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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

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

reducing access to care for this already underserved<br />

population.<br />

Response: We do not expect the anti-markup payment<br />

limitation would apply in the situation described by the<br />

commenter, because, under Alternative 1 as finalized in<br />

this final rule with comment period, the performing<br />

cardiologist likely would share a practice with the<br />

cardiology group billing for the PC (or would be billing<br />

for the PC himself or herself). If the cardiologist<br />

reassigns payment to the hospital which then bills for the<br />

PC, the anti-markup payment limitation would not apply<br />

because the hospital did not order the PC.<br />

h. Definition of Outside Supplier<br />

Comment: We proposed that the TC of a diagnostic test<br />

is not purc<strong>has</strong>ed from an outside supplier if the TC is both<br />

conducted and supervised in the office of the billing<br />

physician or other supplier and the supervising physician<br />

is an employee or independent contractor of the billing<br />

physician or other supplier. (For ease of reference, we<br />

refer to this below as the “primary proposed definition”.)<br />

In the alternative, we proposed that: (1) if the TC is<br />

conducted by a technician who is not an employee of the<br />

billing supplier, the TC is considered to be purc<strong>has</strong>ed from<br />

an outside supplier, regardless of where the technician<br />

493

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!