NAIMES Issues Statement on Oxygen Reform Plan

HALIFAX, Va.–A Tuesday afternoon update from the National
Association of Independent Medical Equipment Suppliers said that
after more than 20 hours of teleconference calls, the New Oxygen
Coalition “has reached what seems to be an impasse over
details of the proposal to reform oxygen.

“The plan originally sent to state DME leaders was later
altered and was not supported by most of the independent provider
groups on the NOC,” according to the update. “The
fracture has occurred along the fissure between those who see
moving to a provider status as the only path to follow and those
who feel strongly that moving to provider status comes with
enormous risks that have not been adequately vetted through the
independent provider community.”

Two other “sticky points,” the group said, involve
cost-reporting and using the reform plan to remove oxygen from
competitive bidding. “Moving to provider status comes with
risks and unknowns,” the update said.

An official statement from the association follows:

“NAIMES does not support a move to provider status or a move to a
case-mix, cost-adjusted prospective payment system. We also feel
that including elimination of competitive bidding in the oxygen
reform plan will result in an unacceptable cut to payments if it is
to remain budget neutral.

While reform of oxygen may be needed, there are too many unknowns
and too many risks to move this quickly on a plan that could result
in dangerous unintended consequences. There are too many
presumptions of what will be in the regulatory process without any
assurance of the end result. We have heard no convincing argument
that has changed our view of these dangers over the past three
months.

We do and will continue to support the original 13-point NOC
proposal, but only if the majority of the state leaders and Boards,
and the other representatives of independent providers formally
support this plan. If there is no majority agreement, we will
withdraw our support totally.

We do not agree that a move to provider status is the only path
leading to meaningful reform, nor do we believe that such a move
will protect us from further cuts to reimbursement.

There is a need for much broader reform of the entire DMEPOS
benefit, not a piece-meal attempt to solve the issues of the
36-month cap and competitive bidding by removing oxygen to a
stand-alone benefit with no proof of its value.

There is no assurance that the bill will end up as we propose, or
that it will reach the final vote as it leaves committee. The
concerns with this process and the regulatory issues point out
clearly that the move to provider status must be left out of the
proposal. History has proven that good intentions and midnight
changes can result in serious consequences.

We will continue to be a part of the dialog and will do everything
possible to advance the desires and needs of NAIMES members and the
independent provider community.”