Has Competitive Bidding actually helped or hindered in the past?
The Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) has faced several criticisms from stakeholders, particularly from the home medical equipment (HME) industry, including organizations like AAHomecare.
- Unsustainably Low Prices: The competitive bidding process often forces suppliers to offer very low prices to win contracts. These prices can be so low that suppliers struggle to cover their costs, which may lead to lower-quality equipment or services. This threatens the financial viability of suppliers, especially smaller businesses.
- Reduced Access for Patients: Low prices and fewer contracts can push some suppliers out of business or cause them to stop serving certain areas. This reduces the number of suppliers available to Medicare beneficiaries, making it harder for patients to get equipment like wheelchairs, oxygen supplies, or braces, especially in rural areas.
- Market Concentration: The program tends to favor larger suppliers, leading to fewer overall suppliers in the market. This reduces competition, which contradicts the program’s goal of using market competition to lower costs. Smaller suppliers often can’t compete with the low bids of bigger companies, limiting patient choices.
- Complex Bureaucracy: The bidding process involves extensive paperwork, financial documentation, and compliance requirements, like bid surety bonds and licensure checks. These can be overwhelming for smaller suppliers, discouraging their participation and further concentrating the market.
- Risk of Reduced Quality: To meet low bid prices, some suppliers may provide lower-quality equipment or cut back on services like patient education or follow-up care, which can negatively affect patient outcomes.
- Potential for Fraud and Abuse: Although the program aims to reduce fraud, inadequate vetting of bidders or non-binding bids (where suppliers can reject contracts after winning) can allow unreliable suppliers to participate, potentially leading to fraud or poor service.
- Program Instability and Delays: The CBP has faced multiple pauses, including a current gap period after contracts expired on December 31, 2023. Uncertainty about when the next bidding round will start (pending CMS’s rulemaking process) creates confusion for suppliers and patients. Critics argue these delays disrupt access and planning.
- Impact on Vulnerable Patients: Beneficiaries with multiple conditions may need equipment from different suppliers due to the program’s product category structure, complicating their care. This can be especially challenging for those covered by both Medicare and Medicaid, creating a “tangle of bureaucracy.”
AAHomecare and other critics emphasize that without reforms—such as ensuring fair pricing, transparent processes, and stricter bidder qualifications—the CBP could continue to harm suppliers and limit patient access to quality care. They are advocating for changes to address these issues, especially as CMS prepares for the next bidding round following the proposed rule expected by July 1, 2025.

