Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10153736

HCFA issues final Stark I rules.

Abstract

While final rules clarify many "gray" areas of statutory interpretation under Stark I, some questions of interpretation under this law will remain largely unanswered until further Stark II regulations are issued. Thus, the health care industry is without definitive guidance on many issues. It must continue to make "best guesses" in interpreting the intent of the statute. However, bad guesses could mean imposition of severe penalties, including recoupment and substantial civil money penalties for making prohibited referrals. Moreover, the regulations confirm the Department of Health and Human Services' position that no advisory opinions are available. Because the final regulations were not issued until after the effective dates of the Stark Law, yet another round of restructuring may be required to effect regulatory compliance and avoid imposition of penalties. "Health Law" is a regular feature of Physician Executive from the Washington, D.C., law firm Epstein Becker & Green. Mark Lutes of that law firm serves as editor of the column.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Matyas. 1995. HCFA issues final Stark I rules.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10153736/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Managing risk: risk perception, trust and control in a Primary Care Partnership.

In this article, managers' perceptions of risk on entering a newly formed primary health care partnership are explored, as are the mechanisms of trust and control used to manage them. The article reports a qualitative component of a 2-year National Health and Medical Research Council funded study of trust within the structures of a Primary Care Partnership (PCP) in Victoria, Australia. Multiple methods of data collection were employed. We found that managers identified risks at system, partnership and agency levels, and that as trust was built, concern about risks diminished. Trust effectively facilitated joint action, but it was betrayed on occasions, in which case the informal power of group process was used to contain the problems. The implications of this study for policy makers are in terms of understanding how perceptions of risk are constructed, the ways managers use social control to create a safer context in which to locate the trust-based relationships that facilitate joint action, and the importance of institutional arrangements. Without trust, joint action is hard to achieve, and without control, it is difficult to prevent breaches of trust from inhibiting joint action.

Group Practice↗