CardioNet MCOT vs eCardio ER920W

Thanks for the info, but the CardioNet DOES have landline capability. The base unit is right there in the box.....

I always find the billing comments interesting. Why are you upset with CardioNet when YOUR insurance company is not paying. MOST DO COVER... YOUR insurance company does not. You pay them thousands each year to cover costs and then they refuse to pay. Medicare HAS deemed the unit and service an important tool to help you, then your BCBS plan just says they are not going to pay because it is experimental??? Who is at fault here!!! Hundreds of insurance plans cover the costs, Anthem and United do not. So you blame CardioNet for this? I just don't get it. I would be pissed at my insurance company for snaking out of a claim.
When you add all the plans together that do cover, Medicare, Aetna, Heathnet, military, and many independent BLUES, most people ARE covered. Blame YOUR plan.

 

The reason why the major insurance companies consider this experimental is because there is not one shred of clinical evidence that supports any clinical benefit between an auto trigger event monitor whether it is the eCardio ER920W or traditional versus any Mobile Telemetry device. If you want these companies to cover the procedure, prove out the benefit of the Cardionet MCOT versus the eCardio ER920W. Once that is established all patients should then be covered no matter what insurance company they have. Sure the MCOT can provide some additional pieces of information that an auto triggered event monitor can not but what is the clinical significance of this data. At this time to United, BCBS and Anthem, this information has no clinical relevance over standard auto triggered event monitors. If this information did have relevance, the stock price would not be in the mid $2. How is the launch going with the wEvent?

 

Now this is #idelight... Not that shit that they are trying in here.

 

My customer told me LW is offering to sell their ACT device for $3,000. Can the doctors office bill for the TC if they own the equipment?

 

The launch of wevent is going great, that is why we are currently back ordered

You have to be an idiot to require a study to show 30 days of ECG storage is better than 5- 90 second slots.

I am glad you think standard event monitors are fine. I would rather have a family member on a telemetry device. Good thing my family has insurance that covers it.

 

Certainly 30 days of ECG data is far better than short event strips. However, that continuous data is not readily available to the physician,...as you know. Physicians get only what triggers the device and what Cardionet sends them. As the previous poster stated, the benefit of mobile telemetry does not play out across the patient base. For MOST patients, traditional recorders are perfectly adequate.

 

Good discussion....What clinical benefit has been demonstrated from the 30 days of ECG storage? If there is published data, which journal has it appeared in? It appears this is what United is asking for. As the previous poster points out, physicians get only what triggers the device and what Cardionet sends them. This is similar to the eCardio ER920W. Check out the coverage rationale from United Healthcare's website: "There is insufficient evidence in the clinical literature to conclude that auto-triggered transmissions and remote surveillance demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes compared to standard outpatient cardiac event monitoring."

 

Good discussion indeed!....let's face it, there are applications where mobile cardiac telemetry can be beneficial for patient care and diagnostics but, truth be told, the submission for a CPT code for mobile telemetry became a contrived "cash dash" for Cardionet and the other IDTFs just piled on. Their reps come to us perpetually wanting us to put every patient on. This is not warranted or necessary based on the diagnostic yield or benefit in most cases. Hence the major reimbursement cut from the initial fee for service decision. If clinics are putting every patient on MCT that requires some kind of ambulatory monitoring, they are either unfamiliar with alternative technology methods or, their interest lies somewhere else.

 

Tough to argue with idiots....

Read your quote!!!!! It states "clinical outcomes". CLINICAL OUTCOMES!! Please explain how a diagnostic company is supposed to provide clinical outcomes? We do not treat the patient, only provide diagnostics to the MD. United wants to take patients money and not pay out.

BTW, do even know that Cardionet makes the ER920w for ecardio??? Trust me it is not as great as you think.

 

Very true. Not a good sales rep indeed. Many just dont understand what physicians really needs or is looking for etc..

 

United will pay out and cover standard outpatient cardiac event monitoring.

 

Anyone know if this is legit??

 

If the doctor is doing the monitoring. If they are paying someone else to do it, I do not know what the difference of owning really makes. It is somehow trying to get around medicare guidelines.

 

The difference in owning would mean that the clinician has more control of how much of the pie they are getting.

 

So, when you say 'they have control over how much of the pie they get', are you saying that owning the equipment/monitors allows the MD office to bill the TC?

 

Why don't you ask the company trying to sell the device to you?

 

Brilliant idea. I guess his response would be unbiased, right.

 

You're right. Better to go on an anonymous message board to get the right answer.

 

Yes, definitely. You can bill TC and PF just by purchasing the product. You can even directly bill patient hook up if you spend more than 10 min with them.

 

If you spend more than 15 minutes you can add the event hook up code for extra revenue.