New York Times Editorial, column address provision in Medicare bill to delay DME competitive bidding program

The New York Times on Wednesday published an editorial and column that addressed a provision included in a Medicare bill (HR 6331) passed by the House that would delay for 18 months a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment.

Under the program, which is scheduled to begin July 1, CMS will select DME suppliers to participate in Medicare based on bids they submit. The 2003 Medicare law mandated the program as part of a larger effort to implement competitive bidding. In 2008, the program will operate in 10 of the largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas and will apply to 10 of the top DME, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies product categories. In 2009, the program will expand to an additional 70 MSAs and will continue to expand in future years. The program also will apply to additional product categories in future years. The program likely will result in an average 26% decrease in the prices of medical equipment in the 10 MSAs, according to CMS (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 6/10). Summaries of the editorial and column appear below.

• Times: The Senate should "resist the delay" of the program, which "is a smart way to help Medicare control equipment costs at a time when all medical costs are soaring and there is a relentless pressure to reduce Medicare's services or raise charges to beneficiaries," a Times editorial states. The passage of the delay by the House "inevitably makes one wonder if major reform will ever be possible in a medical marketplace dominated by imperfect government bureaucracies and private lobbyists bent on resisting government reforms." According to the editorial, concerns about the program raised by some medical equipment companies whose bids were disqualified "sound like sour grapes from companies whose prices were too high to compete," and concerns from patient advocacy groups that the program would reduce the quality of services for Medicare beneficiaries "seem overblown and should be easily addressed." The editorial states, "Congress must ensure that any delay it imposes does not become a prelude to junking the program for good," adding, "There is never a good reason for Medicare to pay far more than the market rate for medical equipment," and "certainly not in times like these" (New York Times, 6/25).
• David Leonhardt, Times: The passage of the delay of the program by the House provides a "great example of how a small group of constituents can potentially beat back a policy that's clearly in the public interest but has no similarly committed group of supporters," and the "current fight to protect those profits is a microcosm of what you can expect to see if a larger effort to rein in health costs ever gets going," Times columnist Leonhardt writes. According to Leonhardt, the program "could ultimately save Medicare $1 billion a year and patients $200 million or so in copayments," as Congress in the past has established payments for medical equipment "well above the market rate, effectively handing out a few hundred million dollars of corporate welfare every year to the equipment makers." He adds that concerns about the program raised by some medical equipment companies amount to an effort to "keep the billion-dollar subsidy that they're receiving every year," or "at least as much of it as possible." Medical equipment "is a case in which the market can clearly do a better job than a government-mandated fee schedule," Leonhardt writes, adding, "By standing in the way of this competition, Congress is really standing up for higher health care costs" (Leonhardt, New York Times, 6/25).