On April 8, 2014, the OIG and GAO each issued reports focusing on different aspects of the “Round 1 Rebid” of the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) competitive bidding program. By way of background, under DMEPOS competitive bidding, only suppliers that are winning bidders, meet licensing and other standards, and enter into a contract with CMS may furnish selected categories of DMEPOS to Medicare beneficiaries in competitive bidding areas (CBAs), with very limited exceptions. Contract suppliers are paid based on the median of the winning suppliers’ bids in the CBA, rather than the DMEPOS fee schedule amount. The Round 1 Rebid was in effect for a 3-year period, from 2011 through 2013, involving nine DME product categories in nine CBAs. CMS subsequently “recompeted” contracts in the Round 1 areas (including additional products), with three-year contracts effective January 1, 2014. CMS also established a second round of bidding covering 100 CBAs, along with a national mail-order diabetic testing supplies competitive bidding program; those three-year contracts went into effect July 1, 2013.

The OIG report assesses CMS compliance with DMEPOS bidding rules in the Round 1 Rebid. The OIG concluded that CMS generally followed its competitive bidding program rules when it selected suppliers and computed single payment amounts for the Round 1 Rebid – although a number of CMS errors were identified. Specifically, the OIG conducted a review based on a random sample of 100 of the 3,011 established DMEPOS single payment amounts in the Round 1 Rebid Program and the selection process for 266 winning suppliers associated with the sampled payment amounts. The OIG determined that CMS followed all applicable requirements for 255 of the 266 winning suppliers, but nine winning suppliers did not meet financial documentation requirements, and CMS incorrectly used two suppliers in one single payment computation. While the OIG characterizes the overall effect on Medicare payments to suppliers as “immaterial,” the OIG estimates that CMS paid suppliers $34,000 less than they would have received without any errors (less than 0.1 percent of the $113 million paid under the Round 1 Rebid Program during the first 6 months of 2011). The OIG recommends that CMS: (1) follow its established program procedures and applicable federal requirements consistently in evaluating the financial documents of all suppliers, and (2) ensure that all bids of winning suppliers are included in the calculation of single payment amounts before offering contracts. CMS concurred with the recommendations, and pointed out that it has enhanced the financial review process to ensure that all reviewers are accountants or certified public accountants.  Looking ahead, the OIG will be conducting a similar analysis for Round 2 of competitive bidding; this analysis may include an analysis of CMS’s procedures for ensuring supplier compliance with applicable state licensure requirements (depending on the results of an ongoing limited scope review).

The GAO issued a broader review focusing on data from the second year of the Round 1 Rebid contracts, covering the Round 1 Rebid’s effects on Medicare beneficiaries, contract suppliers, and non-contract suppliers. Among other things, the GAO observed that:

  • The number of beneficiaries furnished DME items included in the competitive bidding program generally decreased more in CBAs than in demographically similar “comparator” areas. CMS suggests that such declines may be attributable to reduced inappropriate usage of DME and do not necessarily reflect beneficiary access issues. In fact, CMS stated in comments on the report that its “sophisticated real-time claims monitoring system has continuously found that beneficiary access to all necessary and appropriate competitive bid items has been preserved since the program began” – a conclusion generally disputed by industry.
  • A small number of contract suppliers generally had a large proportion of the market share in the nine competitive bidding areas.
  • The total number of DME suppliers and Medicare allowed charges decreased more in CBAs than in the comparator areas. For instance, the number of suppliers with Medicare allowed charge amounts of $2,500 or more per quarter decreased an average of 27% in the CBAs compared to 5% in the comparator areas.
  • The number of grandfathered suppliers had so diminished that CMS was no longer monitoring them after the second quarter of 2012.
  • The program did not appear to have adversely affected beneficiary access to covered items, although additional monitoring would be needed to monitor the impact of the national mail-order diabetic testing supplies program and Round 2.