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 ...

healthcare.philips.com
from healthcare.philips.com More from this publisher
19.02.2013 Views

CMS-1403-FC commenters requested that we withdraw both the CY 2008 PFS rulemaking and the current proposals. Other commenters offered varied support or criticism for one or both of the proposed alternatives. Some commenters expressed concerns about eliminating legitimate, nonabusive arrangements that serve Medicare beneficiaries. Quality concerns were raised by commenters both in favor of and opposed to the proposals. Commenters in support of Alternative 1 believe that it would be more straightforward and easier to implement than Alternative 2. Some commenters responded to Alternative 1 by requesting that a physician be able to “share a practice” with up to 3 physicians or physician organizations in order to accommodate arrangements that currently exist among many part-time physicians and the groups for whom they work. These commenters also stated that they would no longer be able to support an in-office laboratory employing part-time physicians if the Alternative 1 approach was implemented as proposed. Some commenters offered support for Alternative 2 and its “site-of-service” approach, which they argued would curb abusive overutilization while granting physicians more flexibility in how to structure arrangements to provide care as they see fit. Commenters opposed to Alternative 2 420

CMS-1403-FC were concerned that this approach focuses only on where the test is performed and not by whom. Some commenters did not support our proposal to clarify “office of the billing physician or other supplier” as including diagnostic testing performed in the “same building,” but not in a “centralized building,” preferring that “office of the billing physician or other supplier” also encompass diagnostic testing performed in a “centralized building.” Most commenters agreed with our proposed clarification that the TC of a diagnostic test is not “purchased from an outside supplier” if the TC is both conducted by the technician and supervised by the physician within the office of the billing physician or other supplier. We received a few comments, some in favor of and some opposed to, the proposed exception for diagnostic tests ordered by physicians in a physician organization with no owners who have the right to receive profit distributions. Most of the comments that we received in response to the “net charge” solicitation expressed dissatisfaction regarding the disallowance of overhead costs in the calculation of the “net charge.” Other commenters, however, agreed that these costs should not be included and that only those charges that are incurred from paying the physician providing the PC or supervising the TC should be included. 421

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

commenters requested that we withdraw both the CY 2008 PFS<br />

rulemaking and the current proposals. Other commenters<br />

offered varied support or criticism for one or both of the<br />

proposed alternatives. Some commenters expressed concerns<br />

about eliminating legitimate, nonabusive arrangements that<br />

serve Medicare beneficiaries. Quality concerns were raised<br />

by commenters both in favor of and opposed to the<br />

proposals.<br />

Commenters in support of Alternative 1 believe that it<br />

would be more straightforward and easier to implement than<br />

Alternative 2. Some commenters responded to Alternative 1<br />

by requesting that a physician be able to “share a<br />

practice” with up to 3 physicians or physician<br />

organizations in order to accommodate arrangements that<br />

currently exist among many part-time physicians and the<br />

groups for whom they work. These commenters also stated<br />

that they would no longer be able to support an in-office<br />

laboratory employing part-time physicians if the<br />

Alternative 1 approach was implemented as proposed.<br />

Some commenters offered support for Alternative 2 and<br />

its “site-of-service” approach, which they argued would<br />

curb abusive overutilization while granting physicians more<br />

flexibility in how to structure arrangements to provide<br />

care as they see fit. Commenters opposed to Alternative 2<br />

420

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!