Reimbursement Rates for Relay Service Frozen
30 06 2007
All..
This just came out! The FCC has issued an "Order" on Reimbursement Rates for relay services. The rates are to be frozen
This includes VRS which has been the hottest issue for for a few months and Sorenson had launched one of the largest campaign I’ve ever seen to exhort people to file concerns on reduction of reimbursement rates to the FCC. Apparently this outreach blitz worked; it involved a well designed brochure that has ready-made card to be mailed to the FCC Chair and a video clip that was mailed to all VRS users.
I am impressed because I know only NECA and FCC know the actual cost breakdown and many who filed with the FCC did so because they believed what VRS provider told them; not based on actual cost breakdown. Corporation industry is the victor; hopefully result of that will provide better service for us VRS users.
This is one of the few issues that I know that most of other VRS providers also cheered on and supported the underlying message - they may not do it publically, but in talking with a few of them they support freezing or increasing the rate.
Click to this to read the full burnt of the Order Rates Frozen
Reason for freezing reimbursement rates was that the NECA who is the fund administrator of relay service had submitted 4 (four)different accounting methodology to determine the reimbursement rates; the FCC needed more time to determine which of the methodology is best thus froze the rates.
The Order explained each relay services; traditional TTY relay service, Speech to Speech, Internet Relay, and VRS. You will see diferent rates explaing for each. I will focus on VRS rates since that was the hottest topic the last few months. NECA submitted 6 (six) different rates for VRS. You will see terms adjusted and unadjusted quite a bit; adjusted means some costs are not factored in (disallowed) and unadjusted means total cost.
- one: unadjusted provider data: $6.77 vs $6.43 without marketing and outreach
- two: provider data with disallowances $6.14 vs $5.80 without marketing and outreach
- three: 2006 actual cost and demand $4.55 vs $4.48 without marketing and outreach
- four: 2006 actual cost and demand adjusted for inflation: $4.76 vs $4.54 without marketing and outreach
- five: provider’s unadjusted cost data and NECA’s projected demand: $6.37 vs $6.08 without marketing and outreach
- six: providers’ cost data with disallowances and NECA’s projected demand: %5.77 vs $5.49 without marketing and outreach
Note: look at the #4. This is actual cost and demand and compare that to the 2006 VRS rate of $6.64.
The order is an eye opener.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
RT Admin.
Loading ...
Thanks Ed, for this breaking news!
Now, all of the VRS are taking their breath… and now how can we the consumers to become more actively involved with the VRS industry?
I’m tired of being a passive consumer thinking that everything will be fine, until next May or June, the panic ensues for a possible cuts.
What we all need to do next? Be more vocal and demand for the quality, not quantity? Demand for the return of investment from VRS industry? I contribute to the industry by using my time for their Video Relay services, and the companies are collecting rates from FCC, to build themselves bigger and bigger with handsome profits.
Where is my voice in this process? I pray that I do NOT need to get another video-clip ‘telemarketing’ blitz “exhorting” us to contact FCC again.
Do you have any ideas, Ed?
Amy Cohen Efron
Well, FCC is a federal agency and this is their job; therefore, exhorting in all forms will continue to be necessary. In the meantime, we should put VRS under a microscope and do what we can to make it better for us all and that means from every angle on the spectrum…..before next year’s deadline.
Ed,
Allow me to emphasize how appreciative I am to have read your text first before viewing your video. Since I’m not quite familiar with how things work out between FCC, NECA and TRS/VRS providers, the combination of your text and vlog indeed gave me the opportunity to understand better. I’m very pleased to hear that FCC has decided to freeze the rates but in the meantime to conduct further study which means it is no guarantee that the rate would remain frozen in long run.
Again, thank you, Ed.
Apparently, at the end FCC realized that, regardless of Sorenson’s situation, they had no choice but to do this. Right now, we need to reorganize efforts.
SOLUTION: ESTABLISH A STRICTLY INDEPENDENT DEAF-RUN ORGANIZATION!
FCC might have chuckled and eased on Sorenson while considering this freeze on rates. But, if this situation arises again and Sorenson forces hands by being the “custodian” speaking on behalf of all the relay service industry this won’t look good for the industry. I know intentions were good but it is unethical for a competing corporation to form VRSCA. This really reeks of ulterior motives.
Amy,
Do I have any ideas? Yes and no.
One is to continue to badger the FCC to allow Interstate TRS Fund Council more access to cost breakdown of relay services so they can truly represent the teeming masses and know if the reimbursement rates truly are fair or not. Interstate TRS Fund Council is mandated by the FCC to be watchdog of rates for relay service, and the NECA coordinates the meetings. I’ve been member of this Council for almost 11 years, and sometimes I think the Council is just a glorified rubber stamper. However, I’ve noticed some discussions by the FCC on the role of the Council and perhaps give them a greater authority. We need to insist on that.
The other is, of course, join or be part of national organizations that advocate on behalf of persons with hearing loss. NAD comes to mind; join NAD, join some committees and let both exec director, Nancy Bloch and Prexy Bobbie Scoggins know ur feelings. Trust me they would love to hear from y’all.
Finally, badger your own state relay administrator in ur states. Some of them have limited authority or responsiblity, then u all need to let the agency know that state relay administrators need to be more involved. Do it via ur senator or representative know.
These processes take time, but if persistent, they work. That is why I said yes and no ;-]
Ed, you did an excellent job keeping the deaf community updated with minimal biases, if any.
I just hope that the FCC will have guts to ward off high powered lobbying by Sorenson and come up with decisions that will be fair to ALL providers instead of just one. Also, the decisions will ensure EQUALITY for everyone which will mean that all video equipment will be treated exactly the same as TTYs.
Sonny
How can SorensonVRS have ulterior motives (VRSCA) if what they did benefited the whole VRS industry and the customers who use VRS? If the ulterior motive for SorensonVRS was to look out for themselves, then they just saved the whole VRS industry and retained competition.
- Bob