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 the billing group and meet the “site-of-service” requirements. Two other commenters recommended that we finalize both approaches and allow arrangements to avoid application of the anti-markup provisions if they comply with either approach. Response: We have adopted an “either or” approach to the two proposed alternative approaches. Diagnostic testing services furnished by physicians who meet the requirements of Alternative 1 (the “substantially all” services approach) will not be subject to an anti-markup payment limitation. However, arrangements that do not meet the requirements of the Alternative 1 approach nevertheless will avoid application of the anti-markup provisions if they comply with Alternative 2 (the “site-of-service” approach), as clarified in this final rule. We believe that compliance with either one of the two approaches finalized in this rule will implement statutory intent and address our concerns regarding overutilization and abusive billing by establishing a sufficient nexus with the billing entity to justify not applying an anti-markup payment limitation. Comment: One commenter noted that the application of some of the proposed changes, both with respect to the anti-markup provisions in §414.50 and with respect to the 432
CMS-1403-FC IDTF standards in §410.33, may restrict the diagnostic testing services that physicians perform for Medicare beneficiaries and may result in more physicians electing to not accept new Medicare patients. A commenter stated that the proposed revisions to the anti-markup provisions threaten cooperative ventures and arrangements and, consequently, beneficiary access to quality Medicare services, including ultrasound and other diagnostic testing services. Other commenters asserted that both proposed approaches are misguided and do not acknowledge the way that physicians provide care under practical circumstances. A commenter contended that both proposals would hamper the ability of large groups to provide diagnostic services. Essentially, physician groups may have to bill differently for some physicians, resulting in an administrative burden for physician groups, and possibly curtailing the locations that a Medicare beneficiary can receive diagnostic tests and thus affecting patient care. Several commenters argued that the adoption of this rule will have the effect of eliminating many legitimate, nonabusive arrangements that serve to expand access to care to Medicare beneficiaries, while resulting in little or no countervailing benefit to the Medicare program 433
- 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 and 420: CMS-1403-FC building in which the b
- Page 421 and 422: CMS-1403-FC were concerned that thi
- 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: CMS-1403-FC would be simpler to not
- 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
- Page 471 and 472: CMS-1403-FC service” approach bec
- Page 473 and 474: CMS-1403-FC have the right to recei
- Page 475 and 476: CMS-1403-FC 2 approach finalized he
- Page 477 and 478: CMS-1403-FC the ordering physician
- Page 479 and 480: CMS-1403-FC ensure an adequate nexu
- Page 481 and 482: CMS-1403-FC entity” should be def
<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />
the billing group and meet the “site-of-service”<br />
requirements. Two other commenters recommended that we<br />
finalize both approaches and allow arrangements to avoid<br />
application of the anti-markup provisions if they comply<br />
with either approach.<br />
Response: We have adopted an “either or” approach to<br />
the two proposed alternative approaches. Diagnostic<br />
testing services furnished by physicians who meet the<br />
requirements of Alternative 1 (the “substantially all”<br />
services approach) will not be subject to an anti-markup<br />
payment limitation. However, arrangements that do not meet<br />
the requirements of the Alternative 1 approach nevertheless<br />
will avoid application of the anti-markup provisions if<br />
they comply with Alternative 2 (the “site-of-service”<br />
approach), as clarified in this final rule. We believe<br />
that compliance with either one of the two approaches<br />
finalized in this rule will implement statutory intent and<br />
address our concerns regarding overutilization and abusive<br />
billing by establishing a sufficient nexus with the billing<br />
entity to justify not applying an anti-markup payment<br />
limitation.<br />
Comment: One commenter noted that the application of<br />
some of the proposed changes, both with respect to the<br />
anti-markup provisions in §414.50 and with respect to the<br />
432