This week, we welcome guest blogger Eliezer Kotapuri, PEng, CCE. Eliezer said that after attending AAMI this year and hearing all the discussions on CMS, he put some thought into why the decision was made, and also whether any positive practices could come out of the decision.
Eliezer says that many in the profession have “taken time to quantify this impact in terms of cost. These numbers looked very interesting and surprising, but they also raised a lot of questions.” He continues by addressing the questions that arose for him:
- Was CMS under the impression that clinical engineering departments are already performing this work, and so there would not be any additional impact on them with this directive?
- Why would there be additional employee costs if the clinical engineering service providers, both internal and/or external, were already doing the right kind of work?
- Are the clinical engineering service providers, internal and external, not doing the required work (quality and quantity)?
- Is the cost for test equipment more for buying the test equipment (since the department does not have appropriate tools/test equipment to perform the recommended work), or to replace the existing equivalent tool/test equipment with OEM recommended test equipment?
Talks continue between CMS and stakeholders, but in the meantime, taking the time to look for potential positive outcomes and alternatives to unpopular decisions can possibly lead to some improved practices.
Our thanks to Eliezer for sharing his thoughts and questions.
