1 / 19

Developing Collaborative Partners for AT/DME Reutilization

Developing Collaborative Partners for AT/DME Reutilization. Sara Sack National Collaborative for AT Reutilization September 15, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia. Be Thoughtful When Selecting Program Partners. Maintain positive image and program integrity

marisa
Download Presentation

Developing Collaborative Partners for AT/DME Reutilization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing Collaborative Partners for AT/DME Reutilization Sara Sack National Collaborative for AT Reutilization September 15, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia

  2. Be Thoughtful When Selecting Program Partners • Maintain positive image and program integrity • We came close to becoming known as a recycling program! • Don’t accidentally “give away” your program—keep your program brand • Make sure contract/obligations of any collaborative efforts are financially worth the effort • Don’t spend 30K to earn 20K. Remember to calculate staff time and program costs.

  3. Looking for Partners: Who Buys AT/DME? • Survey of 1,414 recipients of personal care services regarding DME purchases (Carlson and Ehrlich study, 2002) • 37% Self funded • 18% Medicare • 16% Private Insurance • 5% Medicaid • 5% Veteran’s Administration • 2 % Vocational Rehabilitation

  4. Looking for Partners: Who Buys AT/DME? (continued) • Answer may be different depending on the definition of AT • If you ask the question for technology costing over $1,000 • And if you consider the technology by category and population (adult versus child) Note: these are exactly the questions that we need to ask to examine Return on Investment questions

  5. Looking for Partners: Who Buys AT/DME? (continued) • A major DME manufacturer and supplier works on the premise that wheeled mobility and seating is paid for by: • 29% Medicare • 28% Medicaid • 21% Private Insurance (including managed care) • 7% Veteran’s Administration • 3% Vocational Rehabilitation • 12 % Other

  6. Looking for Partners: Who Buys AT/DME? (continued) • 2009 survey of 10 DME suppliers in Kansas of equipment costing more than $1,000

  7. Looking for Partners: Who Sells, Utilizes, or Comes Into Contact With People Who Use AT/DME? • Potentially a very large group • DME Suppliers • Schools • Independent Living Centers • Specific health groups (ALS, MS, etc) • Hospice • Funeral Home Association/Directors • Many others….

  8. Looking for Partners: What Can Our Colleagues Tell Us About Partners? • In 2008 Statewide AT Act Programs from 10 states and 2 territories secured $629,227 from collaborative partners • Funding received was from a variety of sources—State appropriations, Health & Human Services, CMS (Real Choice and Medicaid), Blind Services, restricted donations, and fines from a local law.

  9. Looking At Current AT Reuse Collaborators • Connecticut –MFP---$10,000 • Georgia—General Assembly--$46,196 • Indiana---Older Blind Grant--$29,555 • Kansas—Health Policy Authority--$244,579 • Louisiana—State Appropriations--$41,763 • Louisiana—Restricted Donations--$1,150 • Montana—Health & Human Services--$93,484

  10. Looking At Current AT Reuse Collaborators (continued) • North Dakota—General Funds--$10,000 • Northern Mariana—Real Choice--$64,000 • Ohio—State of Ohio—$47,500 • Puerto Rico—State Funds-Local Law 264-$38,000 • Vermont—Medicaid Infrastructure--$44,000 • Alaska—AK Mental Health Trust--$9,000

  11. Presenting Your Case For Collaboration • Consider the proposed outcome for the partner of working together—improved image, access to used equipment, needed service, cost savings? • Improved public image • Associated with positive program • Seen as environmentally or socially responsive • Seen as fiscally responsible use of public funds

  12. In-Kind vs. Cash Contributions • In-kind contributions have financial value and reduce program costs • Operational costs • Provide space • Cover phone and communication expenses • Serve as a distribution center—accept and store equipment

  13. In-Kind Contributions (continued) • Provide transportation • Pick up and deliver equipment, transfer equipment from site to site • Advertise program • Insert mailers in their materials (utility bills, HHS communications, etc.) • Provide radio, television, or print ads • Secure donations • #800 sticker, letters seeking donations, wills & gifting

  14. In-Kind Contributions (continued) • Professional services • Accounting services • Legal services • Financial planning, wills & estate planning

  15. Income Received for Benefit/Service

  16. Income Received for Benefit/Service (continued)

  17. Other Benefits or Services? • Additional benefits or services that were not included in the list…..

  18. Questions ? • Contact Sara Sack, Kansas University Center on Disabilities, 2601 Gabriel Ave., Parsons, KS. 67357 • 620-421-8367 or ssack@ku.edu

More Related