View this email as a Web page Please add HC_HomeCare Monday_ to your Safe Sender list.
A Penton Media Property
July 25, 2011 Volume 17, Number 27


Face HME challenges head on at the largest home healthcare tradeshow in the US. Find the tools and develop the plans that will allow you to survive and thrive in the current state of the industry. Networking with manufacturers and providers is a great opportunity to share ideas.

Table of Contents
- Proposed Rule on 'Durable' Definition Could Be Trouble
- Apria's Getson on Humana Deal: Contracts Won and Lost Every Day
- Video: Cramton Stays After CMS' Bidding Design
- Reviewing Your Insurance Coverage: It's a Good Policy
- Q&A with Jeff Baird: Post-Payment Audits
- Lincare Makes Up Round 1 Ground
- USM Adds Central Kentucky Mobility
- Names in the News; MESA Office Takes a Hit and More News in Brief

For more industry news, features and highlights from our latest issue, please visit our Web site at

- Headline News
Proposed Rule on 'Durable' Definition Could Be Trouble
WASHINGTON—A proposed rule to redefine “durable” medical equipment could mean more trouble for the industry, according to attorneys with King & Spalding, who warn that it is “sweeping in scope” and could reduce the number of DME products CMS covers.

On July 1, the agency released a proposed rule that would require DME to have “an expected life of at least three years,” which on its face, seems innocuous since DME is already generally expected to last for at least five years. The new requirement would apply only to items classified as DME after a final rule takes effect.

However, said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, an attorney with King & Spalding’s FDA and Life Sciences practice group, “I think the rule could be quite problematic for home medical equipment providers.”

In an alert issued to its clients, the law firm said the rule “would establish a specific time component to the regulation that has not existed in the past. Arguably, the prospective universe of products that would meet the definition of ‘durable’ would narrow significantly under CMS’ proposed rule.”

For some months, the law firm noted, CMS has been evaluating DME categories to determine if they meet the definition of “durable.” According to the alert, the agency “is using the proposed rule to redefine the term ‘durable,’ presumably in an attempt to address legal vulnerabilities arising from several Medicare contractor determinations made earlier this year.”

The King & Spalding alert also pointed to other issues that could adversely affect the HME community:

• Existing technology and DME that meet the agency’s old definition would presumably continue to be covered while virtually identical products classified as DME or approved/cleared by the Food and Drug Administration would be excluded.

• The proposed rule raises questions as to whether CMS will exclude additional devices as being non-durable prior to the final rule and whether it will overturn some of its recent DME decisions excluding from coverage certain devices deemed not to have long enough useful lives.

• CMS does not provide any details as to how it will handle products that evolve or improve their functionality.

“The proposed rule says it would be prospective only, but it’s not clear how that would really work,” said Bucholtz. “For example, if a manufacturer takes a covered product and makes modifications to improve it, does that mean it has to go through a new coverage determination under the new rules?”

Bucholtz said the proposed rule could be an attempt by CMS to cut back on the number of products for which it reimburses HME providers.

“CMS denies in the proposed rule that it is attempting to cut back on DME coverage—it says it's merely codifying the standard it has been applying all along—but that's not persuasive,” Bucholtz said. “If that were really true, CMS probably wouldn't go to the trouble of promulgating a rule. In the real world, it seems clear that this proposal is part of an effort to cut back on coverage.”

The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a Washington watchdog organization, also raised the question.

“Could CMS be undertaking rulemaking to try and exclude certain types of DME from Medicare altogether?” the CRE asked in a post on its website. “It’s not clear. Nor is it clear what the implications would be for Medicare beneficiaries if any types of DME were excluded.”

While the proposed rule does not “explicitly modify the coverage rules for ‘attendant supplies’ that are necessary for the use of DME,” according to the King & Spalding alert, it does raise questions about devices that consist of both durable and non-durable components and whether they would be covered by Medicare.

The law firm said CMS has asked for comments on three specific options:

1. Applying the three-year lifetime standard to the component(s) that perform the entire medically necessary function of the device;

2. Applying the three-year lifetime standard to the component(s) that perform a vital part of the medically necessary function of the device; and

3. Considering a device/system to be durable only if the cost of the durable component(s) over a period of time (for example, five years) makes up greater than 50 percent of the overall cost of the device/system over the same period.

CMS is taking comments on the proposed rule until Aug. 30 and plans to issue a final rule Nov. 1.

Read the proposed rule.

If you had to choose, what should be the alternative to CMS' competitive bidding program? To vote in HomeCare's monthly Web poll, visit

Apria's Getson on Humana Deal: Contracts Won and Lost Every Day
LAKE FOREST, Calif.—Rumors have abounded since the news surfaced that Apria Healthcare has struck a deal with insurance carrier Humana to be its provider of choice for HME.

While it’s a move that could cement the company’s future in an uncertain time, the agreement has heightened the anxiety level of some industry providers who are already seeing business fade away in the face of competitive bidding, out-of-control audits, tightening regulations and the possibility of even more cuts as legislators hack away at the nation’s bottomless deficit.

Setting the record straight for HomeCare, Lisa M. Getson, executive vice president, government relations and corporate compliance for Lake Forest, Calif.-based Apria, stated that “contracts are won and lost by providers across the country every day … but they don’t seem to be newsworthy. Our own public disclosures cite Apria managed care contract losses in the millions of dollars for 2010-2011, which were subsequently awarded to numerous small and independent providers in states in the Southeast, central and northeastern U.S.”

Getson took issue with a comment from a Kentucky provider who said last week he was fearful that providers billing out of network could see the price for concentrators drop as low as $72.

“That is not even on the same planet as the actual rates,” Getson said.

Following are Getson’s responses to other questions regarding the agreement.

HC: How long is the agreement?
Getson: It is a multi-year agreement.

HC: Does it cover all states?
Getson: It is a multi-state arrangement with a few exceptions carved out, based on certain unique Humana health plan models or contracting relationships the health plan has in place.

HC: Will Apria need to subcontract with other providers in some areas?
Getson: At Humana’s request, Apria is working diligently to ensure that the patient transition occurs smoothly and in accordance with Humana’s expectations concerning timing because of contract expirations. Patients in extremely rural markets may need to be served by subcontracted providers and, if so, Apria’s first consideration will be for the provider currently caring for the patients.

HC: In areas where you do not have a presence, will you also be looking to purchase some providers?
Getson: We are always looking for opportunities to add home care companies with a reputation for quality, ethical operations and active compliance programs in place to the Apria Healthcare family of companies. The most recent example is the U.S. Praxair Healthcare Services acquisition, which we completed on March 4.

HC: What are the benefits to Apria in contracting with Humana?
Getson: There are advantages to both parties, including administrative simplification, the implementation of condition-specific clinical programs, which will yield consistent patient outcomes across multiple locations and electronic connectivity that reduces paperwork and overhead costs.

HC: Some sources have said they believe the contract is 38 percent below current Medicare allowables. If this is so, how is Apria able maintain its high quality?
Getson: Our fee schedule and terms are proprietary. It is important to note that neither Humana nor most other non-government payors in the U.S. cap oxygen at 36 months because they recognize the flawed policy’s negative impact on patients and providers. To compare managed care to Medicare is an apples-to-oranges comparison that should not be made. In fact, many different parties in the home care industry have made that very point to government agencies that study our industry’s benefit structure. Even the government acknowledges that in its most recent studies on oxygen and competitive bidding. Our patient and referral satisfaction scores have steadily increased in the past year and we are confident that we will continue to offer Humana members high quality home care services as we and the former Praxair Healthcare Services were already preferred providers in Humana’s network.

As to a question about Apria’s plans for Round 2 of competitive bidding, Getson said, “Like others in the industry, we are awaiting either a proposed rule or subregulatory guidance concerning Round 2 to be published by CMS. The rule should give us a better sense of how CMS plans to operate Round 2 and so it would be premature to comment now.”

In Round 1, Apria won contracts for oxygen and enteral nutrition in all nine competitive bidding areas along with contracts for CPAP and hospital beds in eight CBAs and walkers in three.

Video: Cramton Stays After CMS' Bidding Design
COLLEGE PARK, Md.—After campaigning for months against CMS’ “fatally flawed” competitive bidding design, University of Maryland economics professor Peter Cramton has posted a 12-minute video, “Medicare Auction Reform,” which describes the problems as he and others see them.

Cramton says an auction for HME can work, however, and is advocating for a complete redesign of CMS’ current program.

“To avoid program failure, the flawed Medicare auctions must be replaced with modern efficient auctions, which yield sustainable competitive market prices,” he said in a recent email.

Watch the video.

Reviewing Your Insurance Coverage: It's a Good Policy
ATLANTA—The thing about insurance is that you know how good it is only when you need to use it. So, in the wake of recent tornadoes, fires and floods, how good is your insurance?

It’s a question HME companies should be asking, perhaps even more so than other small businesses, according to insurance experts. Although HME providers have some commonalities with other commercial businesses, they also have some unique insurance needs.

For example, when disasters occur, providers still need to service their patients. They have ownership of and responsibility for equipment that is not on their property but in the hands of patients who might be some distance away from the provider’s location—perhaps where a disaster has struck.

Even in normal times, HME companies sell or rent items that often must be delivered into the home and require the delivery technician to give instructions on their use. So while every provider needs to carry liability and property insurance, there are other considerations.

“Take a couple of hours and do an insurance review every year,” advised Warren Freeman, CFP, FFSI, director of sales and marketing for VGM Insurance in Waterloo, Iowa. “It can be time so well spent.”

Although coverage is very individualized in terms of both type and cost, Freeman said, there are some general points to consider. What is the actual value of your property and its contents? Freeman advises having it evaluated periodically to ensure proper coverage because values do fluctuate. Be sure to include inventory in a warehouse and/or a retail setting, he added.

“You don’t want to be under-insured and you don’t want to be over-insured,” Freeman said. “If you are a provider and you are down in Alabama and a tornado hits and you had 100 pieces of equipment that were leased out in the community, you want to make sure you have coverage for that [equipment].”

Brandy Armstrong, program manager for HOMed insurance, offered by McNeil & Co., Cortland, N.Y., said providers should also consider taking out coverage for loss of income.

“Say your building burns to the ground and you have to move somewhere else and start over. The contents and property might be covered, but where do you get the money to relocate and pay your employees? How do you keep servicing your oxygen patients?” she asked. “Think about what would it mean if you couldn’t operate out of your [current] location.”

Neither should providers overlook professional coverage, which is useful when, for example, a patient is injured in using medical equipment and files suit.

While some smaller providers may think they don’t need such coverage because they do not have, say, a respiratory therapist or a nurse on staff, Armstrong said, “a ‘professional’ could be someone explaining something about the equipment and using the device.”

According to Marie Gaudette, vice president for health care programs, Smith, Bell & Thompson, a division of Willis North America, Burlington, Vt., location also can have a direct effect on insurance coverage.

“For any HME provider located where wind is an issue—Florida, Louisiana, the five boroughs of New York, anything coastal in California and the Northeast, and South Carolina specifically—most insurers are putting a high wind and hail deductible [on policies]. That is because of the catastrophic losses that have happened over the last five years. So providers really need to be aware of where their properties are and what their property values are.”

Gaudette also advised making sure there is a business continuation plan in place.

“That would be for any catastrophic event, including terrorism. [Providers] need to be thinking of things beyond just their building,” she said.

For more on reviewing insurance coverage and disaster preparedness plans, see “Time to Do a Disaster Review” in the July issue of HomeCare, available at

Q&A with Jeff Baird: Post-Payment Audits
Part 2 of a Four-Part Series: The following questions and answers from health care attorney Jeff Baird of Brown & Fortunato are Part 2 of a four-part series addressing prepayment reviews; post-payment audits; a comparison of reviews conducted by the DME MACs with audits conducted by the ZPICs; and in the final installment, contractor abuses and the steps that the American Association for Homecare and industry stakeholders are taking to correct the abuses. For Part 1 of the series, see

Question: What type of post-payment audits do DME MACs conduct?

Answer: MACs conduct medical review audits. Post-payment medical review of claims requires that a benefit category review, statutory exclusion review, reasonable and necessary review, and/or coding review be made after claim payment. These types of reviews are designed to give the MAC the opportunity to make a determination to either affirm payment of a claim (in full or in part) or deny payment and assess an overpayment.

Question: What are CMS’ objectives pertaining to medical review post-payment audits?

Answer: CMS’ stated objectives are to increase the effectiveness of medical review payment safeguard activities; exercise accurate and defensible decision-making pertaining to medical review of claims; and collaborate with other internal components and external entities to ensure correct claims payment and to address situations of Medicare fraud, waste and abuse.

Question: What do medical review functions include?

Answer: Analyzing data; writing and reviewing local coverage determinations; reviewing claims and educating providers; comprehensive error rate testing; advance determination of Medicare coverage; probe reviews; supplier education; and medical review of claims not for benefit integrity purposes.

Specific efforts may include proactively identifying potential medical review-related billing errors concerning coverage and coding made by providers through analysis of data and evaluation of other information; placing emphasis on reducing the paid claims error rate by notifying the individual billing entities of medical review findings and making appropriate referrals to provider outreach/education and ZPIC Benefit Integrity units; taking action to prevent and/or address the identified error; and publishing LCDs to provide guidance to the public and medical community about when items and services will be eligible for payment.

Question: How is a medical review post-payment audit initiated?

Answer: The MAC is required to give the provider written notice of the following: that the provider has been selected for audit and the specific reason for such selection; if the basis for selection is comparative data, the contractor must provide comparative data on how the provider varies significantly from other providers in the same specialty payment area or locality; the list of claims that require medical records; and the OMB Paperwork Reduction Act collection number.

Question: How does the MAC make its coverage determination?

Answer: The contractor may review a claim regardless of whether an NCD, coverage provision in an interpretive manual or LCD exists for that service. A contractor must first consider coverage determinations based on the absence of a benefit category or based on statutory exclusion.

Next, a contractor then considers whether the claim was “reasonable and necessary.” A service is reasonable and necessary if the contractor determines that the service is safe and effective; not experimental or investigative (subject to a narrow exception); and appropriate, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the service, in terms of whether it is furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice; furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient’s medical needs and condition; ordered and furnished by qualified personnel; one that meets, but does not exceed, the patient’s medical need; and is at least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative.

There are narrowly defined exceptions to the “reasonable and necessary” requirement. A contractor must deny a claim (in full or in part) whenever there is evidence that the item or service was not rendered or was not rendered as billed; was furnished in violation of the self-referral prohibition; was furnished, ordered or prescribed on or after the effective date of the provider’s exclusion; or was not furnished or not furnished as billed.

Question: In conducting a medical review post-payment audit, what documentation does the MAC review?

Answer: The contractor may use any information it deems necessary to make a post-payment claim review determination. The contractor may review any documentation submitted with the claim and request documentation from the provider or from a third party. A contractor may, but is not required to, review unsolicited, supporting documentation that is submitted with a claim.

A contractor may deny a claim without reviewing such documentation in two instances: when clear policy serves as the basis for denial; “clear policy” means a statute, regulation, NCD, coverage provision in an interpretive manual, or LCD that specifies the circumstances under which a service will always be considered non-covered or incorrectly coded; or in instances of medical impossibility.

Question: What is an Additional Documentation Request (ADR)?

Answer: A contractor may request additional documentation from a provider by issuing an ADR. The ADR must specify the specific pieces of documentation needed to make a coverage or coding determination. The purpose of the documentation is to support the medical necessity of the item or service provided.

The treating physician, another clinician or the provider may supply the documentation. The documentation may take the form of clinical evaluations, physician evaluations, consultations, progress notes, physician letters or other documents intended to record relevant information about a patient’s clinical condition and treatment.

At the end of the day, what the contractor is looking for are contemporaneous physician progress notes. If these are absent, then it is unlikely that the provider will prevail at the audit stage.

A provider has 30 days to respond to an ADR. The contractor may, but is not required to, grant an extension. The contractor will pend the claim for 45 days. A contractor may, but is not required to, issue (at most) two reminders prior to the 45th day. If the provider does not submit the requested documentation within 45 days, the contractor will deny the service as not reasonable and necessary, except for certain ambulance claims.

If the provider timely responds to the ADR, but the documentation submitted fails to support medical necessity, the contractor will deny the claim (in full or in part). The contractor may issue an ADR to a third party (e.g., a physician), but only if it also first or simultaneously requests the same information from the billing provider. The beneficiary is not considered to be a third party.

Question: What time deadlines are imposed on the contractor, once it receives additional documentation, to report back to the provider?

Answer: When the contractor timely receives documentation in response to an ADR, it must make a medical review determination and mail a notification letter to the provider within 60 days of receiving the documentation. The contractor may begin counting with the receipt of each medical record in the contractor’s mailroom; each new medical record will have an independent 60-day time period associated with it.

Alternatively, the contractor may wait until all requested medical records are received in the contractor’s mailroom; the date on which the last of the requested medical records is received will represent the beginning of the 60-day time period. The 60-day count is suspended if the matter is referred to a ZPIC.

Question: May a contractor reopen a claim after the provider is late in responding to an ADR?

Answer: If a contractor receives the requested information from a supplier after a denial has been issued, but within a reasonable number of days (generally 15 days after the denial date), then the contractor may reopen the claim.

If a claim that was denied for failure to submit requested documentation is appealed, then the appeal department will send the claim to the contractor for reopening if all of the following conditions are met: a provider failed to timely submit documentation requested through an ADR; the claim was denied because the requested documentation was not received timely; the requested documentation is received after the 45-day period with or without a request for redetermination or reopening; and the request is filed within 120 days of the date of receipt of the initial determination.

For Part 1 of this series (on prepayment reviews), see

Jeffrey S. Baird, Esq., is chairman of the Health Care Group at Brown & Fortunato, P.C., a law firm based in Amarillo, Texas. He represents pharmacies, infusion companies, home medical equipment companies and other health care providers throughout the United States. Baird is Board Certified in Health Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He can be reached at 806/345-6320 or

Provider Newswire
Lincare Makes Up Round 1 Ground
CLEARWATER, Fla.—Despite winning only two contracts in the Round 1 rebid, Lincare seems to have figured out how to handle the competitive bidding conundrum: If you can’t beat ’em, then buy ’em.

In the provider’s Q2 earnings report, CEO John Byrnes said Lincare has “completed acquisitions of companies that are contracted to provide home oxygen services in seven of nine competitive bidding markets and positive airway pressure therapy in eight of nine markets. We are awaiting final approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the assignment of those contracts."

Earlier this year, CFO Paul Gabos said the giant provider had submitted 73 Round 1 bids that were 15 to 18 percent under then-current reimbursements in the Round 1 competitive bidding areas. But Lincare came out of the process with just two contracts for oxygen in Charlotte and Miami.

As a result of the rebid, rates for oxygen across the nine CBAs averaged a 31 percent reduction; the average reduction across all product categories was 32 percent.

After the Round 1 winners were announced, however, Gabos said Lincare started getting calls about buying other contract winners—and kept getting them.

"We have been inundated with requests by winning contract providers to purchase their companies," Gabos said in early April. "I can tell you that we have confidential information from over 30 companies that have won bids, and we've been contacted by at least twice as many as that.”

Amassing acquisitions isn’t the only thing the company has going.

"We made steady progress in the first half of 2011 in executing certain new strategic initiatives that will provide future expansion for our business,” said Byrnes. “As described in our first quarter earnings release, we purchased a specialty pharmacy provider in February of this year and are pleased with the integration of that acquisition. We are seeing strong market demand for our anti-coagulation testing business, and are pleased to announce that we now have approximately 10,000 customers using this service.”

Lincare added 13 new operating centers in the quarter derived from internal expansion. Its total number of locations expanded to 1,106.

Net revenues for the second quarter were $449 million, a 7.3 percent increase over $418.4 million for the second quarter of 2010. Net income was $42.8 million, a 7.9 percent decrease from $46.4 million in the second quarter last year.

Its July 18 report said the company’s increase “was comprised of approximately 12.3 percent internal and acquisition growth offset by approximately 5 percent negative impact from $21 million of Medicare payment changes during the second quarter of 2011. The Medicare payment changes impacting the quarter include reductions in average payment rates for respiratory medications, the impact of new Medicare payment rates in the nine markets affected by the competitive bidding program, and the ongoing effect of Medicare oxygen customers reaching the 36-month rental payment cap.”

Net revenues for the six months ended June 30 were $880.6 million, a 6.3 percent increase over $828.4 million for the first half of 2010. Net income was $89.1 million, a 1 percent decrease compared to $90.1 million in the same 2010 period.

Lincare serves more than 790,000 customers in 48 states.

USM Adds Central Kentucky Mobility
ST. LOUIS—United Seating & Mobility announced Friday that it has acquired Central Kentucky Mobility and will merge the company’s complex mobility business with USM. USM/CKM will continue services for Lexington and Louisville, Ky., as well as the central, eastern and southern parts of the state.

“The addition of Central Kentucky Mobility's rehab team strengthens our position within a core market for us and supports our regional initiative,” said Bob Gouy, USM president and CEO.

In December, USM added three RehabTech locations in Fridley, Minn. (Minneapolis); Oak Creek, Wis. (Milwaukee); and Appleton, Wis., in addition to the acquisition of Alliance Homecare Equipment’s complex mobility business in Little Rock, Ark.

In June, the company acquired Advacare Mobility & Seating, with locations in Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita, Kan. Earlier this month, USM entered the Texas market with the addition of Rehab Specialties, which has locations in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley in the southernmost part of the state.

In Brief
Names in the News; MESA Office Takes a Hit and More News in Brief
ATLANTA—At its annual meeting in Savannah, Ga., July 17, the Georgia Association of Medical Equipment Suppliers elected new officers, including: Phillip Stoudenmire of Georgia Home Medical Equipment, president; David Petsch of Petsch Respiratory Services, treasurer; and Bill Cheek of Carmichaels Home Medical Equipment, secretary. Hi-Tech Healthcare’s Todd Tyson is past president. New GAMES directors include Charlie Barnes IV, Barnes Healthcare Services; Carey B. Jones, RPh, Jones Medical Equipment; Jamie Shugart, Hobbs Home Medical; Andrew Simmon Jr., Cornerstone Medical; and Weesie Walker, ATP, CRTS, National Seating & Mobility.

Hill Named President of TAHCS
DUNCANVILLE, Texas—Kevin Hill, RRT, has been appointed president of the Texas Alliance of Home Care Services (TAHCS), replacing Barry Johnson, who was recently named president of AMEPA. With over 30 years’ experience in the DME industry, Hill is the owner of CPS Medical in Tyler, Texas.

MESA Office Takes a Hit
ORLANDO, Fla.—In a message sent on a neighbor’s borrowed laptop, management of the Medical Equipment Suppliers Association (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) said its office in Orlando, Fla.—the lightening capital of the world—took a direct hit in a fierce electrical storm July 15. The strike caused smoldering in the ceiling and damaged electrical and phone lines.

Two New Tracks at Medtrade 2011
ATLANTA—This year’s Medtrade conference, Oct. 24-27 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, will feature two new session tracks on “Audits: Pre- and Post-Payment” and “Non-Medicare and Medicaid Markets.” Check them out at

Survey on RTs
ROCKVILLE, Md.—Roberts Home Medical is conducting a short survey on the use of respiratory therapists in preparation for a presentation called “Home Care RTs: Is Anybody Still There?” at the American Association for Respiratory Care International Congress in November. Take the survey at

Fastrack Announces Referral Management System
PLAINVIEW, N.Y.—Fastrack Healthcare Systems announced Friday that via a Web portal, physicians, clinicians, sales representatives and others can enter new referrals, patient orders, review reports and more depending on permissions set up by providers using its new Referral Management System. One of the system features is to send CMNs electronically to the physician for completion and signature. Upon the provider’s acceptance of the CMN that is sent back from the physician, the appropriate information populates the system. “RMS is an important marketing tool for providers as it allows them to offer an automated solution to referral sources and physicians that eliminates paperwork on their end and the need to fax documents,” according to Fastrack President/CEO Spencer Kay.

How Long Will My Cylinder Last?
ST. LOUIS—Responsive Respiratory has launched a free oxygen app for mobile devices (Android and iPhone). The O2 To Go! Cylinder Duration Calculator is a handy tool for technicians, therapists and even patients to use, according to the company, and addresses the common patient question: “How long will my cylinder last?” The mobile app automatically calculates the estimated oxygen available based on user input of device, liter flow setting, cylinder size and contents and displays the estimated cylinder duration in hours and minutes at designated liter flow settings. “The user-friendly interface allows smart phone users to easily figure the estimated cylinder duration with a multitude of device, cylinder and flow range combinations. It’s an unbelievably versatile yet simple to use tool,” Responsive Respiratory President Tom Bannon said in a release.

VMI Debuts New Website
PHOENIX—Vantage Mobility International has lauched its new website as part of a year-long brand refresh campaign “designed to reflect VMI as a contemporary, tech-savvy and compassionate company,” according to a release. New options include a section to educate first-time buyers on various wheelchair conversions and an interactive “Build-A-Van” section where people can build their own VMI wheelchair van and receive a quote from a dealer. “We want everyone to imagine all the possibilities when purchasing one of our wheelchair conversion vans,” VMI President Doug Eaton said. “It’s not just a product we’re offering; it’s a way of life.”

To revisit this news anytime during the week, check We welcome your comments. Drop a line to HomeCare Editor-in-Chief Gail Walker at


Visit this week's sponsor at

HomeCare provides its subscribers with timely legislative, regulatory and business news; in-depth analyses of various market segments; features on emerging issues and trends; practical how-to advice on business operations; best-practices profiles; and a constant stream of new product information. Subscribe to HomeCare magazine.

About this Newsletter

You are subscribed to this newsletter as `email`

To unsubscribe from this newsletter go to: Unsubscribe

To subscribe to this newsletter, go to: Subscribe

To visit HomeCare's Web site click here

For information on advertising in this newsletter, please contact Kent Peterson, National Sales Manager, at


To get this newsletter in a different format (Text or HTML), or to change your e-mail address, please visit your profile page to change your delivery preferences.

For questions concerning delivery of this newsletter, please contact our Customer Service Department at:
HomeCare Magazine
A Penton Media publication
US Toll Free: 866-505-7173
International: 847-763-9504
Email:Customer Service

Penton Media | 249 W. 17th Street | New York, NY 10011

Copyright 2011, Penton Media. All rights reserved. This content is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, re-disseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of Penton Media.
Read the Penton Media Privacy Policy