Study suggests physicians avoid Stark regulations
Compliance Monitor, April 25, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
A new study published in Health Affairs concluded that some physicians could be avoiding Stark regulations when they bill for advanced imaging services.
The study found that 33% of providers who billed for MRIs, 22% of those who billed for CT scans, and 17% of those who billed for PET scans could be classified as self-referrals.
Sixty-one percent of doctors who billed for MRIs and 64% of those who billed for CT scans didn't even own imaging equipment, according to the study.
If the referring physicians were prescribing appropriate tests and the charge for the test was no higher than rates at other facilities, physicians would probably avoid legal trouble, but researchers concluded that some arrangements would probably violate either federal or state self-referral laws.
Read more on this story.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched