19.02.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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

A commenter stated that, if a physician is a full-time<br />

or part-time employee of a physician group, that employment<br />

relationship in and of itself should establish a sufficient<br />

nexus with that group to justify not applying the anti-<br />

markup payment limitation to his or her professional<br />

services for the physician group. <strong>This</strong> commenter also<br />

noted that, under the proposed IDTF revisions in the CY<br />

2009 PFS proposed rule (73 FR 38533 through 38535), a<br />

physician may serve as an IDTF medical director for no more<br />

than three IDTFs, and suggested that a similar standard<br />

could be used for the application of the anti-markup<br />

provisions by not allowing physicians to contract to<br />

provide services for more than three physician<br />

organizations.<br />

One commenter stated its belief that compliance with<br />

the proposed requirements of the Alternative 1 approach may<br />

be possible by some medical practices, such as those with<br />

the capital and testing volumes sufficient to warrant<br />

engaging or contracting for exclusive physician services<br />

needed to perform or supervise diagnostic testing.<br />

However, the commenter also asserted that the proposal may<br />

be burdensome to many physician offices. Another commenter<br />

asserted that some practices do not have sufficient patient<br />

volume to support a full-time pathologist or radiologist.<br />

444

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!