The Experts below are selected from a list of 126 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin Merritt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stark Law and Anti-Kickback: What Physicians Should Know
2015Co-Authors: Martin MerrittAbstract:If you have federal health plan patient, you need to pay careful attention to the rules of the Stark Law and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
-
physicians beware schemes to circumvent Stark Law
2014Co-Authors: Martin MerrittAbstract:No matter how cleverly structured, schemes to circumvent Stark Law are risky for physicians, and the consequences of failing to comply can be devastating.
-
suspect joint ventures under Stark Law and the anti kickback statute
2013Co-Authors: Martin MerrittAbstract:Here's some simple guidance, from the OIG and a healthcare attorney, on suspicious sales pitches physicians might receive regarding a joint venture.
-
Stark Law understanding the rule
2013Co-Authors: Martin MerrittAbstract:Here's an explanation of the rationale behind the Stark Law, the government's conflict of interest statute your medical practice needs to be aware of.
-
ancillary medical services Stark Law and ethical issues
2013Co-Authors: Martin MerrittAbstract:Physicians are being presented with chances to invest in ancillary services, but they need to be aware of all the legal issues involved to avoid potential pitfalls.
Adetoro T Olugbemi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
proposed changes to Stark Law anti kickback statute explained
2019Co-Authors: Kristin M Bohl, Adetoro T OlugbemiAbstract:The proposed rules released by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in October 2019 include new exceptions and safe harbors, as well as clarifications to the Physician Self-Referral (Stark) Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the civil monetary penalty prohibition against beneficiary inducements.
-
legal explainer proposed changes to the Stark Law anti kickback statute
2019Co-Authors: Kristin M Bohl, Adetoro T OlugbemiAbstract:These much-anticipated proposed rules are aimed at removing regulatory barriers to coordinated and value-based care.
Melissa Taormina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Stark truth what your physician clients should know about Stark Law and the anti kickback statute
Journal of health care finance, 2013Co-Authors: Melissa TaorminaAbstract:This article summarizes key features of Stark Law and the Anti-Kickback Statute, statutes used to fight health care fraud and abuse within Medicare and Medicaid, and explains how attorneys can help health care providers comply with these Laws.
Kristin M Bohl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
proposed changes to Stark Law anti kickback statute explained
2019Co-Authors: Kristin M Bohl, Adetoro T OlugbemiAbstract:The proposed rules released by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in October 2019 include new exceptions and safe harbors, as well as clarifications to the Physician Self-Referral (Stark) Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the civil monetary penalty prohibition against beneficiary inducements.
-
legal explainer proposed changes to the Stark Law anti kickback statute
2019Co-Authors: Kristin M Bohl, Adetoro T OlugbemiAbstract:These much-anticipated proposed rules are aimed at removing regulatory barriers to coordinated and value-based care.
Bhagwan Satiani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exceptions to the Stark Law practical considerations for surgeons
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2006Co-Authors: Bhagwan SatianiAbstract: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.
