Jane Pine Wood, Esq.
McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber Co., L.P.A.
956 Main Street
Dennis, Massachusetts 02638
(508) 385-5227 (direct dial)
(508) 385-4355 (facsimile)
e-mail: jwood@mhbh.com

Richard S. Cooper, Esq.
McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber Co., L.P.A.
600 Superior Avenue E., 2100 Bank One Center
Cleveland, OH 44114-2653
(216) 348-5438 (direct dial)
(216) 348-5474 (facsimile)
e-mail: rcooper@mhbh.com

I. What are professional component of clinical pathology services?

The performance of professional component of clinical pathology services by patholo-gists involves the use of medical judgment and constitutes the practice of medicine. Although professional component clinical laboratory services are not the same type of face-to-face patient services that many other physicians provide, these are actual medical services, which only pathologists are educated, trained and qualified to per-form. Learn More.

II. Do certification or accreditation requirements address professional component of clinical pathology services?

Federal and state certification standards, including, without limitation, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”), the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (“JCAHO”), and the College of American Pathologists (“CAP”), require that hospital laboratories contract with pathologists to provide professional component services. Learn More.

III. How does the Medicare program reimburse for professional component of clinical pathology services?

The Medicare program provides for reimbursement for professional component of clini-cal pathology services to Medicare beneficiaries through Medicare Part A DRG pay-ments to hospitals, rather than through Medicare Part B payments directly to the pathologists. Learn More.

IV. Can a hospital refuse to pay pathologists for their professional component of clinical pathology services for the hospital’s Medicare patients?

Remuneration between a hospital and pathologists may implicate the Medicare and Medicaid anti-kickback law, particularly if the pathologists are required to pay direct or indirect remuneration to the hospital as a condition of providing services to the hospi-tal’s inpatients and outpatients. Learn More.

V. Does the hospital’s reimbursement for clinical laboratory services from private payers and patients include the pathologist’s professional component of clinical pathol-ogy services?

Reimbursement by private payors and patients for the hospital’s technical component services generally does not cover the professional medical services of pathologists with respect to the tests. Learn More.

VI. Is it ethical to bill for professional component of clinical pathology services?

Billing private payors and patients for professional component of clinical pathology services is clearly recognized as being professionally and ethically appropriate. Learn More.

VII. Is it legal for pathologists to bill for professional component of clinical pathology services for private patients?

The legality of billing non-government payors and patients for professional component services for “private” patients is well established.

VIII. How can billing for professional component of clinical pathology services for pri-vate patients be reconciled with the Medicare program’s reimbursement methodology for such services?

Billing for the professional component of clinical pathology services for “private” patients is consistent with the policy of the Medicare program with respect to reim-bursement for professional component services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Congress has authorized reimbursement for professional component services to Medicare beneficiaries. Learn More.

IX. What was the ruling in the recent Florida Central States case?

On July 12, 2002, the Fifth District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida (the “Appeals Court”) announced its decision in Central States, Southeast & Southwest, etc. vs. Florida Society of Pathologists, etc., et al. Learn More.

X. Is the Florida case binding upon all pathologists?

It is important to note that the Appeals Court’s decision in Central States is only binding in the Fifth District of Florida, and only with respect to the specific circum-stances involved in the case. Learn More.

XI. What should pathologists do now to address the Central States decision?
The Appeals Court in Central States was concerned that the admission materials pro-vided to the patients upon admission to the hospital did not specifically explain the nature of the pathologists’ professional component of clinical pathology services, or the fact that the patients would receive a bill for these services. Learn More.

Download Complete Article