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 “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
- 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 and 440: CMS-1403-FC 1842(n)(1) of the Act,
- Page 441 and 442: CMS-1403-FC anti-markup provisions
- 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: CMS-1403-FC Response: Because the d
- 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
- Page 491 and 492: CMS-1403-FC supervised in the offic
- Page 493 and 494: CMS-1403-FC reducing access to care
- Page 495 and 496: CMS-1403-FC commenter supported ado
- Page 497 and 498: CMS-1403-FC “outside supplier,”
- Page 499 and 500: CMS-1403-FC group could recover onl
- Page 501 and 502: CMS-1403-FC incurred, thereby compe
- Page 503 and 504: CMS-1403-FC needed to provide the t
- Page 505 and 506: CMS-1403-FC performing supplier for
- Page 507 and 508: CMS-1403-FC providers, the services
- Page 509 and 510: CMS-1403-FC commenter also expresse
- Page 511 and 512: CMS-1403-FC overutilization of in-o
- Page 513 and 514: CMS-1403-FC provisions for single-s
<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