Cardionet Vs LifeWatch

Quote
We better wake up. Mednet's device is a device in the same catagory as LW and CN. The submission process to the FDA is not always what you would want to assume by the language such as designation and so forth. The device actually analyzes the data and stores the data in a more reliable way. They are telling the accounts ( at least in my area ) to bill the correct codes. The FDA approved this device as a MCOT device. I am trying to regain some lost business, however, it works just as well as our device.

I am not going to split hairs with questionable submissions. I am just going to out sell them.
 






Re: Cardionet Vs LifeWatch and MNet

You may have a hard time outselling MedNet, or maybe not if you're really that awesome. Their device is impressive, even if it may "occasionally" be used (as with CN and LW) when a basic event monitor or rate or AF trigger device is a better choice. I hope Highmark comes to their senses and really evaluates this whole scenario.

Lobbyists and other BS is what's made the remote monitoring arena so lucrative. Docs can't hook up their own CardioNet, LW or MN in their office? Why? Cut the doc out of their $25.00 for taking a half hour or more in many instances to do a hookup? Send the monitor to the patient or have maybe a tech hook them up at home? Still unclear from some reps in some areas....very inconsistent. Does Highmark deserve to be paying out 80% of $1123.00 or now $780.00 for Sept 1 on? Sure, if they can't make better rules governing the use of the device. How can any of these companies put on a monitor with the potential for a serious patient co-pay for simple diagnoses of palpitations? How can Cigna pay thousands?

Where are the ethics here? Where's a real evaluation of the patients most likely to be helped with the new technology? We all can pretty well pick the patients most likely to benefit, and it's not patients with the only qualification as no landline telephone. Highmark makes an arbitrary cut to save serious funds but there's no supporting information by Medicare, just numbers....

I don't understand the absurdity of a $28.00 reimbursement for one 24 Hour Holter Interpretation or the same $28.00 for 58 event recordings on a single patient.

More health care decisions in the hands of the federal government? Really frightening.
 


















Anonymous said:
Easy statement for an idiot to make!!! Back it up with some proof or shut up!!!
Click to expand...

because MCOT is not needed at the reimbursement rate it currently gets. It is not "saving"
lives anymore than cardiac event monitoring does. There are plenty of doctors who are not using MCOT and they are still practicing good medicine, their patients are not missing out on some new life saving technology.

There is not one study that compares MCOT to auto trigger event monitoring, which proves that MCOT is superior.
 






Anonymous said:
because MCOT is not needed at the reimbursement rate it currently gets. It is not "saving"
lives anymore than cardiac event monitoring does. There are plenty of doctors who are not using MCOT and they are still practicing good medicine, their patients are not missing out on some new life saving technology.

There is not one study that compares MCOT to auto trigger event monitoring, which proves that MCOT is superior.
Click to expand...
Not everything requires a study. Why would you need a study that shows that a heart rate trend for 24 hrs is better than not having one at all? Why would you need a study to show 30 days of stage is better than 5 minutes? Why would you need a study to show immediately transmitting an event rather than the patient going home and downloading on a home phone is better? MD's get it, idiots like you do not.
 






Medical procedures needing a cost / benefit analysis sure as hell better have a study. Even at the new rate, MCOT is 3Xs the cost of event monitoring and 3Xs the cost of auto trigger. This 3Xs the cost, does it provide any incremental benefit? Can't tell without a study. In what patient groups does it provide the most benefit? Again, need a study. Without a study, all you know is that it costs 3Xs as much. For Medicare patients, that 3Xs the Co Pay or about $135 vs. $44 for an event.

Cardionet is so proud of their 3Xs study, although it never compared auto trigger. The only thing that is certain is that with the new Medicare rate, it costs 3Xs as much as event.

You say that Dr.s "Get it" - Just what is it that they get? Do they "Get" that their patients are subject to 3Xs the financial liability? Do they "Get" that their patients not on Medicare might become liable for much higher Co Pays?

Cardionet is so proud of the 3Xs study, now I can see why.
 












Anonymous said:
Not everything requires a study. Why would you need a study that shows that a heart rate trend for 24 hrs is better than not having one at all? Why would you need a study to show 30 days of stage is better than 5 minutes? Why would you need a study to show immediately transmitting an event rather than the patient going home and downloading on a home phone is better? MD's get it, idiots like you do not.
Click to expand...

I love the CN folks!! Get backed into the corner and everyone is an idiot!!! Your facts are great, but what does it do for the doc. How many of your customers actually ask for a full report. Most monitors are issued to see if a patient has AF. Does it matter if the doc has 30 days worth of strips or just the 5 minutes the AF happens. Your features are great, but do they benefit the doc and patient for 3X the cost??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
 






Anonymous said:
I love the CN folks!! Get backed into the corner and everyone is an idiot!!! Your facts are great, but what does it do for the doc. How many of your customers actually ask for a full report. Most monitors are issued to see if a patient has AF. Does it matter if the doc has 30 days worth of strips or just the 5 minutes the AF happens. Your features are great, but do they benefit the doc and patient for 3X the cost??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Click to expand...


Haha, yeah that CN guy likes calling everyone an idiot. He really feels offended when people tarnish his beloved Cardionet. I can pick out 6 or 7 different posts of him calling someone out but not justifying himself.
None of the new telemetry devices can back themselves up with a study because an event monitor is just as accurate.
 












Anonymous said:
Not everything requires a study. Why would you need a study that shows that a heart rate trend for 24 hrs is better than not having one at all? Why would you need a study to show 30 days of stage is better than 5 minutes? Why would you need a study to show immediately transmitting an event rather than the patient going home and downloading on a home phone is better? MD's get it, idiots like you do not.
Click to expand...

As you can see, there are several people who get it. Cost to benefit is not justified. You tell with a lot of features but you don't extend any benefits ( which sell ). Therefore, a lot of doctors do get it.

By the way, do you know how that heart rate trend is derived? You gather data every 15 minutes ( 30 seconds of ECG ), how many minutes does that end up being in one day? It certainly is not 24 hours. Then your algorithm calculates what the estimated heart rate is for 24 hours. A lot of window dressing. Is it really worth the 5k CN is billing.

Now try to sell that as benefit worthy of the 5k you bill insurance and try to justify it without a study which proves it.

You want to talk about AF Burden now? I can show you where that is a bunch of fluff too.
AF Burden is not that important in an everyday clincal setting, maybe in clinical trials. That comment comes directly from an EP at one of the most prestigous teaching hospitals in the nation.

I'll take you calling me an idiot a compliment. Thank you very much.
 




































Anonymous said:
sept 1st

Hope you've revised your resume. Cardionet is going doooooooooooooown.
Click to expand...
You are freaking me out? Do you really think after the big expansion and all the money they spend on training the new hires a few months ago....that they will let people in sales go? What about severance? I left a good job to take a chance on Cardionet and expand my career. Now...I am wondering if that was a big mistake? There are not jobs out there to interview for in this economy. So sad
 






Anonymous said:
Does Cardionet have any third party nonbiased studies done by anyone who is not affiliated with the company? Consequently, is it such a crime to be a "wannabe" to such greatness that is Cardionet?
Click to expand...

Yes it is a crime when LifeWatch goes around saying they are the same as or better than CardioNet...They should say, this is our answer to the new, evolving technology that is now available, or that this is our next generation of monitors. Doctors get so much misinformation and there are so many bad AEs who say their product can do "the Same" and tell the staff to bill incorrectly
 






Anonymous said:
Not everything requires a study. Why would you need a study that shows that a heart rate trend for 24 hrs is better than not having one at all? Why would you need a study to show 30 days of stage is better than 5 minutes? Why would you need a study to show immediately transmitting an event rather than the patient going home and downloading on a home phone is better? MD's get it, idiots like you do not.
Click to expand...

Thank you seasoned professional...To intelligent MDs, MCOT is MCOT, a holter is a holter and event monitor is an event monitor...the only competition should be between the MCOT devices. First line of action...go after MDs who get it and get their business, then try to educate the ones who still believe an EM is the same as MCOT....
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote