Oxygen reform: Comprise...what compromise?
Imagine my surprise this morning, when I checked my inbox and found this e-mail from a reader responding to our NewsWire story on stakeholders reaching a compromise on oxygen reform:
Queen Cobra film Speed movie buy Kisses and Caroms How does a compromise fix two proposals that are viewed as bad? Providers are still divided on what is the correct thing to do. Personally, (I think) we should be looking to get paid for the service and product provided, just like most industries. I don't pay a fixed fee per month and get unlimited doctor visits. I am charged for each visit. How is it that anyone can expect us to provide unlimited content for a fixed fee? The payment rules are antiquated to say the least. You cannot keep cutting reimbursement without changing what you pay for. If we get back to fee for service, even if at a lower price, and the beneficiary has skin in the game, then everyone will be working to cut out waste and look to newer technology. Until a beneficiary has to pay a co-pay for contents, what incentive do they have to reduce the amount of tanks or liquid used? These are the patients (that make) providers wonder why they accepted an all-inclusive "rental fee" for stationary and portability. I am not suggesting that the cost be passed on to beneficiaries, but they certainly would be more interested in how to reduce their out-of-pocket costs if we went back to fee for service and co-pay each time oxygen was provided.
Whether I agree with this provider or not is irrelevant. I just thought that there'd be at least one day without division.