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 “either/or” approach to the two proposed alternatives. That is, a billing physician or other supplier can avoid application of the anti-markup provisions by meeting either the “substantially all” professional services approach of Alternative 1 or, on a case-by-case basis, the “site-of- service” approach of Alternative 2, which are set forth in revised §414.50(a)(2)(ii) and (iii). We believe that compliance with either one of the two approaches finalized in this rule will further our goal of reducing the potential for overutilization and other program or patient abuse while providing sufficient flexibility for the industry. Comment: One commenter contended that a “one building” “site-of-service” standard is not a realistic means of ensuring proper billing arrangements, as large single specialty practices often span beyond one building. Another commenter remarked that the site-of-service alternative should not be finalized because it would be problematic for groups where specimens are collected at multiple sites but pathology diagnostic testing services are done at a separate location owned or leased by the group (the “hub-and-spoke” arrangement). Some cardiologists also expressed concern that interpretations of EKGs and other diagnostic testing services may be 464

CMS-1403-FC limited by the proposed site-of-service approach. One commenter provided the example of a group that has three offices but only one with a CT scanner. The commenter noted that under the site-of-service approach, the anti- markup provision would apply to tests ordered and supervised by physicians employed by the group unless the physicians worked in the same office where the CT scanner was located. Response: We believe that allowing billing physicians and other suppliers to comply with either the “substantially all” professional services approach of Alternative 1 or the “site-of-service” approach of Alternative 2 will address our concerns while providing sufficient flexibility for the industry. In the situations described by the commenters, if the performing physician furnished substantially all of his or her professional services through the billing group, the anti-markup payment limitation would not apply. Comment: A commenter stated that the Alternative 2 site-of-service approach is useful in deterring program abuse at locations other than the office of the billing physician, and may benefit from being merged with Alternative 1. However, the commenter asserted that we must address the issue of the level of supervision that is 465

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

limited by the proposed site-of-service approach. One<br />

commenter provided the example of a group that <strong>has</strong> three<br />

offices but only one with a CT scanner. The commenter<br />

noted that under the site-of-service approach, the anti-<br />

markup provision would apply to tests ordered and<br />

supervised by physicians employed by the group unless the<br />

physicians worked in the same office where the CT scanner<br />

was located.<br />

Response: We believe that allowing billing physicians<br />

and other suppliers to comply with either the<br />

“substantially all” professional services approach of<br />

Alternative 1 or the “site-of-service” approach of<br />

Alternative 2 will address our concerns while providing<br />

sufficient flexibility for the industry. In the situations<br />

described by the commenters, if the performing physician<br />

furnished substantially all of his or her professional<br />

services through the billing group, the anti-markup payment<br />

limitation would not apply.<br />

Comment: A commenter stated that the Alternative 2<br />

site-of-service approach is useful in deterring program<br />

abuse at locations other than the office of the billing<br />

physician, and may benefit from being merged with<br />

Alternative 1. However, the commenter asserted that we<br />

must address the issue of the level of supervision that is<br />

465

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!