PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16525301

Exceptions to the Stark law: practical considerations for surgeons.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to provide an understanding of the applicable legislative exceptions to prohibitions under the Stark law, which governs common legitimate business relationships in surgical practice. METHODS: Stark I and II prohibits all referrals (and claims) for the provision of designated health services for federal reimbursement if a physician or immediate family member has any financial relationship with the entity. Regardless of intent (unlike the antikickback statute), any financial relationship is illegal unless specifically excepted by statute. These exceptions are relevant to ownership, compensation arrangements, or both. The most important ones relevant to surgeons are as follows: physician service exception (services rendered in an intragroup referral); in-office ancillary services exception (office-based vascular laboratory); the whole hospital exception (ownership interest in a hospital or department); lease exception (conditions that must be met for a lease not to be considered illegal); bona fide employment exception (important to academic medical centers); personal services arrangement exception (vascular laboratory medical directorship); physician incentive plans exception (if volume or value of referrals are an issue); hospital-affiliated group practice exception (physician services billed by a hospital); recruitment arrangement exception (inducements by hospitals to relocate); items/services exception (transcription services purchased from a hospital); fair market value exception (covers services provided to health care entities); indirect compensation arrangements (dealings between a hospital and entity owned by physicians); and academic medical centers exception (new phase II rules broaden the definition of academic medical centers and ease the requirement that practice plans be tax-exempt organizations, among other changes. CONCLUSIONS: Although expert legal advice is required for navigation through the maze of Stark laws, it is incumbent on surgeons in private practice and at academic centers to have basic knowledge of exceptions under this burdensome statute. Antikickback "safe harbors" provide some protection against possible Stark violations. Penalties for violating Stark laws are severe, including fines of up to $15,000 per service and the economic threat of exclusion from participation in federal health care programs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bhagwan Satiani. 2006. Exceptions to the Stark law: practical considerations for surgeons.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000200611.62482.27

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Challenges in drug development for muscle disease: a stakeholders' meeting.

Current treatment benefits for patients with muscle disease are limited, but progress in legislative and scientific initiatives have set the stage for the development of new therapies. The MD-CARE Act (Public Law 107-84), which allocates federal resources to muscular dystrophy, was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States in 2001. This has shifted the emphasis toward translational research. To facilitate a push toward therapy for muscle disorders, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) sponsored a meeting with representatives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and academia. Each contributed in different ways. The FDA helped define the necessary data to support investigational new drug (IND) applications including the design of proof-of-principle studies, outcome measures for clinical trials, and the pathway for developing surrogate measures for fast-tracking promising new drugs. The NIH, other government agencies, and the MDA described potential funding sources for translational research. Industry delineated a complementary role with academia, and academic investigators elucidated the current strengths and weaknesses of available clinical endpoints. The meeting provided a format for communication for diverse disciplines that usually have no common meeting ground, helping to lay the foundation for bringing products to market in a timely fashion.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Malaysia like many other countries worldwide uses spontaneous reporting systems as a mean of collecting data on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, compared to other countries, which use the system, the reporting rate in Malaysia is very low. Why some physicians do not report ADRs is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, which would predict physicians' failure to send ADR reports. DESIGN AND SETTING: Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire involving physicians working at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. RESULTS: About a third of the physicians in the Centre participated. Sixty-five of the 415 approached refused to participate. A high proportion of the respondents (81.4%) indicated that they had suspected an ADR but did not report it, while about 40% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the national reporting system in Malaysia. Logistic regression modelling identified the variable 'ADR considered to be too trivial or too well known to report' as the strongest predictor of not reporting, followed by physicians' category and uncertainty that the reaction had been definitely caused by a drug. CONCLUSION: Important predictor variables, which limit physicians from reporting ADR in Malaysia, were related to uncertainty of types of reaction to report, lack of awareness about the existence, function and purpose of national ADR reporting. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to improve the reporting rate.

Academic Medical Centers↗