19.02.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />

and “quality maintenance” and, if so, how we should define<br />

those terms in relation to each other, whether an exception<br />

should protect payments for both, and whether they should<br />

be valued differently (based on the supposition that<br />

improving quality may require more effort than maintaining<br />

it); and [44] how we can prevent protecting payments for<br />

programs that are not meeting their quality goals or for<br />

measures that, when achieved, result in a diminution of<br />

patient care quality.<br />

iv. Structure of the Arrangement between the Hospital<br />

Sponsoring the Program and the Physicians Participating in<br />

the Program<br />

(1) Documentation<br />

In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule, we included in the<br />

proposed exception for incentive payment and shared savings<br />

programs a requirement that the sponsoring hospital<br />

maintain certain <strong>document</strong>ation regarding the program that<br />

must be made available to the Secretary upon request. Many<br />

commenters supported this requirement, while others stated<br />

that it presented an undue administrative burden. We are<br />

seeking comments regarding [45] possible ways to reduce the<br />

administrative burden and cost for hospitals that would not<br />

hinder the government’s ability to enforce the physician<br />

self-referral law and ensure compliance with a final<br />

409

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!