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 billing physician or other supplier and the TC does not meet the site-of-service requirements of Alternative 2 (that is, the TC was not conducted in the “office of the billing physician or other supplier” or was not supervised in the “office of the billing physician or other supplier” by a physician who is an owner, employee, or contractor of the billing physician or other supplier). If the TC does not require physician supervision under our rules, the anti-markup provisions are inapplicable. i. Specific Solicitation of Comments (1) Net charge Comment: We stated that we were interested in receiving comments concerning the calculation of the “net charge” when the anti-markup provisions apply (73 FR 38548). In response, many commenters expressed concern that we did not propose to allow practices to which the anti-markup provisions apply to recoup at least their direct practice costs where the practice is limited to billing Medicare its “net charge” for the testing service. One commenter asserted that if a group provides diagnostic tests at a site other than the “office of the billing physician or other supplier,” the calculation of a net charge is difficult and punitive because a group practice cannot consider all of the actual components of costs 500
CMS-1403-FC incurred, thereby compelling the group practice to lose money. Another commenter argued that is “grossly unfair” to not allow physicians to recover any overhead costs. The commenter further contended that, although we may be concerned about physicians who may “pad” their charges with illegitimate amounts, this does not justify penalizing providers who incur appropriate and often costly overhead costs. According to the commenter, it would go against well-established Medicare policy to not allow physicians to include legitimate costs in calculating a net charge. Another commenter stated that many suppliers would incur a loss, not just fail to profit, if we adopt these “confusing and hyper-technical rules” are adopted. For example, the commenter asserted, a billing physician would be prohibited from billing for the costs incurred when a technician performs the TC of a test because the physician group may bill only for the cost of the physician who supervised the test. The commenter also stated that the proposal effectively prohibits the payment for qualified technicians in the performance of the TC of diagnostic tests, or, in the alternative, requires that physicians who choose to provide their patients with such tests do so at a loss. One commenter explained that it is common practice for physician groups to provide pathologists with office space, 501
- 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 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: CMS-1403-FC group could recover onl
- 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
- Page 525 and 526: CMS-1403-FC PQRI and a more detaile
- Page 527 and 528: CMS-1403-FC and our responses to th
- Page 529 and 530: CMS-1403-FC provisions of the Priva
- Page 531 and 532: CMS-1403-FC reducing eligible profe
- Page 533 and 534: CMS-1403-FC administrative or judic
- Page 535 and 536: CMS-1403-FC professionals who did n
- Page 537 and 538: CMS-1403-FC base the incentive paym
- Page 539 and 540: CMS-1403-FC A few commenters noted
- Page 541 and 542: CMS-1403-FC administrative burden t
- Page 543 and 544: CMS-1403-FC requested that more det
- Page 545 and 546: CMS-1403-FC incentive payments for
- Page 547 and 548: CMS-1403-FC December 31, 2009 and J
- Page 549 and 550: CMS-1403-FC the reporting period fo
<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />
incurred, thereby compelling the group practice to lose<br />
money. Another commenter argued that is “grossly unfair”<br />
to not allow physicians to recover any overhead costs. The<br />
commenter further contended that, although we may be<br />
concerned about physicians who may “pad” their charges with<br />
illegitimate amounts, this does not justify penalizing<br />
providers who incur appropriate and often costly overhead<br />
costs. According to the commenter, it would go against<br />
well-established Medicare policy to not allow physicians to<br />
include legitimate costs in calculating a net charge.<br />
Another commenter stated that many suppliers would incur a<br />
loss, not just fail to profit, if we adopt these “confusing<br />
and hyper-technical rules” are adopted. For example, the<br />
commenter asserted, a billing physician would be prohibited<br />
from billing for the costs incurred when a technician<br />
performs the TC of a test because the physician group may<br />
bill only for the cost of the physician who supervised the<br />
test. The commenter also stated that the proposal<br />
effectively prohibits the payment for qualified technicians<br />
in the performance of the TC of diagnostic tests, or, in<br />
the alternative, requires that physicians who choose to<br />
provide their patients with such tests do so at a loss.<br />
One commenter explained that it is common practice for<br />
physician groups to provide pathologists with office space,<br />
501