Ecat or New Devices

Quote
Anonymous said:
The rep has not told me anything regarding the Transoma relationship, in fact never mentioned it when it first happened. I am saying that they (MN) have done well in our area and their reporting software/reports are well received. All service companies miss notifications from time to time. All have their good/bad qualities and it is varied from area to area depending on the rep and service. MedNet should be viewed as a ligit competitor. We all know that LW and CN have had their share and speak of lying I can not tell you how many times the LW rep has changed the story on reimbursement and interps and even offering to pay for hook ups of ACT devices. Is that be ethical? We can go point by point all day if you like on every company.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should say that I do not work for ANY monitoring company. And yes, I too can go point-by-point on just about any of the national "players". Mednet may infact be a "legit" competitor in your area (though you never have said waht area you are in) but me thinks that it is much more your percetion than actuality. I have been all over this nation, and have yet to see a MedNet account. Obviously they must have some, but I have NEVER seen one (nor has anyone I know for that matter, and I do know the reps for several monitoring companies in multiple areas). This is not intended as a flame of any sort. What percentage of the local business does MedNet have? How many states does your rep cover?

BTW, I too know of more than one LW rep offering to pay offices for hook-ups, or offering to "work something out" with regards to the hook up fee. Can you say inducement? And let's not even start on the billing issues that eCardio has......
 






Anonymous said:
Perhaps I should say that I do not work for ANY monitoring company. And yes, I too can go point-by-point on just about any of the national "players". Mednet may infact be a "legit" competitor in your area (though you never have said waht area you are in) but me thinks that it is much more your percetion than actuality. I have been all over this nation, and have yet to see a MedNet account. Obviously they must have some, but I have NEVER seen one (nor has anyone I know for that matter, and I do know the reps for several monitoring companies in multiple areas). This is not intended as a flame of any sort. What percentage of the local business does MedNet have? How many states does your rep cover?

BTW, I too know of more than one LW rep offering to pay offices for hook-ups, or offering to "work something out" with regards to the hook up fee. Can you say inducement? And let's not even start on the billing issues that eCardio has......
Click to expand...

MedNet does not saturate any one market. They seem to go after the larger accounts. Most often these accounts are already purchasing the pacer transmitters from them. People that have called on these large accounts they have say they are very happy. It makes me wonder how well they will do with the ECAT. From the buzz I hear about this device it will be very competitive with LW and CN. If they employed a sales model like LW and CN- putting more reps out there- I believe they would make an even bigger impact.

I guess I should confess too, I don't work in the event/mcot space- in another closely related space. I do have associates who work for various national companies and they ask me to help facilitate intros to my doctors. They fill me in on what is happening in the monitoring service industry because it helps me out to be in the know.

I just don't think that the CN and LW reps should be too quick to discount MN. As for eCardio, they are one of the biggest jokes that has been around, well I guess maybe their predecessor- Health Monitoring as well.
 






I can confirm with the earlier post...I heard Mednet walked from Transoma. Faulty product, to many independant uninformed reps, etc..I keep in touch with colleagues all over the country at different facilities. This is the same thing they have heard and some have even stopped implanting Transoma (for numerous reasons). Nobody really talkes about Transoma, I think people are unsure of how long they'll be around and the quality of their device. Mednet has a decent reputation in the field. It seems that the clients that use them really seem to like them. My Dr's. and I just looked at their ECAT this past week and Dr's are going to use them. Ill keep you posted, I have heard good things from friends so far.
 






Anonymous said:
I can confirm with the earlier post...I heard Mednet walked from Transoma. Faulty product, to many independant uninformed reps, etc..I keep in touch with colleagues all over the country at different facilities. This is the same thing they have heard and some have even stopped implanting Transoma (for numerous reasons). Nobody really talkes about Transoma, I think people are unsure of how long they'll be around and the quality of their device. Mednet has a decent reputation in the field. It seems that the clients that use them really seem to like them. My Dr's. and I just looked at their ECAT this past week and Dr's are going to use them. Ill keep you posted, I have heard good things from friends so far.
Click to expand...

And I can confirm that both you and the earlier poster are both 100% incorrect. Tansoma's CEO went to see Mednet before ACC to let them know of the change, as it was part of Transoma's booth at ACC. The change was to to the quality of Mednet's notification system, as well as major arrhythmias mot being notified on at all, but would show up in reports. Transoma has had some issues with the handheld component of their 1st generation system though. Good to see Mednet reps around here though...
 


















Mednet's 510K for their ECAT device claims it to be an event recorder not an MCOT device. Their product classification is DXH and not DSI which Cardionet and Lifewatch both currently have. Is Mednet billing 93229 or 93268 with their ECAT device? Does the product classification matter? I am just a bit nervous with current billing issues. If I remember correctly Lifewatch's first entry into the market with the ACT was DXH as well, which mednet claimed as the predicate device, and had to cease until they had a DSI classified device to be reimbursed for a MCOT device.
 






93229 = Wearable mobile cardiovascular telemetry with electrocardiographic recording, concurrent computerized real time data analysis and greater than 24 hours of accessible ECG data storage (retrievable with query) with ECG triggered and patient selected events transmitted to a remote attended surveillance center for up to 30 days; technical support for connection and patient instructions for use, attended surveillance, analysis and physician prescribed transmission of daily and emergent data reports.

Do you see anything about DXH or DSI?
 






Yeah Mednet put down DX for their 510K because they have no clue what they are doing over there. But yes they do have a true telemetry device out now to compete with LW and CN.
 












How is billing a code that was specifically created for MCOT devices with a device in it's 510K calling it nothing more than an event recorder any different than taking an event recorder and billing a Holter code (93236)? It appears in both cases that the devices meet the code description.
 






Anonymous said:
How is billing a code that was specifically created for MCOT devices with a device in it's 510K calling it nothing more than an event recorder any different than taking an event recorder and billing a Holter code (93236)? It appears in both cases that the devices meet the code description.
Click to expand...

I don't know but why don't you tell us Mr. Wizard? Maybe you should head up the FDA or CMS and be in charge of all the 510ks and coding issues.
 












Everyone stop. Not one company has completely billed the correct way in one way or the other. We are ALL guilty of messing up the reimbursement system. Come january 2010 it will all be fixed and no company will make a good profit margin. This means most of us will be fired come Q1. Lets stop this fighting with each other on our lunch breaks! Life is good.
 






Anonymous said:
Everyone stop. Not one company has completely billed the correct way in one way or the other. We are ALL guilty of messing up the reimbursement system. Come january 2010 it will all be fixed and no company will make a good profit margin. This means most of us will be fired come Q1. Lets stop this fighting with each other on our lunch breaks! Life is good.
Click to expand...

Peace Dude/Dudette. Have some herbal tea on your lunch break. Maybe some wheat germ.
 






Please cut me some slack since this is my first effort to join in this conversation. Also I may be posting this incorrectly.

I am looking to obtain information on a list of MCOT devices and opinions on their comparative value.
 






You can start with this. FDA product classification ACT=DSI, Cardionet=DSI, Braemar=DSI, Medicomp whom just recieved their 510K=DSI, Mednet=DXH (just another event recorder). DSI has more stringent testing requirements that Mednet must not have met.
 
























Top Bottom
Back
Quote