CMS Proposes Changes to DMEPOS Supplier Standards
Device Regulation Alert: Safety, Compliance and Reimbursement News, February 18, 2008
Interested parties have until March 25 to comment on new and revised enrollment standards Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers must meet to establish and maintain billing privileges for Medicare.
DMEPOS suppliers must first satisfy enrollment standards to be eligible to bill Medicare for providing items and services to Medicare beneficiaries. The proposed changes are intended to help ensure reputable and quality suppliers provide durable medical equipment, prosthetics, and orthotics to Medicare beneficiaries.
CMS announced the proposal in a January 25 Federal Register notice. New standards include:
- Requiring DMEPOS suppliers to maintain documentation about the DME order for seven years after a Medicare claim is paid
- Prohibiting DMEPOS suppliers from sharing a location with another supplier
- Requiring DMEPOS suppliers to be open at least 30 hours per week except those providing custom-fit orthotics or prosthetics
- Disqualifying suppliers that have IRS or state tax delinquency
The proposed revisions to existing standards include:
- Clarifying that suppliers must meet state licensure requirements and can't instead contract with other licensed individuals or entities to provide the services.
- Enhancing the definition of "appropriate site" in the requirement that suppliers have a physical facility at an appropriate site. CMS is asking for comments about whether a minimum square footage should be imposed.
- Prohibiting suppliers from meeting the "business phone" requirement by using cell phones, beepers, and call forwarding to cell phones or beepers during hours of operation.
- Clarifying liability insurance requirements.
Comments
0 comments on “CMS Proposes Changes to DMEPOS Supplier Standards ”
Related Products
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- 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
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
