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 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
- 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 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: CMS-1403-FC 1842(n)(1) of the Act,
- 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
- Page 483 and 484: CMS-1403-FC between the performing
- Page 485 and 486: CMS-1403-FC supplier” to encompas
- Page 487 and 488: CMS-1403-FC to continue to provide
- Page 489 and 490: CMS-1403-FC requirements of the Alt
<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