WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 3, 2018)—United Spinal Association, United Ostomy Associations of America and Spina Bifida Association partnered with AAHomecare on a comprehensive white paper to articulate why competitive bidding should not include urologicals and ostomy supplies. The white paper counters recent references to expanding the controversial bid program in the President’s Budget and MedPAC recommendations. 

Spearheaded by the AAHomecare Medical Supplies Council, the white paper explains the complexity and diversity of the product categories, how specific products are selected in order to meet each individual’s medical and functional needs, and the risks of commoditization and reduced patient access under the competitive bidding program with limited program savings potential.

“The danger of expanding the competitive bidding program to ostomy and urological supplies is that the minimal function of the product can take precedent over patient choice and advanced technologies which often, and necessarily, enhances quality of life,” explains Anna Markiewicz of Hollister, a contributor to the stakeholder effort.

The paper points to CMS’s own evaluation of the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of urological supplies in the competitive bidding demonstrations in Polk County where CMS concluded, “We believe that the product category of urological supplies is not as well suited for competitive bidding.” CMS reported negative impacts on quality, access, and support as well as the restricted availability of product selection under competitive bidding. Fundamentally, these products would not meet the original objectives of the program to save the government and taxpayers money. CMS reported, “Urological supplies has much lower allowed charges than [other] product categories, so they offer relatively little potential for program savings.”

Find the white paper here [2]. Learn more about the Medical Supplies Council and its initiative here [3].

Visit aahomecare.org [4] for more information.