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 One commenter questioned whether there is evidence suggesting tax-paying medical groups behave, or are likely to behave, in a manner substantially different than tax exempt medical groups. The commenter also stated that it was unaware of any instances where the Medicare program differentiates policies based solely on institutional mode of ownership, incorporation, or tax status, and questioned if we have statutory authority to create such an exception based on type of ownership. Response: We have determined that it is not necessary to finalize an exception for diagnostic tests ordered by a physician in a physician organization that does not have any owners who have the right to receive profit distributions. By finalizing both proposed alternative approaches to avoiding application of the anti-markup payment limitation we believe that our concern that the Alternative 2 approach could hinder arrangements involving nonprofit multi-specialty groups that have campus-based treatment facilities (and, thus, do not perform diagnostic testing in the same building where patients are seen) largely becomes moot, as most such arrangements should be able to be structured (or are already structured) to meet the requirements of either the Alternative 1 or Alternative 474
CMS-1403-FC 2 approach finalized here. Similarly, there is no need to create an exception for titular owners. f. Definition of the “Office of the Billing Physician or Other Supplier” Comment: One commenter, generally supportive of our proposed clarification of the definition of “office of the billing physician or other supplier”, questioned its application in Example 2 from the proposed rule (73 FR 38547) which would allow two separate physician organizations to share space used for diagnostic testing that is located in the same building in which the physician organizations have their respective offices. The commenter asserted that allowing two or more providers to share a laboratory undermines the anti-markup payment limitation, essentially enabling “pod labs” to regain their ability to facilitate markups by the referring physician or physician organization. The same commenter also requested clarification regarding Example 3 in the proposed rule (73 FR 38547), in which a “group practice treats patients in Buildings A, B, and C. In each of its offices in Buildings A and B, the group practice provides substantially the full range of patient care services that it provides generally, but that is not true for space located in Building C. The group practice provides diagnostic testing services in 475
- 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 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: CMS-1403-FC have the right to recei
- 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
- Page 515 and 516: CMS-1403-FC we did not propose such
- Page 517 and 518: CMS-1403-FC and PCs supervised or p
- Page 519 and 520: CMS-1403-FC provisions will not app
- Page 521 and 522: CMS-1403-FC (Pub. L. 110-173) (MMSE
- Page 523 and 524: CMS-1403-FC reporting data on quali
<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />
2 approach finalized here. Similarly, there is no need to<br />
create an exception for titular owners.<br />
f. Definition of the “Office of the Billing Physician or<br />
Other Supplier”<br />
Comment: One commenter, generally supportive of our<br />
proposed clarification of the definition of “office of the<br />
billing physician or other supplier”, questioned its<br />
application in Example 2 from the proposed rule (73 FR<br />
38547) which would allow two separate physician<br />
organizations to share space used for diagnostic testing<br />
that is located in the same building in which the physician<br />
organizations have their respective offices. The commenter<br />
asserted that allowing two or more providers to share a<br />
laboratory undermines the anti-markup payment limitation,<br />
essentially enabling “pod labs” to regain their ability to<br />
facilitate markups by the referring physician or physician<br />
organization. The same commenter also requested<br />
clarification regarding Example 3 in the proposed rule (73<br />
FR 38547), in which a “group practice treats patients in<br />
Buildings A, B, and C. In each of its offices in Buildings<br />
A and B, the group practice provides substantially the full<br />
range of patient care services that it provides generally,<br />
but that is not true for space located in Building C. The<br />
group practice provides diagnostic testing services in<br />
475