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 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
- Page 369 and 370: CMS-1403-FC Therefore, we proposed
- Page 371 and 372: CMS-1403-FC commenter stated that o
- Page 373 and 374: CMS-1403-FC psychological services
- Page 375 and 376: CMS-1403-FC 3. CORF Conditions of P
- Page 377 and 378: CMS-1403-FC Therefore, we proposed
- Page 379 and 380: CMS-1403-FC Therefore, we proposed
- Page 381 and 382: CMS-1403-FC The following is a summ
- Page 383 and 384: CMS-1403-FC We are not making any c
- Page 385 and 386: CMS-1403-FC N. Physician Self-Refer
- Page 387 and 388: CMS-1403-FC arrangements, and the l
- Page 389 and 390: CMS-1403-FC below are related to ea
- Page 391 and 392: CMS-1403-FC clinical practice. With
- Page 393 and 394: CMS-1403-FC In the CY 2009 PFS prop
- Page 395 and 396: CMS-1403-FC would be outside the sc
- Page 397 and 398: CMS-1403-FC reflect objective quali
- Page 399 and 400: CMS-1403-FC quality resulting from
- Page 401 and 402: CMS-1403-FC payments should be reas
- Page 403 and 404: CMS-1403-FC changes in referral pat
- Page 405 and 406: CMS-1403-FC the alternative, we pro
- Page 407 and 408: CMS-1403-FC finalize this condition
- Page 409 and 410: CMS-1403-FC and “quality maintena
- Page 411 and 412: CMS-1403-FC date. We seek comments
- Page 413 and 414: CMS-1403-FC existing exceptions to
- Page 415 and 416: CMS-1403-FC our general rulemaking
- Page 417 and 418: CMS-1403-FC these approaches. We pr
- Page 419: CMS-1403-FC building in which the b
- Page 423 and 424: CMS-1403-FC supplier will be subjec
- Page 425 and 426: CMS-1403-FC numerical test for the
- Page 427 and 428: CMS-1403-FC space in which the orde
- Page 429 and 430: CMS-1403-FC disadvantage nonproblem
- Page 431 and 432: CMS-1403-FC would be simpler to not
- Page 433 and 434: CMS-1403-FC IDTF standards in §410
- Page 435 and 436: CMS-1403-FC that rule, the Governme
- Page 437 and 438: CMS-1403-FC with comment period, th
- Page 439 and 440: CMS-1403-FC 1842(n)(1) of the Act,
- Page 441 and 442: CMS-1403-FC anti-markup provisions
- Page 443 and 444: CMS-1403-FC her group practice woul
- Page 445 and 446: CMS-1403-FC A commenter representin
- Page 447 and 448: CMS-1403-FC tenens arrangements cou
- Page 449 and 450: CMS-1403-FC other supplier. We are
- Page 451 and 452: CMS-1403-FC on pathology reports or
- Page 453 and 454: CMS-1403-FC patients. According to
- Page 455 and 456: CMS-1403-FC from sharing a practice
- Page 457 and 458: CMS-1403-FC Group A orders the TC a
- Page 459 and 460: CMS-1403-FC physicians the flexibil
- Page 461 and 462: CMS-1403-FC Response: We recognize
- Page 463 and 464: CMS-1403-FC Response: Because the d
- Page 465 and 466: CMS-1403-FC limited by the proposed
- Page 467 and 468: CMS-1403-FC Response: With respect
- Page 469 and 470: CMS-1403-FC to focus on the medical
<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