Menu
For Business Write a review File a complaint
CB Work at Home Review of Best Care Medical Marketing
Best Care Medical Marketing

Best Care Medical Marketing review: Scam 52

D
Author of the review
8:33 am EDT
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
Featured review
This review was chosen algorithmically as the most valued customer feedback.

This scam operation was started on 04/01/09 (April fools day) and is operated by con man Frank Cardell. His convicted con man pal James Barschow is head of insurance operations. This is a classic pyramid scheme that lures distributors to the company with promises of huge earnings for selling products to senior citizens who have Medicare and other insurances. To date (6/30/09) very few products have ever been shipped and even fewer distributors paid. The people at the top of the pyramid continue to promote this "unbelievable" plan to unsuspecting distributors looking to make a quick buck. Visit www.bcmsdirect.com to see who these people are. The company is bilking the Medicare system and the people who are attempting to help other seniors. If you have been involved with this scam operation please do not hesitate to contact the appropriate authorities and post your experience. This convicted con man actually uses con.[protected]@verizon.net as his email address!

Update by Duped by Best Care Medical Marketing
Jun 30, 2009 8:34 am EDT

You have confirmed everything I have been hearing about this scam.

Update by Duped by Best Care Medical Marketing
Jun 30, 2009 8:45 am EDT

Frank, you have confirmed everything I have been hearing about this scam. I hope more people add to my post as they learn more about you and your co-CONspirators.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 16387 / December 13, 1999
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. FUTURE VISION DIRECT MARKETING, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 96-2107 (NHP) (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 1999)
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today announced that, on December 3, 1999, Judge Nicholas H. Politan of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against defendants Ronald H. Michel, Stephen Regen, William Richard Horne, Daniel Kelly, Joseph Glenski, James Barschow, and Frank Cardell. Michel, Regen, Horne, and Kelly promoted, and Glenski, Barschow, and Cardell telemarketed, two fraudulent schemes to sell to the public unregistered securities in companies that purportedly were to develop and operate wireless cable television systems in Tennessee and Washington State.
The Court ordered defendants Michel, Regen, Horne, and Kelly to disgorge, jointly and severally, $13, 137, 813.11, representing their unlawful profits from the fraudulent sale of investments in both schemes. The Court further ordered Michel, Horne, and Kelly each to pay a $500, 000 civil penalty, and Regen to pay a $250, 000 civil penalty. The Court also barred Michel, Horne, and Kelly from serving as officers or directors of any public company.
The Court ordered defendants Glenski and Barschow to disgorge, jointly and severally with defendant Bruce Schroeder (against whom the Commission obtained a default judgment in July 1999), $4, 209, 827.23, representing their unlawful profits from the frauds and ordered Glenski and Barschow each to pay a $500, 000 civil penalty. Cardell was ordered to disgorge $48, 075 in illicit profits and pay a $250, 000 civil penalty.
The Court permanently enjoined each of the defendants from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 17(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the Court enjoined all of the defendants except Regen from future violations of the securities registration provisions, Securities Act Sections 5(a) and 5(c), and the broker-dealer registration provisions, Exchange Act Section 15(c).
The Commission's action is still pending with respect to three corporate defendants, as well as relief defendant Bellette Hoffman.
The Commission wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the investigation of this matter.

Resolved

The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.

52 comments
Add a comment
D
D
demil
Grapevine, US
Send a message
Jan 25, 2010 7:47 am EST

Not complaining?Happy as usual---(I learned that not every supplier is posted on the website)

Please be aware that ALL DME suppliers must obtain a surety bond and be certified.. READ MORE:

CMS Releases Final Surety Bond Rule for DMEPOS Suppliers

On December 29, 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a display copy of a Final Rule, which will require suppliers of Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) to obtain and maintain a surety bond of at least $50, 000.

A cursory review of the Final Rule reveals the following:

Existing DMEPOS suppliers will be required to comply with the surety bond requirements for each assigned National Provider Identifier (NPI) to which Medicare has granted billing privileges by October 2, 2009. Beginning May 4, 2009, DMEPOS suppliers seeking to enroll will also be required to satisfy the surety bond requirements for each assigned NPI for which the supplier is seeking to obtain Medicare billing privileges. However, the Final Rule provides an exception to the surety bond requirement for:

* Government operated DMEPOS suppliers if the DME supplier has provided CMS with a comparable surety bond under state law.
* State licensed orthotic and prosthetic personnel in private practice, making custom made orthotics and prosthetics, if the business: (i) is solely owned and operated by the orthotic and prosthetic personnel; and (ii) is only billing for orthotic, prosthetics, and supplies.
* Physicians and nonphysician practitioners (as defined in Section 1842(b)(18) of the Social Security Act) when items are furnished only to the physician or nonphysician practitioner's own patients as part of his or her physician service.
* Physical and occupational therapists in private practice if: (i) the business is solely owned and operated by the physical or occupational therapist; (ii) the items are furnished only to the physical or occupational therapist's own patients as part of his or her professional service; and (iii) the business is only billing for orthotics, prosthetics and supplies.

The Balance Budget Act of 1997 authorized CMS to establish a surety bond for DMEPOS suppliers in the amount of at least $50, 000. In the August 1, 2007 Proposed Rule, CMS proposed adjusting the $50, 000 figure by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to arrive at a proposed $65, 000 surety bond requirement. In the Final Rule, CMS does not apply the CPI adjustment. However, the Final Rule allows the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) to prescribe an elevated surety bond amount of $50, 000 per occurrence of an adverse legal action within the 10 years preceding enrollment, revalidation or reenrollment. The Final Rule defines "final adverse action" to mean:

* A Medicare imposed revocation of any Medicare billing privileges;
* Suspension or revocation of a license to provide health care by any State licensing authority;
* Revocation or suspension by an accreditation organization;
* A conviction of a Federal or State felony offense (as defined in 42 CFR 424.535(a)(3)(i)(A)) within the last 10 years preceding enrollment, revalidation, or reenrollment; or
* An exclusion or debarment from participation in a Federal or State health care program.

Among other requirements, the Final Rule requires that the surety bond guarantee that the surety will, within 30 days of receiving written notice from CMS (containing sufficient evidence to establish the surety's liability under the bond for unpaid claims, civil monetary penalties (CMP), or assessments), pay CMS a total of up to the full penal amount of the bond in the following amounts:

* The amount of any unpaid claim, plus accrued interest, for which the DMEPOS supplier is responsible.
* The amount of any unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments imposed by CMS or the Office of Inspector General on the DMEPOS supplier, plus accrued interest.

In the Final Rule, there are a number of events triggering an obligation to supply the NSC with a surety bond from an authorized surety that satisfies the Final Rule requirements including (but not limited to):

* A supplier enrolling in the Medicare program, making a change in ownership, or responding to a revalidation or reenrollment request;
* A supplier that seeks to become an enrolled DMEPOS supplier through a purchase or transfer of assets or ownership interest; and
* A DMEPOS supplier enrolling a new practice location.

CMS will generally revoke a DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges if an enrolled supplier fails to obtain, timely file, or maintain a surety bond as specified in the Final Rule and CMS instructions. CMS may also require that a DMEPOS supplier demonstrate compliance with the surety bond requirements at any time.

In the Final Rule, CMS estimates that the average annual bond cost will be $1, 500 (or 3 percent of a $50, 000 surety bond). CMS illustrates how the cost associated with the surety bond requirement may increase substantially for some organizations in the following excerpt from the Final Rule:
"[s]ome chains have several hundred locations. Thus, for instance, a pharmacy chain that has 300 locations, each denoted by a separate NPI, will be required to obtain a bond for each site. With an annual bond cost of $1, 500, the yearly cost of the surety bond requirement for the chain organization would be $450, 000."

In the past, CMS has reported that the surety bond requirement serves to:

* Limit the Medicare program risk to fraudulent DMEPOS suppliers;
* Enhance the Medicare enrollment process so that only legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are enrolled and allowed to remain enrolled in the Medicare program; and
* Ensure that the Medicare program recoups erroneous payments that result from fraudulent or abusive billing practices by allowing CMS to seek payments from a surety.

A
A
all this
Petal, US
Send a message
Jan 27, 2010 10:40 pm EST

I just joined Best Care Medical Marketing before I found this post.
Has anyone actulley got paid (a check) from them?
If not, how do I get out of their contract?

A
A
all this
Petal, US
Send a message
Jan 27, 2010 10:45 pm EST

I just signed up with Best Care Medical Marketing before I found this site.
Now I'm worred. Question: Has anyone got paid (check) yet?
Please tell me.If not, how do I get out of their contract.
I have not even began any training yet. Just signed up today.
Thanks for your help.

S
S
Shellyk123
Newyork, US
Send a message
Jan 29, 2010 11:59 pm EST

Paradisaical broker 2 you must be completely Delicious. You are too blinded with covetousness to do your own investigate. Every person in this concern knows that Medicare pays within 15 life. coinsurance takes a minuscule longer. Ring any associate that bills Medicare equivalent a DME biller or do your due diligence before you spout off active things you hold been led to anticipate to be harmonious same it takes 3 months to mercenary. You condition to GET True! 4 weeks for a client to get their dictate is what every opposite respectable complement is doing both rather. You moldiness be new and plant purchasing in to all the dissembling. You are imaging if you consider that you are going to get profitable before this band

F
F
Frank Cardell
Bloomfield, US
Send a message
Feb 08, 2010 12:25 pm EST

Best Care Medical Marketing Inc.
I have a complaint, how it is possible that anyone can send in an anonymous complaint defame a person or company even if they do not know what they are talking about. How is it that the internet as great as it is can be allow such a misguided person to do such a thing without any recourse to that person?
My name is Frank Cardell and I am president of Best Care Medical Marketing Inc. When I started this business in May of 2009 I inherited a large number of salespeople, that by the most part were untrained and had no idea how this business is run or in many cases how any business is run.
Most of the business that was submitted was incorrect, incomplete or had other problems. Many of these which were never completed or rejected by doctors or other entities in the business. Although some of the agents were conscientious about their work many were not.
In most cases those that complained about not being paid should not have been paid because of the problems with their cases. We have paid commission on all those cases that earned a commission.
We have shipped tens of thousands of dollars of equipment to those that qualified.
l leave an open invitation to anyone that would like to visit our office and review any of those cases they feel there was a problem with. You can call me at [protected] to set an appointment.
Let’s see if those anonymous cowards want to know the real truth about their business.

F
F
finallysense
Sarasota, US
Send a message
Mar 04, 2010 9:47 pm EST

Demil, finally a person who has some sense as to how the medical industry is regulated. I have been a health care professional for many years. My friend tried to recruit me into one of these pyramid schemes. I am amazed that they continue to operate. Not only are they operating illegal and under the radar, they're also dragging uninformed people into these schemes, which could have devestating results when these operations are shut down. They will be shut down. Demil, you have only touched on a few areas where these pyramid companies are not in compliance. They are recruiting anyone untrained and unqualified to market to seniors and give away free products using their Medicare insurance claiming that they don't have to pay anything. Demil, do what any legitimate health professional will do, and as I did, report them to Medicare fraud, OIG, and the local authorities. As you know their days ahead are numbered and bleak. Best Care Marketing & Carepath Marketing are not reputable (or even legal) companies. They are pyramid schemes.

O
O
Observer1973
US
Send a message
Mar 21, 2010 10:31 am EDT

I think the term "pyramid scheme" is being used incorrectly. A Pyramid Scheme is when you are getting money by having people sign up and pay to join. If that is how you are making money off other people PAYING anything to join, then it is a pyramid scheme. There is no cost to join Best Care, or other DME comapanies for that matter. Now, that being said, I know that Best Care isn't doing other things correctly that they should be. Don't make the mistake of lumping other companies in with Best Care. I know people who have worked with Best Care that are with other, reputable companies. They are getting paid and doing what is required to stay in compliance. So please, just because some people were tricked by Best Care and moved on, don't assume that these new companies are affiliated with Best Care. Frank Cardell is someone that has made a lot of enemies by his practices.

H
H
hmeconsultant
US
Send a message
Mar 29, 2010 6:41 pm EDT

I have never seen a site with so many know it all's that know nothing. People, with the exception of Demil, you must be smokin the funny stuff if you believe that any of the "companies" that you talk about are compliant, legal, or for that matter will be around long enough to even waste your time with. Do your homework! Learn about what you are getting yourself involved with. If you think that only the CEO's are going to be held accountable think again-or get use to being labeled a felon for the remainer of your life. You can go out and sell your body or drugs on a street corner and make a lot of money or even enjoy doing so. But eventually your ### is going to end up where it belongs. Not only are you dealing with scam set ups, and self serving profiteers, you are also jeoparding your financial welfare and freedom. Regarding health care fraud, not knowing is not ignorance. It is not taking the time to do your homework and understand that you are violating countless Stark and Abuse, Supplier Standards, and Referral laws. Wake up people. Because you carry a pen, pad and tape measure, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO RECOMMEND PRODUCTS TO SENIORS AND SUBMIT THEM TO A COMPANY THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ACCREDITED TO HOLD A PROVIDER NUMBER. It does not matter if you are referring them to a DMEPOS OR HME company that does! You are breaking the law each and every time you provide them an order! Carepath Marketing & Best Care Marketing are illegal scams. Selling crack or your ### on the street will be more profitable and lasting, with just as much risk, as it is working for these crooks.We are all human, and some will just have to find out the hard way. Can't say you weren't warned!

A
A
antiscammer25
US
Send a message
Apr 19, 2010 7:04 pm EDT

This should provide insight into the above scams that are operating illegally for the time being. Taken directly from CMS. Note that Carepath Marketing or Best Care Marketing do not have NPI's.

This article is for suppliers who submit claims to Medicare DME Medicare
Administrative Contractors (DME MACs) for DMEPOS provided to Medicare
beneficiaries.
Provider Action Needed
This article is based on Change Request (CR) 6566. The Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS) is issuing CR6566 to provide further guidance to
suppliers of DMEPOS regarding licensing, accreditation, or other mandatory
Disclaimer
This article was prepared as a service to the public and is not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. This article may contain references or links to statutes, regulations, or other
policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to
review the specific statutes, regulations and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement of their contents. CPT only copyright 2009 American Medical Association.
Page 1 of 5
MLN Matters® Number: MM6566 Related Change Request Number: 6566
Disclaimer
This article was prepared as a service to the public and is not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. This article may contain references or links to
statutes, regulations, or other policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either
the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to review the specific statutes, regulations and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement
of their contents. CPT only copyright 2009 American Medical Association.
Page 2 of 5
quality requirements that may apply. DMEPOS suppliers should be aware that if
they are not identified by the National Supplier Clearing House-Medicare
Administrative Contractor (NSC-MAC) as being accredited to supply the specific
product/service AND they are not exempt from accreditation, their claims will be
automatically denied by Medicare.
Background
Section 302 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) added a new
paragraph 1834(a)(20) to the Social Security Act (the Act). This paragraph
requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
establish and implement quality standards for suppliers of DMEPOS. All suppliers
that furnish such items or services set out at subparagraph 1834(a)(20)(D) as the
Secretary determines appropriate must comply with the quality standards in order
to receive Medicare Part B payments and to retain a Medicare supplier number to
be able to bill Medicare. Pursuant to subparagraph 1834(a)(20)(D) of the Act, the
covered items and services are defined in Section 1834(a)(13), Section 1834(h)(4)
and Section 1842(s)(2) of the Act. The covered items include:
• DME;
• Medical supplies;
• Home dialysis supplies and equipment;
• Therapeutic shoes;
• Parenteral and enteral nutrient, equipment and supplies;
• Transfusion medicine; and
• Prosthetic devices, prosthetics, and orthotics.
Section 154(b) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of
2008 (MIPPA) added a new subparagraph (F) to Section 1834(a)(20) of the Act.
In implementing quality standards under this paragraph the Secretary will require
suppliers furnishing items and services directly, or as a subcontractor for
another entity, to have submitted evidence of accreditation by an accreditation
organization designated by the Secretary. This subparagraph states that eligible
professionals and other persons (defined below) are exempt from meeting the
accreditation deadline unless CMS determines that the quality standards are
specifically designed to apply to such professionals and persons. The eligible
professionals who are exempt from meeting the September 30, 2009 accreditation
deadline (as defined in Section 1848(k)(3)(B)) include the following practitioners:
• Physicians (as defined in Section 1861(r) of the Act);
MLN Matters® Number: MM6566 Related Change Request Number: 6566
Disclaimer
This article was prepared as a service to the public and is not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. This article may contain references or links to
statutes, regulations, or other policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either
the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to review the specific statutes, regulations and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement
of their contents. CPT only copyright 2009 American Medical Association.
Page 3 of 5

Physical Therapists;

Occupational Therapists;

Qualified Speech-Language Pathologists;

Physician Assistants;

Nurse Practitioners;

Clinical Nurse Specialists;

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists;

Certified Nurse-Midwives;

Clinical Social Workers;

Clinical Psychologists;

Registered Dietitians; and

Nutritional Professionals.
Additionally, MIPPA allows that “other persons” are exempt from meeting the accreditation deadline unless CMS determines that the quality standards are specifically designed to apply to such other persons. At this time, “such other persons” are specifically defined as the following practitioners:

Orthotists;

Prosthetists;

Opticians; and

Audiologists.
Key Points of CR6566
Edits for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)

U
U
Unhappys Campers
Honalulu, US
Send a message
Jun 01, 2010 10:11 am EDT

Best Care never paid me a dime. Now I get Wilmington something something DME writing to me. Must be more scam [censor]., Be warned!

D
D
dupedbybcmm
Palm Coast, US
Send a message
Jul 10, 2010 4:19 pm EDT
Verified customer This complaint was posted by a verified customer. Learn more

Somehow this pyramid scheme continues to operate under con man Frank Cardell. Best Care Medical Marketing promotes knee braces, carpal tunnel gloves, back braces, aqua therapy machines, etc. The problem is : The reps never get paid for the orders. The only person reaping the rewards is the owner Frank Cardell ! Oh yes he strings you along showing how your orders are being "processed", and yes, "pending delivery confirmation" and of course "pending medicare approval". But that's how far it goes...you'll never see any money for your efforts . He always has an excuse : "medicare hasn't paid yet", " it should be soon " etc..It's quite amazing because although Frank sounds & acts as a responsible businessman he is the ultimate short term con man. Instead of appreciating the value of his agents, he loses them as soon as they are on to him. "Penny wise and pound foolish" is the best way to describe Frank. Do yourself a tremendous favor : Stay away & don't be duped by Best Care Medical Marketing.

D
D
dupedbybcmm
Palm Coast, US
Send a message
Jul 10, 2010 4:23 pm EDT
Verified customer This complaint was posted by a verified customer. Learn more

Don't be duped..Don't be used ! All Frank is looking for is for you to work for FREE for a while and just make HIM some money...