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 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

<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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!