Caveat Emptor

Greetings fellow bloggers. Based on your response to our last post regarding the Scripps decision to ban PODS from their hospital system, many questions have been raised regarding the OIG's response to U.S. Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Kohl's Senate Investigation. At best, the response still has those involved looking over their shoulder, as the OIG's intent is to methodically answer many questions that need clarification. What we have learned is that the OIG has major concerns regarding the proliferation of PODS and whether the mere existence of these entities has or will have an adverse effect on Medicare and other Federal programs. Obviously, those that have leveraged their earnings and futures on the legitimacy of PODS, are keeping a watchful eye on the OIG along with the ongoing investigation by the Wall Street Journal into Mississippi and Alabama. Some readers accuse TSB bashing PODS. Contrary to some beliefs, our position has been that until there is legislation that clearly defines this business model, PODS will run rampant without any boundaries. Whether they are ethical is another issue. Due to the lack of legal guidance, the OIG challenge will be to identify if the behavior, structure, and practices that PODS present violate any Federal Anti-Kickback Statutes? TSB's observation is that if they look deep enough, they will probably unearth more schemes than one can imagine. As PODS continue to to increase, the OIG's position is that guidance, legislation, and enforcement will be required. As the government continues it's investigation, their intent is to identify the financial arrangements that have been initiated between physicians and third parties acting as an intermediary between the POD and the hospital, the transparency between these parties and the hospitals, and the services that PODS offer in addition to the type of cost saving that these entities provide. A major focus will be on how many of these PODS are operating on Medicare patients, and is the impetus for these business model merely for profit, by driving up revisions and increasing surgical procedures. One could not expect anything less than a backlash from those that have leveraged their current and future earnings on PODS, but if recent history has taught us anything, it is that as long as it is legal, everything goes, regardless whether it threatens the mere existence and livelihood of thousands of industry professionals. An observer of PODS has even raised the potential of these PODS backfiring on the same individuals that are brokering these deals. In the long run, if some of these POD surgeons have such disdain for sales reps, accusing them of driving up the cost of delivering quality healthcare, who is to say that with one fell swoop they could eliminate their brokers, whom they view as less than partners, but more like necessary evils? What TSB has heard is that PODS are running rampant in the deep south and California, threatening the mere existence of a free markets. So the question must be asked, how is it that some of our readers cry out for free markets, only to game the system? Isn't there a conflict of interest when profits are driven by self-referral? And whom are some of the companies have gone from pretenders to contenders? What will be interesting to watch will be how hospitals, its administrators, and its compliance officers respond? TSB wants to know what you think?