CMS issues Stark II Phase III final rules
Compliance Monitor, August 29, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
CMS issued the long-awaited Stark II Phase III final rules Monday and one of the biggest changes involves indirect compensation arrangements.
CMS will consider physicians to "stand in the shoes" of their practice group when determining whether a compensation arrangement is direct or indirect. The change closes a loophole in the definition of "indirect compensation arrangement" by treating compensation arrangements for designated health services between entities and group practices as if the arrangements are with the group's referring physicians. This change will not impact current arrangements.
The changes in the Stark Law will also
- Eliminate the proposed safe harbor in Phase II within the fair market value of physician compensation
- Expand the non-monetary compensation exception
- Add three new regulatory definitions
- Add an alternative 45-minute transportation time test to the intra-family rural referrals exception
- Add a holdover provision in the exception for personal service arrangements
- Expand the geographic area into which a rural hospital may recruit physicians
Click here to read the complete rule.
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
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- 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
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched