2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology

interest) would necessarily have a significant economic
356
effect. However, we assume, that, at least from an economic
standpoint, most physicians invest in entities because they
are income producing. If an investment is successful, a
physician may have little difficulty finding new investors
willing to take over the physician's investment. The
physician, in turn, can then invest the monies received in
some other investment. We believe the cost of divestiture
will vary from situation to situation.
We also do not believe that beneficiary access to
medically necessary nuclear medicine services would be
threatened simply because most physician ownership of
entities that furnish nuclear medicine services would be
prohibited. As indicated above, we see no reason why
medically necessary nuclear medicine services could not be
furnished by entities owned by those not in a position to
refer such services.
We expect that this proposed rule may result in savings
to both the Medicare and Medicaid programs by minimizing
anti-competitive business arrangements as well as financial
incentives that encourage over-utilization of costly nuclear
medicine services. (See David Armstrong, “MRI and CT
Centers Offer Doctors Way to Profit on Scans,” Wall Street
Journal, May 2, 2005, et al.) We cannot gauge with any