survey (November 20 11). 

PHARMACISTS 

t!Ng~1~ ASSOCIATiON 
82 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 122 77561A.052

Congress Should Enact H.R. 1936, the Medicare Diabetes Access to Diabetes Supplies Act 

(n light of the negative impact of a CBP for DTS on the ability of community phannacics to continue to 

supply DTS and in narrowing patient access to DTS. NCPA urges Congress to pass HK 1936 and penmmently 

exclude small independent phannacies from the CBP and CBP pricing. H.R. 1936 would cxclude from a CBP and 

CBP pricing "blood glucose self-testing cquipment and supplies fumished (regardless of method of delivery) by a 

retail eonununity pharmacy (as defined in section 1927(k)( I 0)) that is not under common ownership with more 

than 10 other rctail community pharmacies." Congress should pass H.R. 1936 bceause it will protect paticnts' 

important facc~to-facc interaction \vith their independent phannacists for effective diabetes monitoring and ensure 

that beneficiaries \Vill have immediate access to the specific DTS that they need. 

Along with excluding community pharmacies from any DTS CBP. the proposed legislation exempts 

community phannacics from any pricing resulting from a DTS CBP. Such an exemption is necessary to protect 

meaningful beneficiary access to small independent phannacies. Even if small independent phannacies arc 

excluded from a CBP, they may still terminate DTS sales and hinder beneficiar\' access to DTS if the prices 

established under such a program are applied to the community phannac:" market. ll1is would make it cost 

prohibitive for our members to continue supplying DTS products. In the end. if Congress does not protect 

beneficiarv acccss to small independent phannacies beneficiaD' compliance with testing n,::gimens ma\ be 

compromised_ and the risk of diabetes-related complications mav rise along with costs associated therewith. 

Conclusion 

If community phannaeies are not exempted from the CBP and CBP pricing for Part B DME supplies and 

DTS. in particular. then mmly will likely cease to provide such supplies. thereby narrowing beneficiary access to 

much-needed DTS, Independent community phannacists are working hard to provide the best care and access to 

beneficiaries while working with eMS to improve quality of care and drive down long-tcnn costs. The facts are, 

with drastic cuts to reimbursement for supplies, beneficiaries will no longer have access to the care they need and 

deserve. 

This is not just an issue of convenience - this is about providing reasonable access to beneficiaries, If 

beneticiaries do not have reasonable access to their diabetic testing supplies, this decreases adherence, decreases 

the quality of care that beneficiaries receive. and drives up the overall costs of heal til carc. We all have an interest 

and a part in making certain that beneficiaries have access to their diabetic testing supplies that they need. 

NCPA has urged CMS to continue to cxempt community phannaeies from the DTS CBP, to exempt 

community pharmacies from the CBP pricing, and to aHow community phamlacics to continue to provide home 

delivery of DTS outside of the CBP. However. CMS has rejceted our entreaties and, in large part, is bound by 

statutory' dictates to implement a national CBP or national CBP pricing by 2016 for all DME. Given the statutory' 

restraints faced by CMS. Congress must act to ensure that Medicare Part B beneficiaries continue to have aeecss 

to high quality DTS and other DME supplics at their local community phmll1acies. 

111a11k you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. 

~CPA Statement Ior September 
83 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 123 77561A.053

Background 

Questions for the Record 

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

Ceoters for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Submitted by Chairman Sam Graves 

Hearing: "Medicare's Competitive Biddiog Program: 

How Are Small Suppliers Faring?" 

Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology 

House Committee on Small Business 

September 11, 2012 

The Committee shares the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) commitment to a 

competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies 

(DMEPOS) which ensures high quality for beneficiaries, maximizes savings for taxpayers and 

beneficiaries, and ensures a level playing field for suppliers, many of whom are small businesses. 

We are interested in CMS' decision to include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) devices 

in the overly broad "General Home Equipment and Related Supplies and Accessories" product category. 

Including TENS devices in this category with unrelated products (such as hospital beds, group 1 and 2 

support surfaces, commode chairs, patient lifts and lift seats) that treat unrelated conditions and which are 

not related to TENS devices, contradicts the product category definitions in CMS' competitive bidding 

final rule; forces suppliers, many of which are small, to bid on unrelated products (since a bidder must 

supply all products in a category); does not increase access or convenience for beneficiaries; eliminates 

the opportunity for TENS suppliers to bid against one another, which could increase taxpayer and 

beneficiary savings; and may undermine small suppliers who cannot furnish all products in the category, 

and may in fact discourage small suppliers who specialize in a single product from bidding. 

According to CMS, DMEPOS product categories are "[aJ grouping of related items that are used to treat a 

similar medical condition.'" In its final rule on competitive bidding, CMS stated, "We believe separate 

competitions for product categories will encourage participation by small suppliers that specialize in one 

or a few product categories,,2 and "We do not plan to make product categories overly broad, and we do 

not intend to combine products from various policy groups into a single product category unless the 

product already falls in several policy groups."J 

Questions 

I. Why did CMS group together unrelated products that treat unrelated conditions into one overly 

broad category, called "General Home Equipment and Related Supplies and Accessories"? 

2. In limiting most product categories to related products for related conditions, CMS seemed to 

encourage small businesses that specialize in a particular product to participate in the competitive 

bidding program. If so, why did CMS include TENS devices, which only treat acute and chronic 

pain conditions, in a broad category with other products having nothing to do with pain care, 

making it difficult for small manufacturers and suppliers to bid? 

'42 C.F.R. § 414.402. 

2 Medicare Program; Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and 

Supplies (DMEPOS) and Other [ssues; 72 Fed. Reg. 17,992, 18,031 and 18,057 (April 10, 2007)(codified at 42 

C.F.R. pts. 411 and 413). 

'[d. a118,031. 
84 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 124 77561A.054

3. Has eMS met with representatives of the industries and small businesses included in the "General 

Home Equipment" category regarding their concerns about bidding in this overly broad category? 

4. Going forward, has eMS considered establishing a separate product category for TENS devices, 

as eMS has done with negative wound pressure therapy pumps and related supplies and 

accessories? 
85 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 125 77561A.055

Background 

Questions For the Record 

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

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Submitted by Snbcommittee Chairwoman Renee Ellmers 

Hearing: "Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program: 

How Are Small Suppliers Faring?" 

Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology 

Committee on Small Business 

September II, 2012 

On November 10, 2011, eMS issued a final rule that revised the definition of durable medical 

equipment ("DME") to add a three-year minimum lifetime requirement ("MLR") which products 

must satisfy in order to be eligible for reimbursement under the Medicare DME benefit 

category.l The final rule stated that the MLR would only be applied prospectively to new 

products classified as DME after January 1,2012. The final rule also stated that, "To the extent 

that a modified product is not a new product (including an item that has been upgraded), the 3-

year MLR will not be applicable."z The final rule did not, however, provide any detail regarding 

the extent of changes that could be made to an existing DME product before such a "modified" 

or "upgraded" product would no longer be considered "new." Earlier this year, however, eMS 

indicated that it would be issuing additional guidance to provide further clarification on the 

grand fathering provision. 

On May 4, 2012, nine House colleagues and I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius expressing our 

views regarding the upcoming guidance. Specifically, we urged the Secretary to ensure that 

critical modified or upgraded medical devices from the DME category are subject to the final 

rule's grandfathering provision, including products that maintain and/or build upon the core 

clinical technology of existing DME products. On June 13th, we received a written response 

from Secretary Sebelius. 

Ouestions 

1. In her June 13th letter, Secretary Sebelius indicated that eMS would be issuing guidance 

in the "near future." When does eMS plan to issue such guidance? 

2. In her June 13th letter, Secretary Sebelius stated that the grandfathering provision would 

apply to "technically refined" items, but not "significantly redesigned" products. I am 

concerned that Secretary Sebelius's response to our letter indicates that the guidance to 

be issued by eMS will take too narrow of an approach in defining the scope of the 

grandfathering provision. This will discourage innovation, as DME manufacturers will 

not be able to improve upon their technologies without the threat of losing 

reimbursement. This approach will also disproportionately affect smaller DME 

manufacturers, which produce medical products that are critical to the health of Medicare 

beneficiaries. What steps has eMS taken to ensure that this guidance will not have a 

negative impact on DME suppliers, particularly the smaller ones? 

I 76 Fed. Reg. 70228 (Nov. 10, 20 II). 

2 76 Fed. Reg. at 70290. 
86 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 126 77561A.056

Questions for the Record 

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

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

"Medicare's Competitive Bidding Program: 

How Are Small Suppliers Faring?" 

Subcommittee on HeaIthcare and Technology 

House Committee on Small Business 

September 11, 2012 

Chairman Sam Graves 

Background 

The Committee shares the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) commitment 

to a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and 

supplies (DMEPOS) which ensures high quality for beneficiaries, maximizes savings for 

taxpayers and beneficiaries, and ensures a level playingfieldfor suppliers, many of whom are 

small businesses. 

We are interested in CMS' decision to include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation 

(TENS) devices in the overly broad "General Home Equipment and Related Supplies and 

Accessories" product category. Including TENS devices in this category with unrelated 

products (such as hospital beds, group I and 2 support surfaces, commode chairs, patient lifts 

and lift seats) that treat unrelated conditions and which are not related to TENS devices, 

contradicts the product category definitions in CMS' competitive bidding final rule; forces 

suppliers, many of which are small, to bid on unrelated products (since a bidder must supply 

all products in a category); does not increase access or convenience for beneficiaries; 

eliminates the opportunity for TENS suppliers to bid against one another, which could 

increase taxpayer and beneficiary savings; and may undermine small suppliers who cannot 

furnish all products in the category, and may infact discourage small suppliers who specialize 

in a single productfrom bidding. 

According to CMS, DMEPOS product categories are "[a} grouping of related items that are 

used to treat a similar medical condition. ,,I In itsfinal rule on competltive bidding, CMS 

stated, "We believe separate competitions for product categories will encourage participation 

by small suppliers that specialize in one or afew product categories',] and "We do not plan to 

make product categories overly broad, and we do not intend to combine products from various 

policy groups into a single product category unless the product already falls in several policy 

groups.',l 

'42 C.F.R. § 414.402. 

2 Medicare Program; Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and 

Supplies (DMEPOS) and Other Issues; 72 Fed. Reg. 17,992, 18,031 and 18,057 (April 10,2007) (codified at 42 

C.F.R. pts. 411 and 413). 

J!d. at 18,031. 
87 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 127 77561A.057

Questions 

1. Why did eMS group together unrelated products that treat unrelated conditions 

into one overly broad category, called "General Home Equipment and Related 

Supplies and Accessories"? 

Answer: CMS implemented this change as an improvement for the Round One Recompete. As 

we phase in statutorily-required competitions and contracts for furnishing items under the 

program, we believe that the phase in oflarger, more consolidated product categories will be 

beneficial for suppliers and beneficiaries and promote competition In contrast, bidding narrow 

product categories of comparatively low-volume items would discourage competition and 

jeopardize beneficiary access and choice since few suppliers would be likely to bid. 

The Round One Recompete product categories will promote one-stop shopping for beneficiaries, 

simplify the referral process and enhance the opportunities for winning suppliers, particularly 

small suppliers. Some contract suppliers in the Round One Rebid expressed concerns about 

winning in one product category and not another. Including several products in one product 

category addresses this concern for small suppliers whose business depends on furnishing a wide 

range ofOME items in a specific metropolitan area. Also, numerous competitive bidding 

program small supplier protections, including a small supplier target, a capacity cap during bid 

evaluation, a network provision, and others, ensure that small suppliers have the opportunity to 

be considered for participation in the program. We note that we chose to phase in this change in 

the Round One Recompete, which includes nine competitive bidding areas (CBAs). This will 

allow us to monitor the change closely and evaluate the results before expanding this approach 

more widely across the country. 

All of the items in the General Home Equipment product category, including TENS devices, are 

related because they are subject to the general quality standards, which deal with general durable 

medical equipment (OME) standards and services such as intake, delivery, setup and training on 

use of equipment. All of the items in this category are furnished by general OME suppliers, 

which typically deliver a wide range of items throughout the community using delivery trucks. 

Many of these suppliers are small suppliers. For example, in the area surrounding CMS 

headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, there are 16 suppliers that offer TENS devices to Medicare 

beneficiaries and 13 of these suppliers also offer hospital beds and other items in the General 

Home Equipment product category. In addition, we do not believe it would be difficult for local 

OME suppliers that do not currently offer TENS devices to begin offering them. Local, 

community based medical equipment suppliers are experienced in delivering, setting up, 

servicing, repairing, and educating on the use of a wide range of OME items. 

CMS is aware of a growing trend where specific brands of TENS products are being furnished 

through mail order to beneficiaries by a small number of large, remotely located manufacturers. 

Although small, community based OME suppliers are still furnishing TENS devices, the market 

has been steadily shifting to large manufacturers acting as both promoters and suppliers of their 

own products, thereby effectively limiting the beneficiary to a choice of only one brand of TENS 

device. CMS has carefully weighed this information with the needs of Medicare beneficiaries, 

the statutory requirement to phase in competitive bidding for OME, and the statutory 
88 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 128 77561A.058

requirement to ensure that small suppliers have an opportunity to be considered for participation 

in the program. Including TENS devices in the General Home Equipment product category will 

help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive these items from local suppliers in their 

communities that can quickly address any concerns or needs beneficiaries may have related to 

their equipment and replacement supplies. It also greatly enhances opportunities for small, 

community based suppliers to furnish a greater volume and more diverse range of TENS 

products to Medicare beneficiaries. Our experience is that suppliers that specialize in furnishing 

a single type ofDME item are typically very large businesses, not the small, community-based 

suppliers that are the foundation for the Medicare DME benefit. 

2. In limiting most product categories to related products for related conditions, eMS 

seemed to encourage small businesses that specialize in a particular product to 

participate in the competitive bidding program. If so, why did eMS include TENS 

devices, which only treat acute and chronic pain conditions, in a broad category 

with other products having nothing to do with pain care, making it difficult for 

small manufacturers and suppliers to bid? 

Answer: As indicated above, we believe that phasing in larger, more consolidated product 

categories is good for the program, its beneficiaries, referral agents, and suppliers. The product 

categories established for the Round One Recompete include groupings of items used to treat 

respiratory ailments, address mobility impairments, infuse drugs, provide enteral nutrition for 

tube-fed patients, treat wounds, and meet general home equipment needs. Small, community 

based suppliers can elect to compete for any or all of these product categories. Given the volume 

of TENS devices covered for use by beneficiaries in individual metropolitan areas, we do not 

believe that a product category made up of only TENS devices would generate viable 

competitions among small suppliers or sustainable business models in local competitive bidding 

areas. Grouping TENS devices into a product category with other general home equipment 

facilitates competitions between suppliers that can furnish a wide variety of DME. 

3. Has eMS met with representatives of the industries and small businesses included 

in the "General Home Equipment" category regarding their concerns about bidding 

in this overly broad category? 

Answer: Yes. eMS has had several meetings with the American Association for Homecare, the 

Advanced Medical Technology Association, and various manufacturers that also act as national 

suppliers of their specific brand of items. We have not met with or heard concerns from 

representatives of small, community based suppliers of TENS devices, hospital beds, or other 

items in the General Home Equipment product category. 

4. Going forward, has eMS considered establishing a separate product category for 

TENS devices, as eMS has done with negative wound pressure therapy pumps and 

related supplies and accessories? 

Answer: Given the comparatively low volume of TENS devices covered for use by beneficiaries 

in individual metropolitan areas, we do not believe that a product category made up of only 

TENS devices would generate viable competitions among small suppliers or sustainable business 
89 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 129 77561A.059

models in local competitive bidding areas. In contrast, including TENS in a product category 

with other general home equipment will result in a robust competition among many suppliers and 

ensure that beneficiaries have access to all items in the product category, including TENS. 

Chairwoman Renee Ellmers 

Background 

On November 10, 2011, CMS issued a final rule that revised the definition of durable medical 

equipment ("DME'') to add a three-year minimum lifetime requirement ("MLR'') which 

products must satisfy in order to be eligible for reimbursement under the Medicare DME 

benefit category. 4 The final rule stated that the MLR would only be applied prospectively to 

new products classified as DME after January 1, 2012. The final rule also stated that, "To the 

extent that a modified product is not a new product (including an item that has been 

upgraded), the 3-year MLR will not be applicable.',5 The final rule did not, however, provide 

any detail regarding the extent of changes that could be made to an existing DME product 

before such a "modified" or "upgraded" product would no longer be considered "new." 

Earlier this year, however, CMS indicated that it would be issuing additional guidance to 

provide further clarification on the grand fathering provision. 

On May 4, 2012, nine House colleagues and 1 sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius expressing 

our views regarding the upcoming guidance. Specifically, we urged the Secretary to ensure 

that critical modified or upgraded medical devices from the DME category are subject to the 

final rule's grand fathering provision, including products that maintain and/or build upon the 

core clinical technology of existing DME products. On June 13th, we received a written 

response from Secretary Sebelius. 

Questions 

1. In her June 13th letter, Secretary Sebelius indicated that CMS would be issuing 

guidance in the "near future." When does CMS plan to issue such guidance? 

Answer: We hope to issue this guidance soon, and note that we have already clarified in the 

June 13th letter that the three-year minimum lifetime requirement would not be applied to 

grandfathered items that are merely refined or upgraded versions of the same product. 

2. In her June 13th letter, Secretary Sebelius stated that the grandfathering provision 

would apply to "technically refined" items, but not "significantly redesigned" 

products. I am concerned that Secretary Sebelius's response to our letter indicates 

that the guidance to be issued by CMS will take too narrow of an approach in 

defining the scope of the grandfathering provision. This will discourage innovation, 

as DME manufacturers will not be able to improve upon their technologies without 

the threat of losing reimbursement. This approach will also disproportionately 

affect smaller DME manufacturers, which produce medical products that are 

critical to the health of Medicare beneficiaries. What steps has CMS taken to 

476 Fed. Reg. 70228 (NOV. 10, 2011). 

5 76 Fed. Reg. at 70290. 
90 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 130 77561A.060

ensure that this guidance will not have a negative impact on DME suppliers, 

particularly the smaller ones? 

Answer: We do not believe the November 10, 2011, regulatory clarification or any subregulatory guidance based on that regulatory clarification will affect DME suppliers. The new 

regulations are designed to provide additional clarity to the definition of DME but do not 

represent a significant change in policy. Consistent with the law, longstanding Medicare policy 

specifies that equipment is durable if it can withstand repeated use and is the type of item which 

could normally be rented. To further clarify that the scope of the benefit does not extend beyond 

durable equipment, we added the minimum lifetime requirement to our regulations to prevent 

coverage of items that only last for short periods of time and are not items which could normally 

be rented. We note that the statute does not permit CMS to expand the definition ofDME to 

include items that are not durable. 

We do not believe that our past or present policies or regulations regarding the scope of the DME 

benefit under Medicare prevent manufacturers from improving technologies that fall within the 

scope of the benefit for DME. Indeed, the recent regulation should help manufacturers by 

providing a clearer articulation of the rules. 
91 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 131 77561A.061

HEALTH INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION 

Statement 

of the 

Health Industry Distributors Association (IIII)A) 

to the 

House Small Business Healthcare and Technology Subcommittee 

Medicare's Competitive Bidding Program for 

I)UI'ahlc Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (OMEPOS) 

Selltember 20, 2012 

On behalf of the interests of over 600 medical-surgical distributor companies ope-rating 1hroughout the 

United States. the Health Industry Distributors AssocIatIon (HID!\) commends the Small Business Healthcare and 

Technology Subcommittee for convening a on Medicare's competitive bidding f()!' durable 

medical equipment, orthotics and (DMEI'OS) to explore the patients. 

providers and small suppliers, 

Founded in 1902. IUDA is the professional trade association reprcsenting mcdical-surgical products distributors. 

Our members deliver lite-saving healthcare products to more than 290.000 points of care including over 21 0.000 

physician offices, 6,500 hospitals, and 44,000 nursing home and extended care facilities throughout tht! nation. 

IIIDA's members are committed to promoting safety and cost savings \vithin the healthcrrrc supply chain. 

Th~ majority ofdislributors are small businesses. Over a quarter oflhe 

million dollars. The healthcare distribution sector employs 65.0()O 

annual pro1it margin is among the lowest in hcalthcarc, requiring 

etTiciency. 

Distributors' average 1.3% 

to operate at extremely high levels of 

ofthc country, It is estimated that small businesses make up 

over 90 percent oCtile nation's durable equipment I Most of these suppliers deliver highly 

specialized products and services. which a depth knowledge. The competitive bidding program 

limits opportunities f{)f these businesses by them out oCthe marketplace in a geographic area if they fail to 

win a contract during the hidding thus patient access and threatening access and quality of care, 

The implementation of the hidding program has had an impact on smal[ business suppliers of medicalsurgical products located in the Round Onc Rebid mctropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Approximately 450 

1 Congress, House, CommIttee on Smull Business, Subcommittee on Rural Development, Entrep,·en,,,n·r;hill 

Competitive Bidding on Small Businesses in the' Durable Medic,,! Equipment Community, 1 

" ,t\!cxC:lf1dria, 

(703) 

tlw!l1lpadOf 

S ·'RI::-,i\MUN!:--JG HFALTHC!-'J,RE 

VvWwstreamllmnghealthcare,org 
92 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 132 77561A.062

Health Industr~ Distributors ,\Ssocilltion 

Written statement submitted to the 

Bouse Small Business Ile:llthcllre and Tethnologv Subcommittee 

September 20, 2012 ,. 

Pag/.' 2 

suppliers located in these ['vISAs up closing their doors as a result 

to bid the Round One Rebid. This reality will be !"urther compounded as 

to win a contract or choosing not 

program rolls out tn an 

additional MSAs nationwide in ,lilly 2013, 

H!DA is committed to efforts to ensure that Medicare heneficiaries, those fl.!siding in skilled nursing 

ffH:ilities (SNFs), continue to have access to products. As such, we write to 

express our concerns about the competitive program's impact on SNFs and the patients they care fbI', 

Specifically, I UDA recommends: 

• Extending the grand fathering provision to include the enteral nutrients, equipment and supplies product 

category into the competitive bidding program; 

• Excluding enteral nutrients, equipment and supplies from Round Two of the competitive bidding program 

until the program's impact on SNFs and their patients is fully evaluat\!d and understood; and 

• A third party validated study of the competitive 

conducted prior to the program'~ expansion natlOrlWlde: 

application to and impact on SNFs b(' 

Transitioning to a competitive bidding program ((')r DMEPOS items and services raises many serious 

related to cost, access and beneficiary protection, SNF patknts arc among the nation's most ill and They 

require 2417 direct clinical coordination and carc by nurses, doctors and other trained health care professionals, 

including long-term car(' specific enteral nutrient suppliers. The level oreare required to SHPPOli the healthcare 

needs of these patients must not be inadvertently threatened or compromised, 

Extend the grandfathedng IH'ovision to enteral nutrients, equinment and supplies 

W'e option to all products subject to future rounds or the 

extends to most product categories subject to 

competitive and allows a non-winning supplier to continue providing products and services to 

beneficiaries in competitive bidding areas iCthat supplier agrees to accept the competitively bid reimbursement 

raks. Under the current statute, enteral nutrients. equipment and supplies arc not included in the grandfathering 

provision. Grandf~lthering was promoted by C1VlS as a means to ensure that patients do not fall through the cracks, 

hut that safeguard docs not exist fbI' enteral patients. 

2 Brown, Ken. "Compc>titive r~,t{mate a/the Economic fmpocton 101'>/0," (July 20121, available at: 
93 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 133 77561A.063

Health Industr~' Distributors Association 

Writft'n statement submitted to the 

House Small Business Hcalthcal'e and Technology Subcommittee 

September 20, 2012 

PU,ge3 

provision would provide a safety nct and sense of continuity Cor some of Medicare's 

of tube feeding. 

Elltef'al nutrition thcrapy is not well~suitcd for comnetitive acquisition 

HIDA recommends tbe exclusion of enter a! nutrients. equipment and n'011l Round Two of the competitive 

bidding program until tbe impact on SNFs and their patients evaluated and understood. Moving 

t!,) a national competitive Cor DMEP()S items and services, speciti;:ally the inclusion of enteral 

nutrition therapy. raises many questions related to access, beneficiary protections, and market-based 

competition. 

rhe level of care involved in delivering enteral nutrition therapy, commonly called tube fe~ding, must not he 

undenl1ined by the bidding process. nor should it the life-sustaining nourishnwnt to 

patients who cannot hecause of severe or pcnnancnt prohlems. Patients are fed specialized 

nutritional formulas through a tube which is threaded the nose, or a surgical and leads directly to 

the stomach or intestine. Certain requirements must be in order to trigger B coverage of 

enteral nutrition in a SNF. 

I. The beneficiary must have a permanent functional impairment orth~ tract. 

2. Enteral nutrition therapy must be de('m('d reasonable and necessary the beneficiary. 

3. The beneficiary must require tube feeding to maintain weight and strength commensurate with his or her 

overall health status. 

In these instances, Medicare Part B covers claims fix enteral nutrition, along with the supplies and equipment 

necessary for administration (i.e .. infusion pumps, intravenous poles. fceding supply kits and tubing). 

Disrcgnrding the qualitications and experience or a supplier of enteral nutrition therapy could lead to health 

complications and unintended consequences t(w benc!iciaries. Many SNF suppliers have dieticians and l'linical 

nursing consultants on stair. Typically, the enteral products are customized to SNF residents based upon each 

SNF's specific clinical protocol. As currently devised, the competitive bidding program allows suppliers with no 

previous experience or tamiiiarity with institutional or the cnteral nutrition product category to service 

SNFs. SNF patients are at risk of developing subsequent - requiring a morc expensive form of carc - if 

their nutritional status and food security diminish. 

Given the complexities involved with the and the enteml product category, eMS stated in its 

2004 Report to Congress on the 1999-2002 and Texas competitive bidding pilot demonstration projects that 

enteral nutrition therapy '<was not l-veil-suitcdfor a ' The agency recommended 

that the product category be excluded from future Given this recommendation and 
94 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 134 77561A.064

Ilcalth Industry Distributors <,\ssociation 

\Ydtten statement suhmitted to the 

House Slllllil Business HcuItlH.'an.' and TcdlllOlog\ Suhcommith.'(' 

September 21l, 2012 ,-

Pllge-' 

the fact that the SNF was not the intended target of' competitive bidding, W~ question \yhy the agency chose 

in both the first and second rounds of tile program. 

Imllact on SNFs must be assessed 

A third party validated study of the ~ompetitivc bidding program's specitk impact on SNFs must be conducted 

before the further expands. The Government A(coumahility OJTicc (GAO) rct:cntly released a report to 

Congress the lirst year of Mcdicare"s DMEPOS competitive bidding program; however, i1 fails to 

provide a complete of the program's specilk impact on SNFs and their patients' access to quality enteral 

nutrition therapy. As moves toward expanding the bidding program from nine to J 00 MSAs, it is 

essential to assess how the program has impacted this patient setting. 

It is apparent that the competitive bidding program was designed with the home care setting foremost in mind, yet 

SNFs care for the bulk of Medicare beneficiaries enteral feeding for life-sustaining nutriticmal support. 

Mr. Laurence \Vilson, eMS' Director OrChrOl1ic Carc this reality in response to a question 

posed by Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) 011 the program's impact on during tht.' May 9, 2012, \Vays & 

Means Health Subcommittee hearing on competitive hickling. Mr. Wilson stated that the only category 

reimbursable under l'v1edicare Part B impacting SNFs is enteral nutrition therapy (tube 

Residents in SNFs often are more impaired than home care patients and they require a more complex regimen of 

care fbr enteral nutrition thcrapy than homr.:: care patients. Enteral patients in SNFs have dietary needs that change 

more n'equently than most home care patients, thus requiring an enteral nutrition supplier that can readily address 

their special needs. 

The competitive bidding program has interfered with a SNFs' ability to make decisions regarding the enteral 

nutrition needs onheir residents. During the Round One rchid of'the competitive bidding program a SNF had to 

submit and win a hid to continue providing enteral nutrition to its residents, or contract with a supplier from a list of 

bid winners in their respcctive MSA. Very few nursing homes won a hid to provide enteral nutrition to their own 

residents. The competitive bidding process has fbrced many SNFs to terminate long-standing relationships with 

their local long-term care specific enteral nutrient suppliers. These incidents raise a number of issues unique to the 

nursing home setting that must he evaluated prior to expanding the program nationwide. 

rhank you fnr reviewing our conCerns and considering our comments. \Ve aprreciate the opportunity to 

important modifications to the competitive bidding that should be implemented to ensure that and 

providers continue to have uninterrupted access to medical products. 
95 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 135 77561A.065

Competitive Bidding for Durable Medical Equipment 

An Estimate of the Economic Impact on Iowa 

1 Introduction 

Ken Brown, Ph.D. 

University of Northern Iowa 

Department of Economics 

July 18, 2012 

Competitive bidding for durable medical equipment (DME) is currently being rolled out 

to 91 cities beyond the initial nine cities the program applied to beginning in 2011. 

According to lVledicare, competitive bidding in the first nine cities resulted in a 

reduction in reimbursements of 42% (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

2012) for the nine competitively bid DME categories in the program. 

While none of the initial 100 competitively bid cities are in Iowa,l starting in 2016 

bid rates will be applied nationally, and Iowa will see a significant drop in DME 

revenues. This report estimates the economic impact of that reduction in revenues on 

Iowa.' In addition, there are at least two other major employers in Iowa, VGM Group. 

Inc. in Waterloo and I\ledline Industries, Inc. in Dubuque, that will be affected by 

There are, however, a few Towa suppliers in the Omaha, i\'E MSA to which competitive bidding will 

apply starting in 2013. 

2 It should be noted thal. while competitive bidding is not scheduled to apply nalionally until 2016, 

there is evidence that private payers are already applying bid rates identified in other locations to 

suppliers jn Jo\\ra .. Further) SOllle D~lE suppliers \vith 10\v3o locations are contracting their busiuess 

footprint, and that contraction will likely result in a reduction in Iowa DME suppliers. Thus, while 

this report (sLimatcs an overall impact t.hat is likely to occur beginning in 201(j, the negative 

economic impact of competit.ive bidding on Iov:,ra is already occurring. 
96 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 136 77561A.066

competitive bidding for DME. These impacts are discussed in the "Other Impacts" 

section below. 

2 Analysis 

Total revenues in the D1VIE market in Iowa in 2011 were approximately $315.4 

million.' Overall. the nine competitively bid DlvIE categories make up on the order of 

75% of total DME revenues, implying that competitive bidding will apply to 

approximately $236.6 million of DIVIE revenues in Iowa. As mentioned above, during 

the first round of competitive bidding the average reduction in reimbursements for the 

bid categories was 42%. Altogether, this implies that, once competitive bidding applies 

to Iowa, Iowa will see a reduction in total DlVIE revenues of about $99.4 million.] 

While DME revenues are estimated to fall in Iowa by $99.4 million, a portion of that 

reduction will, in fact, be returned to Iowa consumers of DME. Since Medicare patients 

pay a 20% deductible, those patients paying the deductible will see their out-of-pocket 

expenses fall. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation. 48% of Iowa 

Medicare beneficiaries have a Medigap policy that would cover the 20% deductible 

(Jacobson, Neuman, Rice, Desmond, & Huang, 2011). Therefore, of the $99.4 million 

reduction in revenues, 52% of the 20% deductible will be returned to Iowa residents, 

reducing the overall loss in revenues to Iowa by $10.3 million, bringing the total loss in 

revenues to $89.1 million. 

In economic impact analysis, this reduction in revenues is typically referred to as the 

"direct impact." This is not the end of the economic impact, however. In particular, to 

;, According to statehealthfac(s.org, per capiti1 spending in Iowa on durable medical equipment in 2009 

was $l(l:I. and according to ".S. Census Bureau estimates, the 2011 Iowa population was ::\.O(i2,:'09 

(ti.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Together) these imply spending of 8315,417,827. 

4 Of course, inflation and increased utilization of DlVlE due to an aging population are likely to increase 

this numb",' by 2016. 

2 
97 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 137 77561A.067

estimate the total economic impact one mnst also calculate the "indirect impact," which 

is also known as the "multiplier effect." For example, suppose a company exports a 

product for $1,000. When the company receives the $1,000 in revenue it will pay a 

portion of that out to employees in the form of wages. The employees will then turn 

around and spend a portion of that income on goods and services at other local 

companies, increasing the spending in the area beyond the initial $1,000. This process 

continues as a portion of the revenues of each company continue to be spent in the local 

economy. Estimating the multiplier effect entails calculating how much additional 

spending beyond the direct impact takes place in the local economy. 

The standard way to calculate the multiplier effect is to use input-output 

analysis. This can be done in a number of ways, but the most straightforward way is to 

use economic impact software designed for this purpose. This analysis uses one of the 

most popular software packages for this purpose, IlVIPLAN (MIG Inc., 2009). 

Using IlVIPLAN to compute the indirect impact results in the following estimate of 

the overall economic impact on Iowa resulting from the reduction in Dl\·IE 

reimbursements due to competitive bidding: 

Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact 

Output ($M) 89.1 66.8 155.9 

Employment 1,633 652 2,285 

Overall, IMPLAN estimates competitive bidding for DME will reduce total output in 

the state by $155.9 million and will reduce employment in the state by 2,285 jobs. 

3 Other Impacts 

In addition to the impacts calculated above, which pertain to the suppliers of DME 

3 
98 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 138 77561A.068

in Iowa, at least two other Iowa companies, VGM Group, Inc. (with its headquarters in 

Waterloo, Iowa) and Medline Industries, Inc. (with a substantial branch in Dubuque, 

Iowa), will be negatively impacted by competitive bidding for DillE. Both VGM and 

Medline provide services to DME suppliers. As competitive bidding is rolled out across 

the country, many of these suppliers will go out of business, reducing these companies' 

client base. As that base diminishes, both companies will be forced to scale back 

operations, with additional losses to output and jobs in the state. Losses from these two 

companies could result in more than $60 million in additional output lost and more 

than 400 additional jobs lost. 

4 Conclusion 

In summary, competitive bidding for DME will result in a significant negative 

economic impact on Iowa. Cuts in reimbursements to DME suppliers and reductions in 

the client base of VGM Group. Inc. and Medline Industries, Inc. will likely result in: 

more than $200 million in reduced output in the state 

more than 2,500 jobs lost in the state 

a disproportionate impact on Waterloo, Iowa and Dubuque, Iowa 

due to the presence of VGM and Medline in those communities 

While these negative impacts are straightforward to measure, other impacts are 

difficult to measure quantitatively. As I explained in a previous analysis, competitive 

bidding will result in the closure of DME suppliers in Iowa. These closures will reduce 

the proximity of patients to suppliers, reducing access to healthcare in much of Iowa. 

For example, in locations that once had a provider and now do not, the length of time 

to discharge from a hospital may increase. It might increase the wait time for 

wheelchair repairs. Or, it could reduce the frequency of delivery of portable oxygen 

4 
99 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 139 77561A.069

tanks or impact the ability of providers to respond promptly in cases of widespread 

power outages. While it is difficult to place a dollar amount on these impacts, these are 

nonetheless additional negative consequences associated with competitive bidding for 

DME. 

All of these consequences have thus far been ignored as Medicare touts the expected 

savings from competitive bidding. These savings, however, are mostly an illusion. 

Imagine going to an auto dealer and looking at a car and the salesperson tells you the 

price is $20,000. You tell the salesperson that you don't want to spend that much in 

other words, that you'd like to save some money. So, the car dealer then shows you 

another car with manual rather than automatic transmission, with no air conditioning, 

etc. The salesperson tells you the price of this car is $12,000. When you purchase the 

second car, while you will spend less money, all you are really doing is buying a lowerquality product at a commensurately lower price. 

With Df-.'lE, buying lower quality means two things. First, the patient will receive a 

lower-quality product that will cost slightly less. More importantly, second, the patient 

will see a significantly reduced level of service. As mentioned above, this could mean 

longer wait times for product repairs or reduced frequency in the delivery of portable 

oxygen tanks to name just two possible results. As a result, it is likely that the small 

reductions in spending by Medicare here will only result in reduced quality and access 

to healthcare in Iowa. 

5 
100 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 140 77561A.070

Bibliography 

Centers for I\Iedicare & Medicaid Services. (2012). Competitive Bidding Update-One 

Year Implementation Update. Retrieved from 

http://www.cms.gov /Medicare/JVledicare-Fee-for-ServicePayment/DMEPOSCompetitiveBid/Downloads/Competitive-Bidding-Update-OneYear-Implementation. pdf 

Jacobson, G. (Kaiser F. F., Neuman, T. (Kaiser F. F., Rice, T. (University of C. L. A., 

Desmond, K., & Huang, J. (Kaiser F. F. (2011). ;l1edigap Reform: Setting the 

Context. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8235-2.pdf 

l\nG Inc. (2009). Il\IPLAN. Hudson, WI: MIG Inc. Retrieved from www.implan.com 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, January). State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved June 26. 

2012, from http://quickfacts.census.gov /qfd/states/19000.html 

6 
101 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 141 77561A.071

STATEMENT 

OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE 

SUPPORT OF LONG TERM CARE (NASL) 

FOR THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH & TECHNOLOGY 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HEARING 

ON 

MEDICARE'S DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROGRAM: 

How ARE SMALL SUPPLIERS FARING? 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 
102 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 142 77561A.072

The National /lssociation li)r the Support of I ,ong Term Care (N,-\SJ ,) thanks Chairwoman 

Ellmcrs, Ranking Member Richmond and the Members of the I louse Committee on Small 

Business Subcommittee on I Iealthcare and Technology for holding this hearing regarding the 

Medicare durable medical equipment prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DME1'OS) competitiw 

bidding program. 

N ASL is prond to represent providers and suppliers of products, medical supplies, diagnostic 

testing, professional services, therapy, and information systems for the long-term and post-acute 

care (I,TP,\C) industry. Our members include suppliers and manufacturers of durable medical 

equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and enteral nutrition, providers of physical, occupational, 

respirat(1)' and speech-language pathol0h'l' therapies, and health infOtmation systems developers. 

\'\!e appreciate the Committee's concerns about the impact that competitive bidding has on small 

businesses, which we believe to be substantial. The competitive bickling program is complicated 

and demanding. Small suppliers are in greater need of assistance in dealing with the 

documentation and bidding requirements than arc national suppliers. That assistance often has 

not been available. For example, a small supplier in the Cincinnati-Middleton area reports having 

posed a number of questions to the Competitive Hickling Ombudsman on detailed issues 

involved with the bidding process. The supplier received replies that were simply recitations of 

what is posted on the website, and which did not adequately address the issues raised by the 

supplier. Other suppliers have likely encountered similar experiences when trying to obtain 

information Or raise issues related to the competitiw bidding program. Thus, N,\SL believes 

that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (eMS) needs to be more responsive to 

individual supplier's concerns. 

NASL remains concerned that the Medicare competitive bidding program needlessly forces 

quality suppliers out of the Medicare program. It is poorly structured and, we believe, ultimately 

is destined to fail, thus creating serious access and quality issues for Medicare beneficiaries in 

need of DMI (POS products and sen-ices. Briefly, our principal concerns are the following: 

• lInder the current competitin~ bidding system, 50% of the "winning" bidders must 

accept payment levels that arc below their bids, which is directly contrary to the basic 

rules of competitive bidding prohrrams conducted elsewhere in the federal government. 

] hus, the COfl1petitivc bidding progran1 Joel" not accurately reflect the nl.urket for a 

particular product category in a particular geohrraphic area. Despite the description of the 

program as market-base_d, it really is nothing more than an arbitrary fee schedule that is 

applied to a reduced number of participating DMEPOS suppliers. 

• The combination of allowing non-binding bids and inviting inexperienced suppliers to 

bid for the contracts has resulted in further distortions of the market. '111e negative 

impact on the market was accentuated when some of the lowest bidders walked away 

from the program but their bids still influenced the competitive bidding payment 

amounts. 

• eMS has not made public the level of information necessary to gauge how successful the 

competitive bidding program really is in terms of patient access to quality care. For 

example, eMS has not responded to the request of the Program Advisory and Oversight 

National Association for the Support of Long Term Care 

1050 17'h Street, NW I Suite 500 I Washington, DC I 20036 I www.NASLorg 

Page 2 of 5 
103 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 143 77561A.073

Committee (1'" \OC) for information in 2011 that would enable the IJ,\OC: to assess the 

impact of the competitive bidding program on beneficiaries and suppliers. Preliminary 

analyses performed by outside economists have at least raised the yuestion that the 

reduction in utilization of DMEPOS products and services in the competitive bidding 

areas may he adversely affecting Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary 

care. Round Two of the program, which is a ten-fold increase in the scope of the 

competitive bidding program, should not be undertaken until eMS demonstrates that 

patient access to care has not been compromised. 

In addition to these basic concerns that are shared by virtually all Dl,,!EPOS suppliers, NASL 

wishes to raise particular issues that result from the application of the competitive bidding 

program to products provided in nursing facilities. One of the product categories included in 

Round One and Round Two of the competitive bidding program, enteral nutrition, is primarily 

provided to residents of nursing facilities. This presents issues that go far beyond the scope of 

the competitive bidding pros>ram, as explained belO\\!. 

Enteral nutrition involves the provision of nutrients by tube into a patient's stomach or intestine. 

I t is prescribed by physicians for patients whose lower gastrointestinal tract functions normally 

but who are unable to swallow, who have a gastric obstruction or who cannot otherwise ingest 

adequate amounts of food and fluids by mouth. Medicare Part B covers enteral nutrition 

formulas, supplies and equipment nnder the prosthetic device benefit when enteral nutrition is 

necessary for the patient to maintain weight and strength commensurate with his or her general 

condition. 

I t is noteworthy that enteral nutrition was not tested successfully during the two demomtration 

projects that preceded the enactment of the if 2003, which created the 

competitive bidding program for DMEPOS items and services. In fact, enteral nutrition was 

removed from the Polk County, Florida demonstration, in large part, we believe, because most 

enteral patients in that county resided in nursing facilities. This created complications that Ct-.·fS 

did not want to address at that time. 

Nursing facilities have a special relationship with their residents. Especially for long stay 

residents, the nursing facility is the resident's home. The nursing facilities are responsible for 

providing complex nursing and rehabilitative therapy sen-ices involving an array of clinicians, 

providers and suppliers to meet patient health care needs, and the facilities are held accountable 

for the (JUality of the care and services. Nursing facilities must meet detailed conditions of 

participation to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as a wide array of 

additional federal and statc requirements regarding patient safety and quality of care. Because of 

their multiple responsibilities in this regard, nnrsing facilities traditionally have established longstanding rclationships with selected suppliers based on experience, and the suppliers' 

understanding of the fragile and medically complex patient that rely on nursing facilities for care. 

For these reasons, many nursing facilities were extremely concerned that the competitive bidding 

program would force them to admit unfamiliar suppliers into their facilities to provide services, 

supplies and eyuipmel1t to their residents. N, \SL agrees with nursing facilities on this point 

National Association for the Support of Long Term Care 

1050 17'h Street. NW I Suite 500 I Washington, DC I 20036 I www.NASL.org 

Page 3 of 5 
104 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 144 77561A.074

that the facilities must be able to select the suppliers that the facilities believe can best enable 

them to meet resident needs and comply with applicable standards. l'nfortunately, the 

competiti\·c bidding program has interfered with their ability to make these decisions regarding 

the enteral nutrition needs of their residents, and has disrupted ongoing relationships that had 

worked to the benefit of their residents. The fact that grand fathering (i.e., pcrmitting 11011-

winning bidden; to continue to pnlYide care to their current patients if they accept the 

competitively bid rates) was not extended to enteral nutritiol1 ensured that every nursing facility 

that did not win a bid, or every nursing facility whose cnteral nutrition supplier did not win the 

bid, had to find a new enteral nutrition supplier. 

In addition, the provision of cnteral nutrition therapy in nnrsing facilities differs from the 

provision of enteral nutrition therapy in patients' homes. Residents in nursing facilities often arc 

morc impaired than home care patients and require a different rq.,rimen of carc. f~:nteral patients 

in nursing facilities have dietary needs that change more frequently than most home care patients, 

and thus require the service, of enteral nutrition suppliers that can readily add res;; their special 

needs. J\n entnal supplier tllat has had no experience working with the complex medical needs 

of nursing facility residents may not be an adequate replacement for a supplier that has had years 

of such experience. 

Suppliers with no experience or understanding of the complex nature of the nursing facility and 

the patient that relics on the facility for 24-hour care may seck to lower costs by providing lower 

quality products. A.s an example of this, if beneficiaries can no longer be provided with certain 

types of enteral pumps this may lead to increased trips to the emergency room for gastric feeding 

tube replacement, and tbey will also incur the associated expense of emergency-level 

transportation services. Let alone the inconvenience, trauma and a predisposition to pressure 

ulcers due to time spent on a gurney associated with an ambulance trip to a hospital emergency 

department could present challenges for many beneficiaries. 

\'{le do not believe there has been adequate scm tiny of the application of the competiti\-e bidding 

program to nursing facility residents. \Ve urge Congress to recluire eMS to provide the data to 

the Government, \ccountability Office for its required analysis of the competitive bidding 

program, and the public, to address the following issues: 

Changes in trcattllcnt patterns of enteral nutrition patients in nursing facilities in 

competitive bidding areas, and whether the use of new enteral nutrition suppliers has 

increased nursing facilities costs for the care of theif enteral nutrition patients; 

• ObselTations from nursing facilities' clinicians as to any diminution in quality of enteral 

nutrition therapy provided to their residents; 

• Incidence of re-hospitalization of nursing facility residents in need of enteral nutrition in 

competitive bidding areas in 2011, compared to the re-hospitalization rates in those arcas 

in 2010; and 

• \Vhether the new enteral nutrition suppliers providing enteral nutrition to nursing facility 

residcnts had previous experience in treating nursing facility residents. 

National Association for the Support of Long Term Care 

1050 1 th Street, NW I Suite 500 I Washington, DC I 20036 I www.NASL.org 

Page 4 of 5 
105 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 145 77561A.075

In addition, we request that Congress require CMS to grandfather all patients and products 

involved in the competitive bidding program in any future expansion or extension of the program. 

Additional Recommendations 

\'l/e join with numerous other commenters in advocating for the adoption of the concept of the 

Market Pricing Program developed by the DMEPOS industry. \X'e believe that better definitions 

of the professional services and related costs for the provision of DMEPOS, along with a £~ircr 

and more reasonable bidding regimen that will accurately capture market prices, will be a 

dramatic improvement over the current competitive bidding program. 

If Congress decides to continue with the current competitive bidding program, then we urge 

Congress to correct the deficiencies in the program we have identified in this statement. In 

addition, we urge Congress to modify the planned product categories for the Round One Recompete, scheduled to go into effect in 2014 for the orii,rinal nine competitive bidding arcas. 

eMS intends to group certain unrelated product categories into larger categories. For example, 

eMS intends to create a new "(;eneralllome Equipment and Related Supplies and ,\ccessories" 

category that will encompass hospital beds and related accessories, group 1 and 2 support 

services, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation devices, commode chairs, patient lifts and 

scat lifts. Many suppliers provide some but not all of these items. As a result, this will lead to 

several disturbing problems: 

• This approach unfairly favors large, "one-stop shop" operations, which ultimately will be 

anti-competitive. 

• Specialty or niche suppliers that have significant experience and enviable track records for 

quality for one or several of the items will be at a distinct disadvantage in the bidding for 

all of the items in this category. 

• To survive in this bidding process, small or niche suppliers will hal'e to increase the 

degree of subcontracting to cover the wide array of products in the category. 

Subcontracting increases the possibility of patient and provider confusion, disruptions in 

care and similar issues. 

• For those suppliers that choose not to subcontract to provide the full array of items in 

this category, they must attempt to become proficient and efficient in product areas with 

which they do not have experience. \'\'e believe the Medicare program should be 

providing incentives to suppliers to provide services and products in areas where they 

excel, instead of encouraging suppliers to experiment in other product areas. 

The DMEPOS competitive bidding program must be designed to produce savings for the 

Medicare program, and not diminish the quality of products, supplies and services for patients. 

Therefore, we thank the subcommittee for bringing attention to the issue by holding this hearing 

and urge Congress to complete a full analysis of the competitive bidding program before it 

expands the program to 91 Metropolitan Statisticalil.reas. NASL, an o'1o'<lnization that represents 

suppliers and manufacturers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and enteral 

nutrition, stands ready to be a resource, as you carry out the important work related to the 

competiti\'e bidding program and assessing the impact of the program on small businesses. 

National Association for the Support of Long Term Care 

105017'" Street, NW I Suite 500 I Washington, DC I 20036 I www.NASL.org 

Page 5 of 5 
106 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 146 77561A.076

DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (DME) 

COMPETITIVE BIDDING 

Will Cost More Than 100,000 Jobs 

DMEPOS Competitive Bidding is set to be implemented January 1, 2011 in nine of the 

United States' largest metropolitan areas (Round One). The program is to be expanded 

by 91 cities the following year (Round Two).' Competitive bidding is set to cost more 

than 80,000 American jobs in bid areas over the next three years, with totals likely to 

exceed 100,000 in all areas. 

93 percent of local prolliders wi!! not be awarded competitive bidding contracts'. 

As a result of the original bidding process, only 7 percent of local providers were 

awarded contracts. Through regulatory analysis of CMS-1561-1FC, CMS expressed 

the likelihood that re-bid results are likely to very closely resemble those stemming 

from the original bidding process. 

42 percent of non-contract providers are likely to go out of business. 

The average DME provider counts on Medicare for 42 percent of their revenue'. If 42 

percent of all revenue is taken from a sector of an industry, it's likely the resulting consolidation 

will result in a reduction of an approximately equal percent of existing companies. 

39 percent of all suppliers located in competitille bidding areas are likely 

to go out of business. 

The 42 percent reduction in revenue for the 93 percent of providers who will not be 

awarded contracts will result in a 39 percent reduction in providers and associated jobs. 

12,000 employees are set to lose their jobs through the first round of bidding. 

The average DME employs 10 FTP. The reduction of nearly 1,200 supplier locations will 

result in nearly 12,000 lost jobs in 2011 within the nine Round One competitive bidding areas. 

1 CMS.1270-F expands the program by 70 cities, while Senate Health Care Reform provisions propose an additiona/21 

2 2008 Competitive Bidding Results 

3 HME News 2009 Financial Survey 

4 Based on an average of $120,000 in revenue per FTE and 2008 National Health Expenditure data 
107 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 147 77561A.077

More than 80,000 employees will lose their jobs 

implementation of the first two rounds of competitivE! 

Competitive bidding implementation in the nine Round One areas, 70 Round Two areas and 

21 areas likely to be added through health care reform legislation will collectively result in 

more than 80,000 lost jobs within the 100 bid areas. 

The of branch location of CBA-based providers outside of bid 

bring job loss totals to more Hum 100,000 by 2014. 

The competitive bidding program will start a domino effect, with the number of lost jobs 

attributed to its implementation likely to far exceed 100,000. Providers centrally located 

within a bid area and satellite branches outside of bid areas will close, resulting in lost jobs 

even outside bid areas. 

Medicaid and private insurers will reduce payment rates due to 

the program, further expanding the effect on providers. 

Generally Medicaid and private insurers follow Medicare's lead when setting reimbursement 

rates for DME. Bid rates will undoubtedly result in significant reduction in payment from all 

payers, only reinforcing the fact that more than 100,000 jobs will be lost as a result of direct 

and indirect effects of the program. 

Even contract suppliers will lose on average 33 percent of their Medicare 

business, and 14 percent of their overall patient base. 

For the 7 percent of local suppliers receiving contracts, the average DME will only receive 

four of six bid product category contracts, based on original Round One results. 

Finances will not allow for significant shifts in jobs from non-Medicare 

suppliers to Medicare-contracted suppliers. 

Analysts and econom ists have concurred. The anticipated reductions in Medicare 

reimbursement will be such that suppliers awarded contracts will not have the financial 

wherewithal to take on additional staff. There will be no measurable shift in employment 

from "losing bidders" who are forced out of business to "winning bidders" who must take 

on the entire Medicare market. 

Au. OF THIS COULD BE PREVENTED BY PASSING H.R. 

hudget neutral and bipartisan legislation to repeal thc ])ME competitive hickling program. 

SUPPORT FOR H.R. .lO41 WILL SAVE MORE THAN 100,000 AMERICAN JOBS 

and ensure continuing I-)CJ.JOIU,U access to care. 

Insert graphic folio 148 77561A.078smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Insert graphic folio 149 77561A.079smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Irldlanapol,s,IN 10 57 

68,755 

53 

j(nQXVltie, TN 108,090 

Laf<.eianti-W'nterHaven,f'L 

10 20 18 

18 

77 54 50 109 95 

McAlien-€dmburz·?har', TX 162 13,059 65 Mem!)h,s,TN 189 158,661lMdwaukee,Wau\(€sha-West All", 'NI 139 231,314 

f,1'nneapolis-SL Pi\ul-Sloommgton, MN 381 10 13 11 " 1,

10 10 S8 14 

140,981l10 

New York.Northern New Jersey-Long NY·Nj· 3,111 2,801,847 4S 81 W 

28 " 

('tY,OK 163 157,101 

Omaha,CouncilBluffs,NE·IA 

PalmBay·Melb()urne-TIt\iSVllie,FL 10 

106 

115 184,$03 10 10 59 

SO 260,851 17 

39 

158 18 

383,781 21 18 119 28 15 

586.436 32 11 22 20 

124,995 " 66 Syracuse, NY 

23 19 26 175 42 16 

103,312 130,406 10 60 

139 lOS,832 11 W 66 53 

44,817 38 

W,ch.ta,K$ 83 86,948 

93 

Aibar'y·Scherllectady·Yroy,NY 73 137,793 

380.677 " 118 2S 2S 

10 " 63,447 38 307 36 35 25 12 

69 16 

Honolulu,HI 143,014 

Oaks·Vernura. CA 58 $6,983 

Ph<l;l(jelphJa-Cilmderl-\N,lrnmgton, PA·NJ·Df: 50' 50 38 27 

30 170 
110 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 150 77561A.080
111 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 158 77561A.088

of local DME will not be 

Sources: (a) Official CMS Round One Rebid Contract Supplier Listing 

(https:llwww.cms.gov/DMEPOSCompetitiveBid/01A2 Contract Supplier Lists.asp) 

compared to the total number of eligible suppliers (as of 1/1/2011) for Medicare Part B 

DMEPOS within each competitive bid metro area per the official Medicare Supplier 

Directory (www.medicare.gov/supplier/home.asp). (b) Peter Cramton, Professor of 

Economics, University of Maryland, Provider volumes in 2007-08 from the Medicare 5% 

Limited Data Set Standard Analytic File. 
112 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 159 77561A.089

&~tm1t!Q!~~ The average DME location emoio'i/s 10 HE 

Sources: (a) National Health Expenditure Projections 2009-2019 

UJ!!illi;jJJ'!!!Y:!.Y:!.J~~~:!.§jlill:@l!:im!illJJ~~@jili!,[Qf~!lQ§lfl§C2r;Ql?Qill~;!f) for tota I 

Durable Medical Equipment expenditures in all sectors projecting $28.1 billion in CY 2011, 

(b) CMS "Categories of DMEPOS Suppliers" indicating approximately 23,000 NPI numbers 

(locations) applicable to the provision of the DME product categories included with the 

bidding program and representing approximately 13,000 unique companies, and (c) 

overall average Revenue Per DME Employee 2010 Survey (Steven Richards and 

Associates, Inc.) at $125,000. (10 FTE * $125,000 * 23,000 = $28.7B) 

located in 

to go out of business. 

Sources: (a) Steven Richards and Associates, Inc. 2010 Survey indicates Medicare, as a 

payer type, to overall DMEPOS supplier revenue is approximately 39% with all payer 

EBITDA margin of 13%. (b) HMEdatabase.com; the nine product categories included in 

the bidding program make up approximately 73% of all Medicare reimbursements. (c) 

TCF Bank credit analysts suggest a significant percentage (40-50%) of DMEPOS suppliers 

who incur 29% (.39 Medicare* .73 Medicare products affected by program) revenue 

reductions will be unable to withstand the three year contracting period with current 13% 

margins. 
113 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 160 77561A.090

Gross Profit, & EBITDA 

100% 

Medicare DME Market 

• Top-20 products by 2009 reimbursement 

~~!!QJ[!.Q!l!f:.:fi More than 80,000 will lose their 

Mr,lp,npnt;,tirul of the first two rounds of rnrn .... ,tith,p 

(Competitive bidding implementation in the nine Round One areas, 70 

Round Two areas and 21 areas to be added through health care reform 

legislation. ) 

14% 

Sources: (a) Medicare Supplier Directory (www.medicare.gov/supplier/home.asp) search 

of all DMEPOS suppliers within metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) subject to the bidding 

program in Rounds 1 and 2, utilizing a 40% three-year failure rate, times 10 full time 

employees per supplier location. 
114 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 161 77561A.091

Statement of Charles R. Plott, Professor of Economics and Political 

Science, California Institute of Technology 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Small Business 

September 11, 2012 

My name is Charles Plott and I am the Edward S. Harkness Professor of Economics 

and Political Science at the California Institute of Technology. My research 

specialties are in the theory and behavior of auction systems including the design 

and testing of new forms of auctions. I am a member of the National Academy of 

Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Distinguished Member of 

the American Economic Association, a Fellow of the Econometric Society, and I 

have served as president of the Economic Science Association, the Society for the 

Advancement of Economic Theory, the Public Choice Society, the Western 

Economics Association, and the Southern Economics Association. I have 

consulted with many governments and businesses and I have published over 160 

scientific papers. 

My testimony is in response to the questions as posed to me by the Committee. 

1. I was asked to summarize my paper "The CMS Auction: Experimental Studies 

of a Median-Bid Procurement Auction with Nonbinding Bids", written with Brian 

Merlob and June Zhang and published in The Quarterly Journal oj Economics, vol. 

127, no. 2, 2012, pp. 793-828. I was also asked to comment further on the 

fundamental issues I see with the Competitive Bidding program as it pertains to 

the DMEPOS established by CMS. 

I became aware of the properties of the CMS auction through a letter that called 

attention to the rules. The letter was addressed to auction experts and was sent 

by Professor Peter Cramton of the University of Maryland. I independently 

initiated a study of the auction rules. I found that some of the CMS auction rules 

reflect standard procedures but two rules protruded as features that would 

necessarily lead to an unsuccessful auction. The possible incongruence between 

the CMS auction rules and the intuition drawn from a substantial body of well 

tested auction theory led to the research reported in the paper. The 
115 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 162 77561A.092

experimental economics methods I applied were a natural tool to illustrate the 

potential tension between the purpose of the rules and their consequences if put 

into place. 

My focus is on the major architectural features of the auction, several of which 

are standard in the world of auction procedures. The auction proceeds as a sealed 

bid auction using a "one price" structure in the sense that if identical items are 

purchased, then suppliers are paid the same price independent of the terms of 

the tendered bid. Bids are arranged from low to high. The fixed procurement goal 

is applied to determine the winners to be those with the lowest bids. These 

features are well known and function well within standard frameworks. Several 

other features are natural and dictated by the scale and scope of the auction. 

The issues of concern stem from two central features of the eMS auction that are 

not part of traditional auctions: (1) The price is set at the median of the winning 

bids, and (2) winning bids may be withdrawn after the price is announced should 

the winners find the price unacceptable. These two features make the eMS 

auction substantially different from traditional procurement auctions. 

My study is structured around comparisons between the performance of auctions 

based on the eMS auction rules and auctions based on other auctions rules. The 

comparisons are based on four natural policy goals: (il The auction should be 

successful in procuring the units demanded; (iiI The auction should be efficient 

from a social point of view in the sense that units are purchased from the lowest 

cost producers; (iii) The auction should not be wasteful from the government's 

point of view; and (iv) The auction should produce a competitive price that is 

capable of creating a healthy supply industry. 

Different auction tests were created and studied through the use of experimental 

economics methods frequently used to compare the basic principles of auction 

behavior and performance. Auction architectures performing poorly in simple 

cases studied experimentally provide a realistic warning about problems that can 

surface in complex cases. Furthermore, if the behavior observed in the simple 

case is understandable in terms of theory, or even partial theory, then there is 

reason to take that theory seriously when applied to more complex cases. 

Theories that are less successful in the laboratory can be analyzed to determine 

why they lack reliability. 

2 
116 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 163 77561A.093

The major test results can be summarized as follows: 

• Reliable procurement auction architectures exist. Our study focused on the 

"excluded bid" pricing process, which met all of the four natural policy 

goals. Procurement policies were met. The auction was efficient. Prices 

approximated competitive so a healthy industry could be maintained and 

the cost was as low as possible given that goal. 

• The CMS auction architecture failed the tests on all dimensions. The theory 

that motivated the concerns of the CMS auction critics is supported by the 

tests and that theory explains the poor performance. To be a winner in the 

auction, a supplier needs to bid lower than other suppliers. But unlike other 

auctions the bids are not constrained from below by the cost of supply 

because the bid can be withdrawn if the supplier does not like the resulting 

price determined by the auction. A winning low bid provides the bidder 

with an option to sell at the market price if the bidder likes the price and 

refuse otherwise. Excessively low bids are part of strategic bidding. A 

pattern of excessively low bids emerged from the test auctions and that 

resulted in an announced price below the cost of many bidders. Since the 

winning bids were consistently below cost, prices, based on the median of 

already excessively low prices, were certainly below cost. The procurement 

failed dramatically in the tests. 

The CMS rules violate two basic principles. One is often termed "no 

cheap talk" meaning that the incentives assure that participants must 

deliver on offers that are accepted. The principle is observed operating 

around us in daily commerce. A bid on a home is often accompanied with a 

payment to prevent frivolous offers. Offers tendered in stock and bond 

exchanges are enforced rigorously. Except in special circumstances offers 

cannot be conveniently cancelled after acceptance. Common sense 

suggests that cheap talk, if allowed, can undermine a competitive 

negotiation process. The second principle is related to a concept of 

"revelation". Successful auctions rely on forces of competition to guide 

competitors toward revealing the best terms they can offer. This 

"revelation" property can take many forms but it must be designed into the 

process. The CMS architecture is an example of the absence of the 

principle and, as a consequence, the offers in the test auctions had little 

resemblance to costs. 

3 
117 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 164 77561A.094

• For the CMS auction there is no simple "fix" in the sense that some slight 

change in the rules might correct the problems. The removal of one of the 

rules does not produce a well-functioning auction process. One can 

imagine an auction in which the price is determined by the median of the 

lowest bidders but bidders cannot withdraw bids. Testing such an auction 

reveals a perversity of such rules as bidders place very high bids in an 

attempt to avoid winning and being forced to sell at a low auction price. 

That is, a price determined by the median of the low bidders can still be 

unacceptable and the way to avoid being forced to sell below cost is to 

place a bid far above cost knowing that you can only win if others bid high 

and so the price will be high. With such rules the cost of the procurement 

goes up dramatically but efficiency does not because the least cost bidders 

need not be winners. 

An alternative modification of the CMS auction might be to replace 

the median price rule with the excluded bid price determination, while 

keeping the withdrawal rule. That change does not improve the auction 

performance. Competition drives prices to levels lower than bidders are 

willing to accept and the auction does not succeed. 

• The problems with the CMS auction become exacerbated with scale. 

Additional suppliers, relative to procurement goals, simply add to the 

excessively low prices, bid withdrawals and procurement failure. 

The best form of auction in tests conducted in this study was the excluded price 

auction. It was implemented as a sealed bid auction but the auction exists in 

many forms. Those include descending price auctions, clock auctions, and other 

forms of continuous auctions. Simultaneous auctions and combinatorial auctions 

have both been successful. 

2. The auction tests were conducted using standard methodology of 

experimental economics. The methods are widely used for testing new forms of 

auctions and also testing other competitive processes. Examples include the FCC 

auctions of the electromagnetic spectrum, pollution permit markets, auctions of 

public properties, regulation, and other competitive systems. Rules that seem 

desirable when viewed in isolation, in abstraction or from the view of a single 

bidder can have completely different properties when placed in the context of a 

system. Competitive processes are systems and the rules must be considered in 

terms of unforeseen consequences that result from the interactions of 

4 
118 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 165 77561A.095

competitors operating within the rules. Experimental economics evolved to meet 

the challenge of the required tests. Many economics laboratories exist in the 

United States as well as most other countries. 

Experimental methods are used to focus on very simple cases created and studied 

under laboratory environmental conditions. As is the case with any economics or 

engineering example, field trials can be so complex that at the end of the trial it is 

impossible to determine exactly what happened and why. Simple experiments 

are used to test for the most basic proof of principle prior to going to a field trial. 

Experiments are used to expose and test the basic principles at work. Once 

principles are understood, they become tools to assess what will take place in 

more complex environments. The questions posed in the tests we performed are 

whether or not the auction works as anticipated or desired and whether or not it 

is working for understandable reasons. 

The tests we conducted were in the form of auctions in which subjects were given 

financial incentives to win. The structures of the incentives were such that the 

experimenter could compute both the theoretically efficient allocation and the 

theoretical competitive price. At the conclusion of the test, we could study the 

outcome of the auction to determine the degree to which the auction 

approximated these measures. The subjects were recruited from subject pools at 

Caltech and the University of Maryland. These subject pools have been 

successfully used in many important auction systems tests, including the FCC 

auctions, among others. 

The auctions were first tested at Caltech's Laboratory for Experimental Economics 

and Political Science. The data for all auction forms were tested and analyzed. 

The study then moved to the Experimental Economics Laboratory at the 

University of Maryland. Instructions and the conduct of the experiment were 

handled from Caltech with Maryland personnel observing and watching for any 

technical problems. The tests at the University of Maryland replicated the 

findings in the Caltech laboratory. In addition, a set of new parameters were also 

employed at the Maryland facility to test the robustness of previous results. All 

results replicated and scaled as predicted by theory. Embedded in the procedures 

were special conditions that could be compared to results from auctions 

produced by many laboratories over many years. All results compared favorably 

to those produced elsewhere in the research community. 

5 
119 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 166 77561A.096

3. My knowledge of what transpired in the CMS field trials is limited to 

conversations, newspaper reports, and a report of the data produced by 

Professor Peter Cramton. However, I can say what one would expect to find 

based on the performance of the auctions we studied. 

(i) Auction bids would be low relative to expectations. That would include 

patterns of bids below costs. 

(ii) Winning bidders would be hesitant to deliver at the at the announced 

auction price. The response of the auctioneer would be to attempt to force 

delivery by whatever means available, including threats of exclusion from future 

auctions. This activity follows the realization that the bids reflected "cheap talk". 

(iii) To the extent that bidders could not be forced to supply at stated prices 

the procurement would fall short of needs. 

(iv) Without a profitable market, firms would begin leaving the market in 

search of alternative products to produce and support their enterprise. 

6 

Insert graphic folio 167 77561A.097smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

LAST CHANCE FOR PATIENT CHOICE 

AND 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMECARE 

AGREED·UPON PROCEDURES ENGAGEMENT 

Insert graphic folio 168 77561A.098smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

HOGAN HANSEN 

A po fa ti () n 

Certified Put>hc and 

Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon ProceduresLast Chance for Patient Choice and 

American AssociatIon of Homecare 

Waterloo, Iowa 

We have performed the procedures described in Schedule A, which were agreed to by Last Chance for 

Patient Choice and American Association of Homecare. solely to assist you with respect to certain home 

health care products which may be part of a competitive bidding system maintained by Medicare. This 

procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards 

established by the American institL;te of Certified Publlc Accountants The sufficiency of the procedures IS 

solely the responsibility of the specified parties of the report Consequently, we make no representatIon 

regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below e1ther for the purpose for which this report 

has been requested or for any 

Our procedures and findings are described in Schedules A, 8, C and D 

We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audIt, the objective of which would be the expression of 

an opinion on the information. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed 

additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to 

you 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Last Chance for Patient Choice and American 

Association of HomecBre and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these 

specified parties, 

ik'hN #AliJ ell 

HOGAN - HANSEN 

Waterloo, Iowa 

August 8, 2012 

lJ2!; BllId(way Road, PO HI!.' 24(), In''''' 'l07(14·()24() • 1111/21.\.5125 • Yu • 

AJ_, •• . .. 

Insert graphic folio 169 77561A.099smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Schedule A 

Agreed·Upon Procedures 

Part I 

Make 100 calls to Medicare Help Line 1-800·633·4227 at varying times of the day with at least 

two calls per day and calls made in the morning. afternoon and evening. Weekend calls are to be 

attempted. but if the service is not available on the weekend. that should be documented and then 

the 100 calls should aU be made during the business hours, 

For each call, inquire about available providers of oxygen, hospital beds or wheelchairs in the 

following areas of the country: 

City or State 

Cleveland 

Minnesota 

Tennessee 

Louisiana 

Nebraska 

51. Louis 

Rhode Island 

San Anlonio 

San Diego 

Seattle 

New York 

Chicago 

Hartford 

Springfield 

Baltimore 

Albany 

Poughkeepsie Rochester 

Allentown 

Scranton 

Little Rock 

Cape Coral 

Attanta 

Baton Rouge 

Jackson 

Greensboro 

Tulsa 

Greenville 

Nashvifle 

Flint 

Grand Rapids 

Wichita 

San Jose 

Stockton 

E! Paso 

Omaha 

Dayton 

Zip Code 

85725, 85734 

45042, 45051 44023, 44039 

54723, 54021 

37172,38569 

70471,70115 

51502,68463 

62248,62074,62040,62202 

02357, 02872 78002, 78886 

91901,92197 98007, 98490 

07717,07977 

60151, 60568 

06002,06043 01071,01116 

20723,21035 

12084,12175 10941,12504 14454, 14502 18015, 18210 

18419,18510 

72034, 72099 

33924, 33971 30028, 30092 

70722, 70739 

39042, 39082 

27265, 27350 

74028, 74070 

29611,29681 

3"1055. 37122 

48507, 48532 

49058,49316 

67020, 67026 95123,95118 9521" 95205 

7991" 79928 

51536,68018 

45322, 45373 

Insert graphic folio 170 77561A.100smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

City or State 

Huntington 

Colorado Springs 

De:1ver 

Honolulu 

Boise City 

Albuquerque 

Las Vegas 

Portland 

Saft Lake City 

SeaWe 

Agreed-Upon Procedures 

Zip Code 

41144,45619 

80863, B0917 

80013,80031 

96791, 96822 

83636, 83646 87035, 87072 89012,89128 

97018,97034 

84036,84061 

98029, 98042 

Schedule A 

During each call, inqUIre about a competltlVe bidding system and whether that impacts the area 

we are calling about and If it will affect the availability of services In future years, 

Document the number of rings before the phone is answered. 

Document the time, In seconds. that it takes to reach a numan being to speak to 

See Schedule C for the results ofthe procedures applied. 

Partil 

Make one caJl to each of the providers listed in Schedule 0 at varying times of the day with at least 

two calls per day and calls made in the morning, afternoon and evening. Weekend caUs are to be 

attempted. but if the service IS not available on the weekend, that should be documented and then 

the 100 calls should aU be made during the business hours. 

For each call, inquire about whether the business IS a provider of oxygen, hospital beds or 

wheelchairs. 

Document the number of rings before the phone is answered. 

Document the time, in seconds, that it takes to reach a human being to speak with 

See Schedule 0 tor the results of the procedures applied. 

Insert graphic folio 171 77561A.101smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Schedule B 

Summary of Results of the Agreed-Upon Procedures 

Calls Made To 

Average number of phone rings before being answered 

Average number of phone commands to reach a !IVe person 

Average number of seconds between phone answer and 

talking to a live person 

Percentage of o:;alls answered by a live person in less than 1 minute 

Pero:;entage of calls answered by a live person in less than 2 minutes 

Percentage of calls where a competitve bidding area was answered "Yes" 

Pero:;entage of calls where a competitveJy bid product was answered "Yes" 

MediCare 

2,00 

300.67 

D% 

28.00% 

4.00% 

2.00% 

Providers 

1.64 

0.27 

19.85 

90.00% 

100% 

N/A N/A 

Insert graphic folio 172 77561A.102smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Provider 

1 BJCHomr!Mcdl[,,' 

MedResOlJrces 

Pna"mas Medit3! J;quipmcnt 

IV & Ro;'spirlitoryCJr<! 

Mobility First 

7 Adv3f1(:('d OMI; 

S $uPP01tS(;'vkt'$,lnc. 

t " 1(Me Pro Home Medic,,) 

12 Kelly's Medic:.l!Supply 

B 

14 Harr1fYlerMcdrOli5L1pply 1$ 

l7 

18 iI.·lhomeHealthcare 

19 Madison CO MedEq .. "pmeot 

20 U of lA (omm Homecare 

21 M<M!(1)1 Supply loc 

22 Allm<l Ii & C Home O)(y & Med SLIp 

n Rke Home 

24 MedCityMobiHty 

25 

26 HealtMineMooicalEqulpment 

17 HeliapleMeditalSupply 

28 Wheelchair Plus 29 COI'J)&Me{iical 

30 SandfordHealthc:m:ASSOcLLC 31 Hometown He(l;ith,are I", 

32 HometownMeuicalLtC 

33 3< 

16 

37 OMESov\h 33 ThriftHomeCare 

" 

41 

42 OUrtiMea, Inc, 43 lifeCMC Medkal Inc 

44 Acces$ Re:piratory Homecare LtC 4S 46 

" " " SO " " 

R(l'suits of Calls to Providers 

Number Qf phone St'conds between phQ!lI.l 

nme Ca!!ed !l;ing$ Prior wmman<ls to an$Werandtalking 

(AM, PM, Evening) To Amwef reath a live perso!'l tQaliveperson 

AM GO 

AM 2 

t-M 4f> 

AM 2 

'M 2 

PM 

"M U 

PM 17 

'" n M1 

AM 

AM 90 AM 

10 

PM 35 

'M 

PM PM 

61 

AM 

AM 63 " 

AM 

PM 

12 

'M 18 

PM , 

AM 10 

AM " AM 

AM AM AM AM 

AM , 

AM t3 AM 2 

PM PM " 4 PM 5 

PM to PM PM 3S 

17 

PM PM 18 

6 

PrQdudinquired "',,,. 

Whedchair 

Oxygen 

Hospital bed 

Wheelchalf 

Hospr,,,lbed 

0, 

Wheelchair 

Hosp,taibed 

Whee!cha,r Wheelchair 

Ho>pitalbcd 

Wlieel(.h<lir 

Oxygen 

Hospitatbed 

HQ$pltalbed 

ManlialWheelchair 

MaooalWheeld!alr 

O)(ygefl 

Hospital Bed 

Oxygen 

ManualWheelthatr 

Oxygen 

OX)Igen 

Did 

the product we 

caUedabout 

Yo; Yes 

No "aid (hey in and oi-pd.p eq

N, 

y", Yo, 

y" 

Yo, 

Yo, 

No 

y" Yo> 

Yo. Y"$ 

)1('; 

y" y" Y"s Yes 

Ye, 

Insert graphic folio 173 77561A.103smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 

Provide( 

53 f.,1cs<> Med!ca! Supply LlC 

RO(.ky Mountain Eq!Jipmerlt JrlC 

All Home Med,ca! 

56 Nonn,ll1 Regional homo Medical f.qwpmenl 

CareSourCf'llC 

Advan(-edCare Med,cal Equipmen( 

59 Home Heaf t!1 WarehouS{' IlC 

GO 

Knueppe!Hoalt!1C<fH:SerYlce5h'l, 

64 Home ,"ealth (JOlted Home Med,,:;al LQWII 

6S ramilyMedkalEf,julpmen 

" Memcr,al Home Service, ( 67 IroquDisHomeCarc 

63 Lilkelandl'harmacy 

69 TheHomeHcalthcareStorc 

'/0 

71 ContlnuedCilfeoflooglsldnd,lnc 

72 Home Respiratory Care 

H Home<::ilre CO(l<.:epts Inc 

14 

76 " 

79 "MedOneliealthcareLLC 

80 AU Merl Equipment $ervic(! Inc 61 

82 

" 84 Calo>:lnc 

as Erlloe Home Medical Equipment 56 Expere<iHeal!hcare 

SJ 

'" 89 Ellis Home OXYBen & MedICal Equipm"'nt 

90 6airdRespir1:ltory 91 GSH Home Med Care 92 M@di(:OoINecessitiesan(iServkHLLC 

93 King Orog,arni HomeC<trt"! 94 Cooley Med,cal EquIp inc 95 Mo;>dicaIN,;o,:essitif'slnc 

96 Nilples Oxyg,en 97 Browning's I'il¥macy And Healthcate 

98 

99 Rx$ta!lru; 

100 AirwayOxyeenlnc 

AVNilge 

Results. of Calls to Providers 

Numb>!r of phone Seconds between phone 

Time Called Rings "rior COllll'rnllldsto answer and talking 

(AM,PM,hening) ToAI'I$wer toaHvepen;oR 

--

-

-

--

-

--

-

N 

" , 

N 

N 

027 

" 12 

5 

" 3 

66 

$6 

59 

10 

11 

6 

75 

13 

49 

11 

7 

44 

, 

" o 

o 

25 

90 

10' " 

, 

10 

3 

10 

19.85 

I'rotWctinquired 

ahoot 

'1cspltallkd 

Maq\lalWheelchaio 

Ma'WalWheekllalr 

Oxyge,! 

HospltiitBed 

Manual Nne<>lchak ManualWhoeicnak 

ManualWhee!chair ManualWheelomir 

MafluaiWneeldlalr 

O>:ygen 

liosplta!Bed 

Manual Wheelchair 

Oxygen 

Hospital6ed 

Manual Wheelchair 

Oxygen 

Hosp<t<t!8ed 

ManualWhcelchaJr 

Oxygen 

Oid thil"Y have 

the pro(!u(:! we 

called about 

", 

Ye; 

", 

Yo> 

'" 

Y" Yo, 

No 

y" 

y" 
127 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 174 77561A.104

~ ~.¥LU~~*~: {U,§~ 

~ 

~I 0 oco~ooo ~o~o~ 

&2 
128 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 175 77561A.105

I f ~~~£~ .~~£"'~~~, 

i 

" fl ~l ~ £ OJ 

~1 it r~~I¥ ~~~f~~~lf~~ "';:;? ~ 

i ~ 5 t 
129 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 176 77561A.106

Last Chance for Patient Choice 

August 13, 2013 

Background and Explanation of Hogan-Hansen Study on Medicare's 

ability to accept beneficiary calls 

Background 

CMS (Medicare) implemented their competitive bidding scheme in nine MSAs effective January 

1,2011. Implementation of this bidding scheme resulted in a dramatic alteration to the home 

health care infrastructure - an 80% reduction in healthcare suppliers of oxygen, wheelchairs and 

hospital beds; reductions in levels of service provided, change in quality of equipment and 

assistive devices; dramatic reductions in access to home healthcare equipment and services 

among beneficiaries; and, changing of suppliers for thousands of people; among other impacts. 

The frail elderly and the disabled populations in these nine markets were the population which 

suffered the impacts ofCMS's implementation of this bidding scheme. 

On April 17, CMS issued a report titled, "Competitive Bidding Update-One Year 

Implementation Update" in which it reported on the results of the program and specifically made 

the following claims about impact on beneficiaries and beneficiary complaints: 

"The results o/CMS's real-time claims monitoring is supported by the low number 0/ 

beneficiary complaints the agency has received. Since implementation, CM,) has been 

carefully monitoring complaints coming into its regional offices, its toll-free number 1-

800-Medicare, and to the Medicare Competitive Acquisition Ombudsman's office. CMS 

received 127,466 beneficiary inquiries regarding the competitive bidding program during 

2011. This represented less than 1 percent o/total call volume at the I-800-Medicare call 

center. The vast majority of inquiries were about routine matters, such as questions about 

the program or finding a contract supplier. The number of overall beneficiary 

complaints, defined as inquiries that express dissatisfaction with the program and cannot 

be resolved by a call center operator, continues to be minimal. All complaints were 

assigned to program experts for prompt resolution. In the fourth quarter of calendar year 

201I,CMS received six beneficiary complaints. This is a minute fraction of the 2.3 million 

Fee-for-Service beneficiaries residing in the nine competitively bid MSAsfor 2011. " 

Concern over CMS's inability or unwillingness to engage beneficiary feedback 

Patient advocate groups and medical equipment industry groups adamantly disagreed with 

CMS's finding and report. The CMS findings were not in any way consistent with the stories 
130 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 177 77561A.107

and observations of these groups. Multiple beneficiary and industry groups have brought 

forward multitudes of complaints and concerns from beneficiaries. It is our belief that there have 

been and continue to be large numbers of beneficiaries negatively impacted by the eMS bidding 

scheme. We believe there are numerous problems with eMS's alleged monitoring of 

complaints. One of these problems is that it is exceedingly difficult for beneficiaries to access 

eMS offices to ask a question, to seek assistance, to wage a complaint or resolve a problem. 

Independent Study 

We engaged an independent accounting firm to perform a survey of accessibility and 

effectiveness of the eMS 1-800-Medicare question and complaint system. The survey results 

demonstrated a shocking lack of accessibility to eMS and explain, in part, why eMS alleges to 

have not received many complaints. Among the findings: 

• On average, its takes a caller to eMS over 5 minutes before they reach a live person with 

whom to speak. 

• This 5 minute timeframe contrasts with an average of less than 20 seconds it takes to 

reach a live person at any of 100 random DME providers, day and night. 

• Further, in calls to DME providers, 90% of the callers reached a live person in less than 

one minute. In attempting to reach eMS, 0% of callers reached a live person in under 

one minute. 

• In calls to DME providers, 100% of the callers reached a live person in less than two 

minute. In attempting to reach eMS, only 28% of callers reached a live person in under 

two minute. 

• It is inconceivable that any organization, especially one serving an elderly population, 

would establish a user/customer/beneficiary support system where callers must wait more 

than 45 seconds to reach a Jive person. eMS's level of disregard for its beneficiary 

callers either constitutes gross incompetence or deliberate avoidance of beneficiary input 

and questions. 

• The independent accounting firm also asked the eMS phone team whether or not the new 

competitive bidding rules would apply in their zip code and whether or not those rules 

would change anything about DME providers they could access or DME equipment they 

would use. In all 100 calls, the caller used a round 2 bid MSA as their home, but 96% of 

the time eMS told them that zip code was not in round 2 of competitive bidding. In all 

100 calls, the caller indicated needing either oxygen, a wheelchair or a hospital bed. In 

98% of the calls, eMS indicated that the DME product was not eovered by eompetitive 

bidding now or in the future. 

Last Chance for Patient Choice 1111 San Marnan Drive, Waterloo, Iowa 50701 
131 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 178 77561A.108

A Market Pricing Program to Fix Medicare's Bidding System 

for Home Medical Equipment and Services (HME) 

The congressional objective in requiring Medicare to use competitive bidding to establish payment 

amounts for home medical equipment (durable medical equipment) was to reduce Medicare and 

beneficiary expenditures and ensure that beneficiaries have access to quality items and service. This 

objective cannot be met because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has designed a 

program that does not hold bidders accountable, does not ensure that bidders are qualified to provide the 

products in the bid markets, and produces bid rates that are financially unsustainable. More than 240 

market auction experts and economists have warned that the Medicare bidding program is unsustainable in 

its current form. It will create significant barriers to access and will destroy the HME infrastructure that 

seniors and people with disabilities depend on. 

To fix these serious problems, independent auction experts and economists proposed a market-based 

pricing system for HME. The proposal, known as the Market Pricing Program (MPP), would require CMS to 

make fundamental changes to ensure a financially sustainable program. It uses a state-of-the-art auction 

system to establish market-based reimbursement rates around the country. These changes are consistent 

with Congress' original intent: to create a program that is based on competition while maintaining 

beneficiary access to quality items and services. Key components of the MPP are: 

MPP includes the same HME items as the competitive bidding program and is implemented across 

the country in the same timeframe as the bidding program; 

Two product categories are bid per geographic area. Eight additional product categories in that 

same area would have prices adjusted based on auctions conducted simultaneously in comparable 

geographic areas; 

• Bid areas are smaller than metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and more homogeneous; 

• Bids are binding and cash deposits are required to ensure only serious bidders participate; 

The bid price is based on the "clearing price," not the "median price" of winners; and, 

The same areas that are exempted under the competitive bidding program will be exempted under 

MPP. 

The Medicare DMEPOS Market Pricing Program Act of 2012 

Overview 

This legislation would replace the current Medicare DMEPOS competitive bidding program with a 

sustainable market pricing program (MPP) that is based upon sound economic principles that are embraced 

universally by auction experts across the country. The market pricing program would be implemented on 

the same timetable and apply to the same DMEPOS product categories as the current program, and it will 

reduce government spending for DMEPOS items nationwide. It is intended to be at least budget-neutral. 

1 
132 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 179 77561A.109

Bill Summary 

Stop the Current Program 

The Round One rebid Medicare DME competitive bidding contracts and prices will continue 

through June 30, 2013, and then terminate (six months early), when the MPP pricing will take 

effect. 

In the nine Round 1 Rebid areas, the Secretary shall offer contracts to DMEPOS suppliers that 

submitted a bid for one or more of the Round One product categories, but whose bid(s) were 

rejected solely because of price considerations. Those bidders who accept a contract must 

accept the single payment amount in effect for the particular product category(s). 

The Secretary will take no further action to implement Round Two in the 91 new bid areas 

under the current competitive bidding program. 

Establishment of the DMEPOS Market Pricing Program (MPPI 

Use of Experts to Design and Monitor the MPP 

• The Secretary shall, within two months of enactment, contract through a competitive process 

with an Auction Expert for the design and implementation of the MPP, and separately, also 

through a competitive process, contract with an expert to serve as Market Monitor for the 

MPP. 

Both the Auction Expert and Market Monitor may not be a current government employee, a 

current or former CMS employee, or a current or former CMS contractor involved in the 

competitive bidding programs undertaken to date by CMS. 

• Both the Auction Expert and Market Monitor must have successful experience designing and 

implementing auctions of similar complexity in the public sector. 

The Secretary shall make available to the Auction Expert and Market Monitor all confidential 

information on the relevant markets. 

• The Secretary and Auction Expert are required to operate the MPP with full transparency and 

to post on a public Internet site operated by the Secretary all information pertinent to the MPP. 

Timeline 

2012: 

• Within two months of appointment, the Auction Expert shall develop a draft auction design as 

the starting point for the collaborative rulemaking process. 

Within four months of appointment, the Secretary and Auction Expert shall convene a design 

conference to include all stakeholders, including CMS and other federal personnel, DMEPOS 

suppliers, beneficiaries and the DMEPOS competitive bidding Program Advisory and Oversight 

Committee (PAOCj. The conference shall be recorded and available over the Internet. 

2 
133 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 180 77561A.110

• Within three months following the design conference, the Secretary and Auction Expert will 

publish the final MPP design, which, to assure transparency, shall include all financial and other 

qualifications for bidders, the eligible market areas and product categories to be auctioned, 

the protocols and timing for the conduct of the auction, the methodology by which prices will 

be set for the non-lead products within a product category, the methodology by which an 

auction price will be transferred to the same product in an economically similar eligible area in 

which no auction for that product was held, and an appeals process to protect suppliers. 

2013: 

The auctions will commence no later than March 1, 2013. 

• The auctions will consist of multiple rounds of bidding (descending price), concluding when 

supply (from DMEPOS providers) meets demand (expected utilization) and thereby establishing 

the clearing price. 

• A cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit bid bond, in an amount determined by the 

Secretary and Auction Expert, is required for a bidder to be qualified to participate. These 

deposits are returned to unsuccessful bidders and retained for the successful bidders as a 

guarantee of performance on the contract. 

Implementation of the MPP by July 1, 2013 

• MPP prices determined through the auction will be effective July 1, 2013, for all areas of the 

country not excluded by current law. 

• The Secretary and Auction Expert will select a sufficient sampling of market areas for auction 

that will establish valid nationwide prices. 

Y The first auction will cover a sample of at least 20 percent of the country and include a 

variety of geographic and socio-economic areas. 

Y Succeeding annual auctions to cover a sample of at least 10 percent of the country. 

Product Categories to Be Auctioned 

• Same as in current program: oxygen, standard power wheelchairs, manual wheelchairs, enteral 

nutrients, CPAP, hospital beds, walkers, diabetic supplies, negative pressure wound therapy 

and support surfaces (Group 2). 

• Secretary retains current authority to compete additional categories. 

• Secretary is precluded from including in MPP adjustable skin protection cushions for 

wheelchairs, complex rehabilitative power wheelchairs and complex manual wheelchairs 

(HCpeS K0005 and E1161). 

• No more than two product categories may be auctioned for exclusive contracts in anyone 

market area (defined as a city/county/aggregation of counties). 

• Any qualified and willing supplier may provide non-auctioned categories in market areas at the 

clearing price as determined from auctions in other market areas via MPP. 

3 
134 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 181 77561A.111

Price Determination 

A "lead product" is determined for each of the product categories. 

• Other products are proportionately referenced (in terms of price) to the lead product price 

through a process designed by the Auction Expert with input from stakeholders. 

• The "lead product" is auctioned (descending price) until supply (providers' capacity) equals 

demand (expected utilization). 

At this point, the "clearing price" is determined and all remaining bidders are offered, and must 

accept, a contract at this price. 

The Secretary and Auction Expert, using an econometric model developed from the auction 

process, which spans a full range of geographic and socio-economic factors nationwide, 

determine and announce prices for all market areas not specifically excluded from MPP. 

Prices are effective July 1, 2013, and each July 1 of succeeding years for all areas not under the 

two-year exclusive contracts. This process annually adjusts prices to reflect true costs and 

rewards the most efficient providers. 

• Successful bidders (I.e. those whose bids are below the clearing price) will be offered a twoyear contract for that market area, and these suppliers must accept and perform the contract. 

Bidding Requirements 

• All bidders must provide a cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit (lOC) from a qualified 

institution as a bid guarantee of good faith and ability to perform. This bond will be retained as 

a performance guarantee for winners and returned for unsuccessful bidders. 

• The capacity of each bidder will be determined based upon the bidder's historical supply. Any 

new-to-the-market-area or new (start-up) suppliers having no historical supply will be assigned 

a standard base capacity of one percent market share. 

Miscellaneous MPP Provisions 

• A product-specific grandfathering period may be set by the Secretary on the recommendation 

of the Auction Expert with oversight of the Market Monitor, with qualified suppliers to furnish 

products under contract in market areas. 

• Small businesses are defined as $3.S million or less in annual revenues and shall represent at 

least 30 percent of total capacity in each market area. 

Role and Responsibilities of the Market Monitor 

• Reporting to the Secretary, the Market Monitor evaluates and reports on the design, 

implementation and functioning of MPP for the purpose of identifying weaknesses or problems 

and recommending adjustments and changes. 

• The Secretary shall provide the Market Monitor with access to all confidential information on 

the relevant ma rkets. 

4 
135 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 182 77561A.112

• The Market Monitor shall review and report on the draft and final auction designs and 

participate in and report on the designs and design conference. 

• The Market Monitor shall monitor supplier performance and beneficiary experience to ensure 

supplier compliance with standards established in the MPP and beneficiary access to quality 

products and services and shall provide regular reports to the Secretary on the these matters 

and the overall operation of MPP. 

• The Market Monitor shall provide an annual report to Congress on the development and 

operation of the MPP process, identifying potential problems and recommending solutions. 

Other Provisions 

• The PAGC is made permanent, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and 

terms of PAGC members extended for an additional 3 years. 

• Negative Pressure Wound Therapy-Standards will be collaboratively developed in consultation 

with the stakeholders as part of a new appendix to the Medicare DMEPGS Quality Standards. 

5 
136 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 188 77561A.118

Response to the Congressional Hearing on 

Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program 

Summary 

19 September 2012 

Peter Cramton 

On 11 September 2012, the Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology of the United States House 

Committee on Small Business led by Chairwoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and Ranking Member Cedric 

Richmond (D-LA) held a hearing on Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding 

Program, which is in its pilot stage, but soon is to expand to over one-half of the country. The program is 

administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Under the 2003 Medicare 

Modernization Act, Congress mandated CMS to identify providers and price home medical equipment 

through competitive bid. The hearing included four witnesses: 

• Lawrence Wilson, Director of the Chronic Care Group with CMS, testified on behalf of CMS; he is 

one of the CMS staff that runs the Medicare Competitive Bidding Program. He described the 

DME Competitive Bidding Program as "successful." 

• Peter Cramton, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, testified as an auction expert, 

who has designed and implemented auctions in many industries and countries over the last 

twenty years. He argued that Congress must insist that CMS replace its fatally flawed auction 

program with an efficient auction based on best-practice and science and thereby achieve leastcost sustainable supply of quality home medical equipment for beneficiaries. 

• Tammy Zelenko, President and CEO of Advacare Home Services, testified as one among the 

thousands of the small businesses that have participated in the Medicare auction. She described 

the serious problems of the program for any business, stating, "let us be clear: This bidding 

program is anti-small business. It is a business and job killer." 

• Randy Mire, owner of Gem Drugs, explained the important role of independent community 

pharmacies in the delivery of Medicare-funded health services and goods to beneficiaries. 

The hearing helped illuminate the serious problems with the current program. As an auction expert and 

someone quite knowledgeable with both CMS' current program and the stakeholders' Market Pricing 

Program, which replaces the current program with a modern efficient auction, I provide comments on 

CMS' testimony. 

I identify two points of agreement with CMS (details are provided in the main body of this statement): 

1. CMS' Competitive Bidding Program is not an auction. This is a harsh critique given the 2003 

Congressional mandate that requires that CMS identify providers and price services with an 

auction (competitive bid). To me as an auction expert (and not a lawyer), CMS' program is in 

violation ofthe law. 

1 
137 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 189 77561A.119

2. CMS' Competitive Bidding Progrom has such poor bidding incentives that a provider's rejection of 

a supply contract is unrelated ta its bid. In contrast, in an efficient auction, the provider is 

motivated to bid its cost, and therefore the decision to reject a contract is entirely determined 

by its bid: reject the contract if and only if the contract price is below the bid (the bidder's cost). 

I also identify several points of disagreement with CMS and explain why CMS is wrong (again details are 

provided in the main body of this statement): 

1. CMS claims it has worked closely with stakeholders to design and implement the program. It has 

not. It has dictated the terms. For otherwise it would not be possible to come up with a program 

that all stakeholders agree is badly flawed. CMS stands alone in supporting this program. 

2. CMS claims to be apen to improvements as the program expands. Then why for two years has 

CMS made no reform of the program in light of the unanimous agreement among experts and 

other stakeholders on the flaws of the program. Certainly CMS should explain why the 

stakeholders are wrong. CMS to date has not questioned the validity of the stakeholders' 

critique. 

3. CMS claims the program encourages small business participation. In fact, the program-even 

when implemented in less than 9 percent of the country-has led to the elimination of about 

4,000 companies as contract suppliers, about 90% of the total. 

4. CMS claims that the dramatic drop in utilization post-competitive bidding was the result of 

rampant overutilization, which the pragram has corrected. Instead, the drop in utilization is a 

result of access problems-the beneficiaries are unable to get the supplies they need from the 

Medicare program and so are getting their supplies outside the program. 

In response to critique of its Competitive Bidding Program, CMS has countered with two assertions: (1) 

the program is saving Medicare and beneficiaries a lot of money, and (2) there are no adverse health 

outcomes as a result of the program. Neither assertion is supported by fact. 

To see this consider the following thought exercise: Suppose CMS decided to set the price of two 

auctioned products-oxygen and mail-order diabetes test strips-to $0. This is easily accomplished by 

CMS setting the floor and ceiling for these two products to $0. Then all bids received would be zero and 

the median price would be zero. What would happen? Clearly even those who accept the price of zero 

and become contract suppliers will refuse to supply these products at such a price. Thus, utilization falls 

to zero together with the price. The result is a huge apparent "cost savings" for Medicare, when in fact 

what is observed is a denial of access. The apparent cost savings for beneficiaries is also a mirage. The 

benefiCiary whether a diabetic, an oxygen patient, or both, still gets her home medical supplies; she 

simply gets the supplies outside the Medicare Competitive Bidding Program and pays substantially more 

as a result. What happens with diabetes is especially interesting. Not even Medicare saves money, since 

the benefiCiary unable to get her test strips via mail order instead goes to the retail pharmacy, where 

both Medicare and the benefiCiary pay about 260% more. 

2 
138 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 190 77561A.120

In the Round One Rebid, CMS wisely chose to set the price above zero so as to induce a majority of 

suppliers to sign the supply contract. But the impact of CMS' program is the same as in the thought 

exercise above: false cost savings and denial of access. The Medicare auction requires significant reform. 

Two points of agreement 

eMS: "This is not an auction" 

Mr. Wilson. "This [the CMS Competitive Bidding Program] is not a procurement, a government 

procurement, it is not an auction." 

In response to Mr. Wilson's statement that the CMS Competitive Bidding Program was not an auction I 

testified: 

Mr. Cramton. "In the words of Mr. Wilson, he said, quote, 'This is not an auction.' This is one thing I 

completely agree with Mr. Wilson about, it is not an auction, and that is a very damning critique for the 

following reason: In 2003, Congress passed legislation that required that CMS conduct a competitive 

bidding program for durable medical equipment. Competitive bids and auction are the exact same thing. 

So he is saying that CMS is not abiding by the law, and I would agree with him on that point. It is one of 

the few things I agreed with him on: it is an arbitrary pricing process ... only worse since it excludes over 

90% of the market {rather than any willing supplier)." 

CMS' slow progress with auctions is one dear indicator that its problems are not limited to auction 

design but also auction implementation. 

Given this history it is not surprising that Mr. Wilson said, "This [Market Pricing] program would seem to 

require about 8 years to implement." There is no need for the auction implementation to take so long. 

One year is a better estimate of what would be required provided Congress specifies an aggressive 

timeline so that the implementation is done on a fast track and with the aid of experts. 

eMS: "The winners rejected supply contracts not based on their bids" 

Implication: Bids are not related to costs 

Mr. Wilson. "[W]hen you looked at their bids they didn't not accept because their bid was higher than 

the price or lower than the price, it sort of cut both ways. So it was obviously for some other business 

associated reason." 

There is only one reason to reject a supply contract: the provider cannot supply the product category 

without loss; that is, the CMS price is below the provider's cost. 

Mr. Cramton. "The current system does not elicit the true costs from the providers. Mr. Wilson stated 

that in his response, and I quote, "The winners rejected or accepted not based on their bid." That is, the 

consideration was just what Ms. Zelenko said. The consideration in accepting or rejecting was whether 

she thought she could provide the goods and services at the price. So it has nothing to do with her bid. 

And in a competitive, efficient auction, the trick of making an efficient auction is to elicit the bidder's 

true costs, and then, in fact, the acceptance or rejection would be based upon the bid. And that is 

3 
139 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 191 77561A.121

exactly what an efficient auction does when it identifies the clearing price. Those that bid below the 

clearing price are accepted; those that bid above are rejected." 

This issue also illustrates the lack of transparency in the eMS auction. If the experts had the bidding data 

(perhaps with the bidders' names removed to preserve confidentiality of the bids), then we could easily 

see whether a bidder's rejection of a supply contract was related to its bid, as Mr. Wilson says. Assuming 

he is right then the pilot supports the fact that there are serious problems with the bidding incentives in 

the eMS auction, as demonstrated in theory and the experimental lab, and seen in the field with the 

need to a floor and ceiling on bids. It is telling that Mr. Wilson does not realize that his empirical 

observation indicates a serious problem with the auction. 

Four points of disagreement 

eMS: "eMS worked closely with stakeholders to design and implement the program." 

Mr. Wilson. "eMS worked closely with stakeholders to design and implement the program in a way that 

is fair for suppliers and sensitive to the needs of beneficiaries." 

Despite this supposed collaboration with stakeholders, eMS managed to come up with a design that 

stakeholders-beneficiaries, providers, non-eMS government leaders, and auction experts-all agree is 

flawed. 

Mr. Cramton. "So there is unanimous consent on this, and, in fact, I have been working on this for 2 

years. I have talked to people around the world, and, indeed, I have never heard anybody disagree with 

the remarks that I presented today and that are presented in my written testimony before you." 

eMS: "We are open to improvements as the program expands." 

Mr. Wilson. "We continue to be open to further improvements as the program expands." 

• Then why in the face of overwhelming practical scientific evidence of severe problems, does eMS 

make no significant changes to the program as the program expands to one-half of the country. The 

most serious flaws, non-binding bids and the median pricing rule where were identified by 167 

auction experts in September 2010 and sent to CMS not only by the experts but by numerous 

Congressman. 

• Why does CMS not release any of the essential data necessary to properly evaluate the pilot 

program? Remarkably the absence of data even extends to the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding 

Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOe) established by Congress to monitor the 

program. For example, listen to Barbara Rogers, Medicare beneficiary, PAOC Member, and 

President/CEO of the National Emphysema/COPD Association, who spoke at an update to Congress 

on the Competitive Bidding Program, "Well, I will tell you, when I go to bed at night and I turn my 

life over to my ventilator-I get emotional here-when I do that, it's not a widget to me. You know, 

it is my life. And people's life and death are affected by this program. And it's my experience that 

CMS has no concept, or else they don't care. When I ask CMS as a PAOC member for information or 

suggestions, 90 percent of the time I'm given two answers. It's a legislative issue, we don't deal with 

4 
140 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 192 77561A.122

it; or it's confidential and we can't tell you. So to me, who are they accountable to? You know, they 

don't seem to be accountable to anybody.'" 

Why does CMS not commission an independent assessment of its pilot so that there is some 

possibility they might be able to improve it? A basic tenant of science is peer review. There is a good 

reason for this. Only through peer review can one have any faith in assertions, especially coming 

from those with a conflict of interest.' The designer and implementer of a program cannot be relied 

on to provide an objective critique of its own program. This is common sense. CMS' one-year" 

Mr. Cramton. "If one takes a look at the i-year report that CMS did, which I think was released on April 

17th of 2012-it is on my Website, it is on their Website-you will see a i6-page report that does not 

address any of the issues that all of the experts agree are extremely serious problems with their 

program. Not one word about any of the issues. So it is not a critique, it doesn't give data, it just makes 

an assertion." 

• Then why does CMS appear to misunderstand a basic element of the Market Pricing Program? 

Mr. Wilson. "We talked about choice a little bit today. This assigns patients essentially to certain small 

suppliers, it has a small supplier target that says they get 30 percent of the business. The only way to 

implement that is to assign a patient to a supplier and take away their choice. That is a concern for me. 

So I think there is some issues and concern there that need to be addressed, but I don't see replacing a 

system that is working for one that has some problems." 

In fact, Mr. Wilson appears to misunderstand a basic element of the Market Pricing Program, an 

early draft of which was available in January 2011. A key tenant of MPP is benefiCiary choice, which 

is supported in a variety of ways, the most important being that the beneficiary gets to select among 

any auction winner in the 20% of cases that are currently under auction contract and can select 

among any qualified supplier in the remaining 80% of the cases. The hundred.s of stakeholders that 

developed MPP are well aware of the benefits of beneficiary choice and take it seriously-in sharp 

contrast to CMS' Competitive Bidding Program. These features have been part of the Market Pricing 

Program, since January 2011 and were in fact part of the proposal initially presented to Mr. Wilson 

on 1 November 2010. 

CMS: "The Competitive Bidding Program encourages small business participation" 

Mr. Wilson. "Most importantly, the regulation established a special 30 percent target for small supplier 

participation in the program. CMS was very pleased that we exceeded this 30 percent target in the nine 

Round One areas with 51 percent of contracts going to small suppliers." 

1 Competitive Bidding Congressional Update-What You Need to Know. Longworth House Office Building, 

sponsored by U.S. Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC), 24 May 2011. [Video of panelists, Transcript of entire event] 

, For more on conflict of interest see my written testimony at p. 17. 

5 
141 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 193 77561A.123

The reality is that the CMS Round One Rebid was a disaster for small businesses. Even when applied to 

less than 9 percent of the US population, CMS' Competitive Bidding Program excluded many thousands 

of small business providers. The facts are shown in the chart below (page 12 of my written testimony): 

5,000 

~ 4,000 .!!! 

a. a 3,000 

-. 

M U U U ~ U U U ~ W >W 

Allowed claim amount (million $) 

• Pre-CB (2010) • Original CB winners (2011) • Revised CB winners (2011) 

Yes, S1 percent of the remaining providers (CB winners) are small businesses, but this is little 

consolation to the 90 percent who were eliminated by an auction process that auction experts describe 

as "bizarre" in the New York Times. 3 The painful reality is that S1 percent of nearly zero is nearly zero. 

eMS: "There was rampant overutilization under administrative pricing" 

Mr. Wilson. "[T]here was rampant overutilization under the prior system [administrative pricing]." 

This bold claim is central to CMS' argument. There is no denying that utilization has dropped 

dramatically in the nine competitive bidding areas.' There are two possible sources for the drop in 

utilization: 

3 Ayres, Ian and Peter Cramton, "Fix Medicare's Bizarre Auction Program" (with Ian Ayres), Opinion Pages, New 

York Times, 30 September 2010. 

4 See for example AMEPA (2012), "Reductions in Allowed Claims Prove limited Patient Access." and Cramton, Peter 

(2012) "The Hidden Costs of a Flawed Medicare Auction," University of Maryland, January 2012. ~J The 

"Hidden Costs" study was based on a FOIA request to CMS. Analysis of the data is limited as a result of the 

significant lag between the time CMS receives a claim and the time it is recorded as an allowed claim. To address 

this limitation I sent a follow-up data request, requesting the same data fields but updated to better reflect the full 

set of allowed claims in 2011. The data request was completed by PDAC and underwent two months of quality 

control checks. At this paint PDAC normally sends the data directly to me, however, CMS apparently requested 

that the data be sent to them instead. CMS received the data on 17 August 2012. One month has gone by and I still 

have received nothing. This is one more example of the complete lack of transparency of the program. There is no 

reason why basic information like what I asked for is not immediately made available to the public. Congress 

should insist on a much higher level of transparency. The saga of my effort to get basic data from CMS is 

documented in Follow-up FOIA Data Request. 

6 
142 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Insert graphic folio 194 77561A.124

1. a decline in fraudulent claims-what CMS refers to as overutilization, or 

2. a decline in access-those with legitimate claims getting home medical equipment outside of 

the CMS Competitive Bidding Program. 

CMS has attempted to back up its overutilization claim in its one-year update. This critical issue is 

addressed in a single paragraph of the CMS one-year update at page 5: "CMS's monitoring revealed 

declines in the use of mail-order diabetes test strips and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) 

supplies in the competitive bidding areas. In response to these declines, CMS initiated three rounds of 

calls to users of these supplies in the nine competitive areas, two rounds of calls for users of mail-order 

diabetes test strips and one round of calls to users of CPAP supplies. In each round, CMS staff randomly 

identified 100 beneficiaries who used the items before the program began but had no claims for the 

items in 2011. The calls revealed that in virtually every case, the benefiCiary reported having more than 

enough supplies on hand, often multiple months' worth, and therefore did not need to obtain additional 

supplies when the program began. This would suggest that beneficiaries received excessive 

replacement supplies before they became medically necessary. CMS concludes that the competitive 

bidding program may have curbed inappropriate distribution of these supplies that was occurring prior 

to implementation." 

CMS provides no furtryer details of the survey, such as when was the survey conducted, what questions 

were asked, or what were the responses to questions. We somehow are to believe that the drawing 

down of benefiCiary inventories is simply the result of "curbed inappropriate distribution of supplies." 

This argument is illogical. The behavioral response of access difficulties is first to run down inventoriesit is not surprising that beneficiaries keep some inventory on hand of supplies necessary for their 

survival-and second to purchase the needed supplies outside of the Medicare program. If an oxygen 

patient cannot get her oxygen within Medicare post-competitive bidding, then she will get it outside of 

Medicare. The alternative in many cases would be to perish. Thus, the CMS survey is entirely consistent 

with access problems in both diabetes and oxygen, two of the largest products under competitive 

bidding. Even if we assume as CMS asserts that beneficiaries are simply running down massive 

inventories, then the "cost savings" as calculated by CMS is clearly a mirage, since utilization should 

spring right back to historic levels once the inventories are exhausted. 

Conclusion 

Congress and the White House must act to reform the Medicare auction. If we do not effectively apply 

market methods to health care, Medicare is unsustainable. 

7