ATLANTA--For City Medical Services General Manager Rob Brant, the postal delivery from CMS might as well have contained an atom bomb.
It didn't--but the message was explosive, just the same: “Unfortunately, we are unable to accept your bid as indicated in the enclosed chart.”
The letter went on to explain that the North Miami Beach company would not be eligible to provide oxygen and CPAP to Medicare beneficiaries because “Bidder did not submit along with its bid the applicable financial documentation specified in the request for bids.”
But this information was news to Brant, who immediately called the CBIC.
“The customer service representative alerted me that I was missing one year of a financial document that was required,” Brant explained. “I immediately checked my copy, and it was in there. I also contracted with a very reputable health care law firm to certify my bid was properly completed. We checked every item over 10 times before we sent it to the CBIC. The CBIC representative informed me that since the financial aspect did not qualify, our bid was never reviewed.”
Brant's case is not unique. Following CMS' Thursday afternoon announcement detailing pricing for round one of competitive bidding and the dissemination of contracts, a number of providers have come forward claiming they were denied contracts due to CMS' processing errors.
Jeffrey S. Baird, who heads Amarillo, Texas-based Brown & Fortunato's Health Care Group, said he had received similar complaints from providers in the Kansas City and Dallas CBAs.
“They have all said the same thing: They submitted their complete application, including financials, on a timely basis; they received no notification from the CBIC that it did not receive the financials; and they received a letter [Friday] stating that their application was rejected because no financials were received,” Baird said.
“In short, the applications were rejected through no fault of these suppliers. I am confident that this has happened to a number of suppliers in the 10 CBAs.” Baird said the law firm is considering whether to file for injunctive relief on the providers' behalf as some have requested.
Raul Lopez of Bayshore Dura Medical in Miami Lakes, Fla., and president of the Florida Association of Medical Equipment Suppliers, has fielded similar complaints. He said FAMES has contacted the American Association for Homecare to ask that CMS take another look at the bids to confirm that the financial data was, in fact, sent.
Lopez also questioned CMS' reasoning behind reaching out in January to providers whose bids required further documentation, but not offering the same concession to providers who, CMS claims, were missing financial documentation.
"Why didn't they contact suppliers and say, 'You have two hours to fax us this financial information?'” he asked.
John Shirvinsky, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Medical Suppliers, said one company in that state was disqualified over a typo.
“I have one report of a member who was disqualified for pricing an item too low. They had submitted $.49 instead of $49.00--an obvious typo--for a trans-tracheal oxygen catheter. After catching the error, they wrote a letter, enclosing copies of backup paperwork, and asked CMS for permission to revise the typo and submit the bid as intended. The request was denied, and the company disqualified.”
Shirivinsky said he is not surprised by the reports of errors. “Given the number of problems that this process entailed in going forward with all of the computer glitches and such, can you really be surprised something like this happened?” he asked.
“It's unfortunate, and we still believe this process needs to be stopped, right now. CMS is trying to put a very rosy shine on this thing, but I just don't see the same gloss.”
Brant said he has fielded several calls from fellow HMEs in the Miami CBA who also received disqualification notices.
“I have been notified by friends that in the Miami MSA alone over a dozen individual bids and networks impacting at least 40 companies' ability to have their bid considered have been disqualified as well,” Brant said. “I was told that there are two cases where companies were told that they were not accredited and they are.”
Brant said the CBIC assured him they would “look into [the problem],” but in the meantime, he fears what will happen to City Medical Services if its bid is not reconsidered.
“I'm shocked, because this was the last thing that I expected. We looked at the numbers on the Web site [Thursday] night, and we would definitely have won a CPAP bid,” Brant said. “I have no idea what is going to happen if I don't win this bid.”
Brant has contacted industry groups VGM, AAHomecare, FAMES, PAMS and other industry leaders to prepare an official response, and said he is ready to file suit if the problem is not rectified.
“Hopefully the CBIC will be able to resolve it, but if not, I'm not sure if we're going to have some form of litigation,” he said.