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 of the Act allows the Secretary to impose other standards by regulation.) Likewise, the text of the in-office ancillary services exception in section 1877(b) of the Act, which allows referrals within a group practice, can be read as being restricted to services referred and performed by members of the group (and services performed by employees who are supervised by a member of the group). Therefore, even if the Congress did intend the definition of “group practice” in section 1877(h) of the Act for purposes of the physician self-referral law to correlate with “shares a practice” in section 1842(n)(1) of the Act for purposes of the statutory anti-markup provision, and also intended that individuals whose referrals are protected under the statutory in-office ancillary services exception to the physician self-referral law necessarily “share[] a practice” for purposes of the statutory anti-markup provision (and we agree with neither proposition), we would not be required to take an expansive view of what it means to “share[] a practice” for purposes of the statutory anti- markup provision. We also note that section 1842(n)(1) of the Act does not prohibit us from using other authority to impose an anti-markup payment limitation on TCs and PCs. As a policy matter, we do not agree with the commenters that suggested that we should except from the 440

CMS-1403-FC anti-markup provisions any arrangement that complies with the physician self-referral rules. The anti-markup provisions, when applied, limit only how much a physician or other supplier may bill Medicare, whereas the physician self-referral rules, when implicated and not satisfied, prevent a physician or other supplier (or provider) from billing Medicare (for any amount). Accordingly, we approach physician self-referral rulemaking with added caution, lest we prohibit a broad class of arrangements that in some cases and under certain circumstances do not pose a risk of abuse. Thus, using our general rulemaking authority and authority in section 1877(b)(2) of the Act, we have provided some flexibility, with respect to which referrals are protected under the in-office ancillary services exception and the definition of a “centralized building,” for purposes of our physician self-referral rules. However, the fact that the physician self-referral law, as interpreted or implemented by us, does not prohibit a certain type of arrangement does not mean that we should not take measures, through an anti-markup approach, to address the potential for overutilization or other abuse that exists with certain arrangements that seek to take advantage of our definitions of “group practice” and “centralized building” that are used for purposes of the 441

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

anti-markup provisions any arrangement that complies with<br />

the physician self-referral rules. The anti-markup<br />

provisions, when applied, limit only how much a physician<br />

or other supplier may bill Medicare, whereas the physician<br />

self-referral rules, when implicated and not satisfied,<br />

prevent a physician or other supplier (or provider) from<br />

billing Medicare (for any amount). Accordingly, we<br />

approach physician self-referral rulemaking with added<br />

caution, lest we prohibit a broad class of arrangements<br />

that in some cases and under certain circumstances do not<br />

pose a risk of abuse. Thus, using our general rulemaking<br />

authority and authority in section 1877(b)(2) of the Act,<br />

we have provided some flexibility, with respect to which<br />

referrals are protected under the in-office ancillary<br />

services exception and the definition of a “centralized<br />

building,” for purposes of our physician self-referral<br />

rules. However, the fact that the physician self-referral<br />

law, as interpreted or implemented by us, does not prohibit<br />

a certain type of arrangement does not mean that we should<br />

not take measures, through an anti-markup approach, to<br />

address the potential for overutilization or other abuse<br />

that exists with certain arrangements that seek to take<br />

advantage of our definitions of “group practice” and<br />

“centralized building” that are used for purposes of the<br />

441

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!