New Bill In Congress To Eliminate In House Labs

[2021Doctor]

Noting the rapid growth of services covered by the in-office ancillary services (IOAS) exception and evidence that these services are sometimes furnished inappropriately by referring physicians, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) stated that physician self-referral of ancillary services creates incentives to increase volume under Medicare’s current fee-for-service payment systems and the rapid volume growth contributes to Medicare’s rising financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget includes the change to remove the four services: advanced diagnostic imaging, anatomic pathology, radiation oncology, and physical therapy from the IOAS exception to the Stark Law and cited the change as generating a savings score of $4,980,000,000 over 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget listed the change as generating a savings of $3,300,000,000 over 10 years.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th...+Integrity+in+Medicare+Act\""]}&resultIndex=1

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[octopusprime]

Noting the rapid growth of services covered by the in-office ancillary services (IOAS) exception and evidence that these services are sometimes furnished inappropriately by referring physicians, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) stated that physician self-referral of ancillary services creates incentives to increase volume under Medicare’s current fee-for-service payment systems and the rapid volume growth contributes to Medicare’s rising financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget includes the change to remove the four services: advanced diagnostic imaging, anatomic pathology, radiation oncology, and physical therapy from the IOAS exception to the Stark Law and cited the change as generating a savings score of $4,980,000,000 over 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget listed the change as generating a savings of $3,300,000,000 over 10 years.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5088/text?q={"search":["\"Promoting+Integrity+in+Medicare+Act\""]}&resultIndex=1

so what are the odds of this thing actually passing?

 

[icpshootyz]

so what are the odds of this thing actually passing?

Slim and fat?

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

5000 to 1. Same as Leicester City winning the premier league.

Might be a job killer anyways if it were to pass.

 

[Anfield rd]

5000 to 1. Same as Leicester City winning the premier league.

Might be a job killer anyways if it were to pass.

It would restrict in-office labs. That's a good thing, isn't it? Yes it would remove the incentive for overbiopsying, but in the end it would take away some leverage that clinicians have over pathologists.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

I like that username Anfield rd.

Like LADoc said in the other thread about this legislation, there will be loopholes. Get to pay leases and be responsible for a lab in a broom closet. The existing labs will be likely be grandfathered in also. Does it really make a difference who has leverage over us?

 

[AZpath]

It has zero to no chance of passing. The house GOP physicians caucus is opposed among others.
If you were able swing the opinion of this group of Ex Cardiologists, Orthos, Obs-Gyns and family docs you might have a chance.
Most of these guys were making book with imaging before being elected. Btw, a grandfather rule is better than nothing.

Yes it does matter who has the business.
It would be better to have less pathologists then most of these labs would not exist.

 

[dhpath]

It has zero to no chance of passing. The house GOP physicians caucus is opposed among others.
If you were able swing the opinion of this group of Ex Cardiologists, Orthos, Obs-Gyns and family docs you might have a chance.
Most of these guys were making book with imaging before being elected. Btw, a grandfather rule is better than nothing.

Yes it does matter who has the business.
It would be better to have less pathologists then most of these labs would not exist.

 

[dhpath]

Although very slim chance that this bill will pass, we should still at least morally (and any other way we can) support this bill. This is good for the patient care and good for reducing outrageously excessive greed among few physicians.

 

[AZpath]

I support it. Three have been a lot posts saying the POL for pathology is going to go away.
Right now there is no indication of that unfortunately. I am not excited that they reintroduced the bill without a republican co-sponsor

 

[yaah]

Any bill like this that comes it is almost certain to be influenced or actually written by whoever would benefit or whoever would get the loopholes. So the question is does this bill come from insurance companies? Or does it come from QUest/Labcorp? Or does it come from monolithic hospital systems like Kaiser who want to insource their currently outsourced material?