Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...
Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ... Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...
CMS-1403-FC Comment: One commenter recommended that we hold an open and thorough dialogue with its contractors and the provider community regarding the enrollment process as it currently stands and the problems encountered by all. Response: We believe that this issue is outside the scope of proposed rule and can not be addressed in this final rule. Comment: One commenter stated that they support CMS and the establishment of an electronic enrollment process but they do not believe it will address the provisions in the rule. Response: While we do not expect that Internet-based PECOS will remedy all provider enrollment processing issues, we do believe that Internet-based enrollment process will allow physicians and other providers and suppliers to reduce the time necessary to enroll or make a change in enrollment in the Medicare program. Comment: One commenter recommended that we establish streamlined and user-friendly procedures that will encourage high rates of physician participation in the Medicare program. Response: We appreciate this comment and believe that Internet-based PECOS will allow physicians and NPPs the ability to enroll or make changes in their enrollment 262
CMS-1403-FC records faster and more accurately than the paper-based enrollment process. Comment: One commenter commended CMS for PECOS as it will provide timely ease of used for enrollment as well as updating the enrollment record. Response: We appreciate this comment. Comment: One commenter requested that we consider modifying existing provider enrollment applications to include an attestation statement for which an applicant would attest to those certain requisite program requirements having been met prior to the filing of the application. Response: This recommendation is outside the scope of the proposed rule and can not be addressed in this final rule. Comment: One commenter stated that we should provide notice 14 days in advance of conducting onsite review and that reviews on Mondays should be avoided. Response: This comment is outside the scope of this proposed rule and can not be addressed in this final rule. Comment: One commenter urged that CMS and the NSC coordinate so that only a single onsite review would be required and the least disruptive to an operation. 263
- Page 211 and 212: CMS-1403-FC entities furnishing mob
- Page 213 and 214: CMS-1403-FC state Radioactive Mater
- Page 215 and 216: CMS-1403-FC equipment and provide t
- Page 217 and 218: CMS-1403-FC Response: We understand
- Page 219 and 220: CMS-1403-FC believe that requiring
- Page 221 and 222: CMS-1403-FC these claims will ensur
- Page 223 and 224: CMS-1403-FC and NPP organizations,
- Page 225 and 226: CMS-1403-FC prior to their enrollin
- Page 227 and 228: CMS-1403-FC The date of approval is
- Page 229 and 230: CMS-1403-FC organizations, and indi
- Page 231 and 232: CMS-1403-FC To assist physician and
- Page 233 and 234: CMS-1403-FC Comment: Several commen
- Page 235 and 236: CMS-1403-FC date of filing and circ
- Page 237 and 238: CMS-1403-FC services are complying
- Page 239 and 240: CMS-1403-FC days when a Presidentia
- Page 241 and 242: CMS-1403-FC effective date under ap
- Page 243 and 244: CMS-1403-FC Comment: The suggestion
- Page 245 and 246: CMS-1403-FC Response: We thank the
- Page 247 and 248: CMS-1403-FC provider enrollment giv
- Page 249 and 250: CMS-1403-FC instead, it will force
- Page 251 and 252: CMS-1403-FC Response: As stated abo
- Page 253 and 254: CMS-1403-FC Comment: One commenter
- Page 255 and 256: CMS-1403-FC In an attempt to ensure
- Page 257 and 258: CMS-1403-FC rule, rather than limit
- Page 259 and 260: CMS-1403-FC changes have occurred,
- Page 261: CMS-1403-FC Response: While we moni
- Page 265 and 266: CMS-1403-FC In §424.521(a)(1), we
- Page 267 and 268: CMS-1403-FC practitioners with the
- Page 269 and 270: CMS-1403-FC In June 2002 and Novemb
- Page 271 and 272: CMS-1403-FC full implementation sch
- Page 273 and 274: CMS-1403-FC with billing agents, cl
- Page 275 and 276: CMS-1403-FC 2. Medicare Billing Pri
- Page 277 and 278: CMS-1403-FC The FPLP is a collectio
- Page 279 and 280: CMS-1403-FC continued enrollment to
- Page 281 and 282: CMS-1403-FC Federal Payment Levy Pr
- Page 283 and 284: CMS-1403-FC Consistent with existin
- Page 285 and 286: CMS-1403-FC facilitate the enrollme
- Page 287 and 288: CMS-1403-FC determination. Specific
- Page 289 and 290: CMS-1403-FC individual practitioner
- Page 291 and 292: CMS-1403-FC determines in February
- Page 293 and 294: CMS-1403-FC Management Manual (IOM
- Page 295 and 296: CMS-1403-FC Response: Based on thes
- Page 297 and 298: CMS-1403-FC or continues to meet th
- Page 299 and 300: CMS-1403-FC to identify and discipl
- Page 301 and 302: CMS-1403-FC Response: We disagree w
- Page 303 and 304: CMS-1403-FC save our severe penalti
- Page 305 and 306: CMS-1403-FC Response: We disagree w
- Page 307 and 308: CMS-1403-FC affords the supplier ap
- Page 309 and 310: CMS-1403-FC privileges and assess a
- Page 311 and 312: CMS-1403-FC §424.535(a)(10) that w
<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />
records faster and more accurately than the paper-based<br />
enrollment process.<br />
Comment: One commenter commended <strong>CMS</strong> for PECOS as it<br />
will provide timely ease of used for enrollment as well as<br />
updating the enrollment record.<br />
Response: We appreciate this comment.<br />
Comment: One commenter requested that we consider<br />
modifying existing provider enrollment applications to<br />
include an attestation statement for which an applicant<br />
would attest to those certain requisite program<br />
requirements having <strong>been</strong> met prior to the filing of the<br />
application.<br />
Response: <strong>This</strong> recommendation is outside the scope of<br />
the proposed rule and can not be addressed in this final<br />
rule.<br />
Comment: One commenter stated that we should provide<br />
notice 14 days in advance of conducting onsite review and<br />
that reviews on Mondays should be avoided.<br />
Response: <strong>This</strong> comment is outside the scope of this<br />
proposed rule and can not be addressed in this final rule.<br />
Comment: One commenter urged that <strong>CMS</strong> and the NSC<br />
coordinate so that only a single onsite review would be<br />
required and the least disruptive to an operation.<br />
263