Response to NAAOP
Sara Beck
Description
Collection
Title:
Response to NAAOP
Creator:
Sara Beck
Date:
9/10/2014
Text:
It is
unfortunate that the NAAOP attempted to discredit my intellig
It is
unfortunate that the NAAOP attempted to discredit my intelligence and my ability
to read and interpret legal language in accordance with its effects on
independent providers. I am also
disappointed in Mr. Thomas’s defensive tactic. I have the right to disagree with any
potential piece of legislation, as I am not inclined to follow trends. I feel that Mr. Thomas’ condescending attempt
to cast doubt on my assessment is baseless and unnecessary.
I want to
make clear that my intention and motivation continue to be for the preservation
of independent and private providers, as well as the entire O & P industry
as a whole. My family has owned its own
practice for over 50 years, so I am passionate about maintaining and defending
hard working, independent providers. I
refuse to sit back and allow this bill to make it law for CMS to discriminate
between providers and solidify the uneven playing field that has occurred in
the audit system.
I stand, firmly, behind my opinions on the
Ellmers bill. There is a detrimental discrepancy
that has occurred in the audit system. Independent
providers continue to acquire extremely high dollar, expensive, audits, in extremely
large volumes. This bill will force
independents into the high risk category based on their counterparts who are
unfairly receiving inexpensive and infrequent audits. It will be the demise of small practices. NAAOP does not have access to the evidence
that supports this fact.
The Ellmers
bill only allows for a small number of providers into each category. Why? The
provider who has received prejudicial treatment will greatly benefit from this
language, and the independents who have been unfairly targeted, will continue
to suffer the consequence. Why give CMS
more power to discriminate? This Bill
will give CMS more power to audit and target independent providers more
aggressively. Medicare should not be
allowed to target providers based on their area competitors; especially when those
area competitors are unjustly receiving minor and an insignificant amount of
audits.
Additionally,
based on my extensive experience and detailed legal research into the audits,
appeals and ALJ’s, the prosthetist notes ARE being considered but Medicare
solely focuses on the notes of the referring physician. It is the physician notes where the problem
rests. Anyone in the “trenches” of appeals knows that allowing prosthetist
notes into the medical record is irrelevant if the physician notes are “insufficient.” I believe it provides false hope.
If Mr.
Thomas, and the NAAOP, so strongly disagreed with my analysis of the Ellmers bill, my wish is
that he would have respectfully contacted me directly to hear me out. I would have been able to provide him with
the evidence that he clearly lacks. The
facts, data and evidence, unequivocally, support my analysis.
If you would
like to read my in-depth analysis, which spurred the unwarranted response from
NAAOP, please view it on my website: www.facebook.com/RACsupport.
I would
advise anyone to refrain from asserting a position without having all of the
facts. Thank you to those who offer
their continued support and who have expressed their disappointment in the response from
NAAOP. I will continue to support any
entity that fights for fairness and equality; as well as, anyone who encourages
the strength and elevation of independent providers. The Ellmers bill, unfortunately, does not coincide
with that purpose.
Sara Beck
Appeals Specialist
San Joaquin Orthotics & Prosthetics
2211 N. California Street
Stockton, CA 95204
209.932.0170
209.932.0172 Fax
www.facebook.com/RACsupport
unfortunate that the NAAOP attempted to discredit my intellig
It is
unfortunate that the NAAOP attempted to discredit my intelligence and my ability
to read and interpret legal language in accordance with its effects on
independent providers. I am also
disappointed in Mr. Thomas’s defensive tactic. I have the right to disagree with any
potential piece of legislation, as I am not inclined to follow trends. I feel that Mr. Thomas’ condescending attempt
to cast doubt on my assessment is baseless and unnecessary.
I want to
make clear that my intention and motivation continue to be for the preservation
of independent and private providers, as well as the entire O & P industry
as a whole. My family has owned its own
practice for over 50 years, so I am passionate about maintaining and defending
hard working, independent providers. I
refuse to sit back and allow this bill to make it law for CMS to discriminate
between providers and solidify the uneven playing field that has occurred in
the audit system.
I stand, firmly, behind my opinions on the
Ellmers bill. There is a detrimental discrepancy
that has occurred in the audit system. Independent
providers continue to acquire extremely high dollar, expensive, audits, in extremely
large volumes. This bill will force
independents into the high risk category based on their counterparts who are
unfairly receiving inexpensive and infrequent audits. It will be the demise of small practices. NAAOP does not have access to the evidence
that supports this fact.
The Ellmers
bill only allows for a small number of providers into each category. Why? The
provider who has received prejudicial treatment will greatly benefit from this
language, and the independents who have been unfairly targeted, will continue
to suffer the consequence. Why give CMS
more power to discriminate? This Bill
will give CMS more power to audit and target independent providers more
aggressively. Medicare should not be
allowed to target providers based on their area competitors; especially when those
area competitors are unjustly receiving minor and an insignificant amount of
audits.
Additionally,
based on my extensive experience and detailed legal research into the audits,
appeals and ALJ’s, the prosthetist notes ARE being considered but Medicare
solely focuses on the notes of the referring physician. It is the physician notes where the problem
rests. Anyone in the “trenches” of appeals knows that allowing prosthetist
notes into the medical record is irrelevant if the physician notes are “insufficient.” I believe it provides false hope.
If Mr.
Thomas, and the NAAOP, so strongly disagreed with my analysis of the Ellmers bill, my wish is
that he would have respectfully contacted me directly to hear me out. I would have been able to provide him with
the evidence that he clearly lacks. The
facts, data and evidence, unequivocally, support my analysis.
If you would
like to read my in-depth analysis, which spurred the unwarranted response from
NAAOP, please view it on my website: www.facebook.com/RACsupport.
I would
advise anyone to refrain from asserting a position without having all of the
facts. Thank you to those who offer
their continued support and who have expressed their disappointment in the response from
NAAOP. I will continue to support any
entity that fights for fairness and equality; as well as, anyone who encourages
the strength and elevation of independent providers. The Ellmers bill, unfortunately, does not coincide
with that purpose.
Sara Beck
Appeals Specialist
San Joaquin Orthotics & Prosthetics
2211 N. California Street
Stockton, CA 95204
209.932.0170
209.932.0172 Fax
www.facebook.com/RACsupport
Citation
Sara Beck, “Response to NAAOP,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/236766.
