TOP: Rulemaking in Federal Register 72 FR 66222 (circa 66306-21) November 2007.
BOTTOM: Journalistic summaries, most 2004-5.
###
Below is the same substance recast as a continuous essay, with no bullets and a more narrative, analytic flow.
The 2007–2008 CMS rulemaking embedded in the CY 2008 Physician Fee Schedule final rule occupies a peculiar and revealing place in Medicare policy history. On its face, it is a technical exercise in billing rules—anti-markup provisions, reassignment mechanics, and definitional clean-ups. In reality, it represents one of CMS’s clearest attempts to reassert control over the economic logic of diagnostic testing without banning practices outright or rewriting the Stark statute.
For readers fascinated by how CMS actually governs, this episode repays close attention.
By the mid-2000s, CMS had come to believe that it was confronting not a handful of bad actors, but a structural misalignment that had emerged organically from well-intentioned statutory and regulatory changes. Stark law prohibited physician self-referral, yet preserved the in-office ancillary services exception to avoid crippling integrated practice.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 liberalized reassignment rules, allowing billing entities to aggregate and bill for services furnished by others under contract. Separately, Medicare had long permitted billing for purchased diagnostic tests, constrained by anti-markup limits designed to prevent pure arbitrage. Each of these rules made sense on its own. Together, however, they created a permissive environment in which physician groups could order, control, and profit from diagnostic services that were increasingly detached from the clinical office itself.
CMS’s concern was not that these arrangements were facially illegal. In fact, many of the “pod lab” models that drew attention during this period were carefully structured to satisfy Stark’s technical requirements, including the centralized building definition. The problem, as CMS framed it, was that these arrangements undermined the original policy balance. They allowed ordering physicians to capture profits from diagnostic volume in ways that resembled the very self-referral risks Stark was intended to mitigate, while exploiting reassignment and purchased test rules that were never designed for this degree of vertical integration.
At the heart of the rulemaking is CMS’s reframing of a deceptively simple question: who actually furnishes a diagnostic service for Medicare purposes? Historically, Medicare had been willing to deem a service “furnished” by a billing physician or group even when the work was done by others, provided certain safeguards were met. By 2007, CMS concluded that this legal fiction had been stretched too far. The agency began to focus less on formal labels—employee versus contractor, purchase versus reassignment—and more on functional realities: who ordered the test, where the work was performed, and whether the billing entity stood to profit from volume it controlled.
This shift is most visible in CMS’s treatment of “office” versus “centralized building.” For Stark purposes, a centralized building could qualify as an in-office ancillary location even if no patient care occurred there. CMS accepted that premise under Stark but refused to import it wholesale into payment policy. In the anti-markup context, CMS deliberately narrowed the concept of an “office” to mean a place where the physician or group regularly furnishes patient care. Space leased exclusively for laboratory operations—even if compliant with Stark—did not qualify. This distinction effectively severed the link between Stark compliance and payment privilege, and it did so without amending Stark itself.
The extension of anti-markup limits to the professional component of diagnostic tests was the most controversial aspect of the rule. Commenters argued that Congress had explicitly addressed only the technical component in section 1842(n) of the Social Security Act, and that physician services were governed by section 1848’s fee schedule rules. CMS’s response was telling. Rather than claiming explicit congressional instruction, CMS emphasized discretion. Reassignment and purchased test billing were framed as options that CMS could condition in the interest of program integrity. Physicians remained free to bill directly for services they personally performed. If they chose instead to bill for services furnished by others, CMS asserted authority to limit the resulting payment to prevent markup-driven incentives.
Employment status received similar treatment. CMS rejected arguments that full-time employees should be treated differently from part-time employees or independent contractors. From the agency’s perspective, these distinctions were formalities that obscured the economic substance of the arrangement. If the work was performed outside the billing entity’s office, or if it was purchased outright, anti-markup applied. This insistence on neutrality across employment models signaled CMS’s broader intent to avoid regulatory gamesmanship and to focus on incentive alignment rather than contractual nuance.
The rulemaking record is also notable for CMS’s candor about overutilization. CMS acknowledged that it was difficult to determine, case by case, whether increased biopsy volume or diagnostic intensity resulted from profit incentives or evolving standards of care. Yet the agency declined to resolve that clinical debate. Instead, it relied on decades of OIG, GAO, and policy research showing that, in aggregate, self-referral correlates with increased utilization. CMS’s conclusion was pragmatic: when financial incentives and ordering authority align, the risk of overuse increases, even if individual practitioners believe their decisions are clinically justified.
Quality arguments received extensive attention but little regulatory traction. Commenters described improved turnaround times, closer collaboration between clinicians and pathologists, and enhanced subspecialization under pod lab arrangements. CMS did not deny that such benefits could exist. What it refused to do was build payment policy around self-reported quality advantages tied to ownership or profit structures. The agency consistently returned to the principle that Medicare payment rules must be administrable, neutral across specialties, and resistant to incentive-driven distortions. Quality oversight, in CMS’s view, belonged elsewhere—in accreditation, CLIA enforcement, and professional standards—not in exceptions to anti-markup safeguards.
Equally revealing are the actions CMS chose not to take. The agency did not abolish the in-office ancillary services exception, did not prohibit pod labs outright, and did not dictate clinical protocols for biopsies or diagnostic intensity. Instead, it used payment policy as a moderating force. Practices could continue to structure their operations as they wished, but if they sought to bill Medicare for services furnished outside their true clinical offices, they would be limited to cost-based reimbursement rather than profit-generating markups.
[I believe CMS also rewrote and capped coding & reimbursement for prostate biopsy.]
Seen in retrospect, the 2007–2008 rulemaking foreshadowed much of CMS’s later regulatory posture. It reflects an enduring preference for economic guardrails over categorical bans, for functional analysis over formal compliance, and for payment policy as a lever to shape behavior without criminalizing innovation. For readers interested in how CMS actually governs complex clinical markets, this episode stands as a textbook example of administrative pragmatism—careful, contested, and quietly consequential.
Sidebar: Pod Labs (“Condo Labs”) —
What They Were, Why They Spread, and How They Collapsed
“Pod labs” (also called anatomic pathology condominium laboratories or “salon labs”) were a distinctive early-2000s business model in which specialist physician groups—especially urology and gastroenterology—attempted to bring anatomic pathology “in-house” without actually building and staffing a traditional pathology laboratory within their own offices. Instead, physician groups owned small, discrete lab “units” inside larger shared facilities operated by management companies, while the physician group billed for pathology services and paid for technical and professional inputs under contractual arrangements.
At their core, pod labs were an effort to thread the needle of Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and Medicare’s anti-markup rules by fitting pathology into the in-office ancillary services (IOAS) exception. IOAS is a well-established and legitimate concept: it allows a physician—such as a cardiologist—to refer patients to ancillary services furnished within the physician’s own practice, like an in-office echocardiography or ultrasound suite staffed by practice employees. Pod labs sought to claim the same protection for anatomic pathology.
1) The core structure: condo ownership, shared labor, physician billing
The structure was simple but carefully engineered. A developer or operator would establish a building divided into multiple small lab “condos,” each owned by a different physician group, much like residential condominium ownership. Each condo was presented as the physician group’s “in-office” laboratory for IOAS purposes.
Because no single group necessarily had enough volume to justify full-time staffing, the operator arranged shared or rotating histotechnologists and pathologists, who moved from unit to unit as needed. In practice, this sometimes manifested as a hallway of doors, each labeled with the name of a different urology group, while the same technician or pathologist walked room-to-room performing work. From a paperwork standpoint, each room was a separate physician-owned lab; operationally, it functioned as a single shared facility.
Critically, the physician group—not the lab operator—submitted claims, collected reimbursement, and then paid the laboratory staff and pathologists. This billing posture was central to fitting within IOAS and avoiding anti-markup and anti-kickback prohibitions.
2) The IOAS theory—and why it strained credibility
The legal theory behind pod labs was straightforward: if a physician group could claim ownership of the lab space and characterize the testing as occurring “within the practice,” then referrals to that lab would fall under the IOAS exception, even if pathology had historically been referred to independent laboratories.
But this theory quickly strained credibility. Many pod labs were physically remote from the physician’s actual clinical offices, sometimes located miles away or even in different states. Specimens were shipped across state lines, processed in these shared facilities, and billed as if the testing occurred inside the referring practice. The contrast between the classic IOAS model—a cardiologist walking a patient down the hall to an ultrasound suite staffed by the practice—and a distant pathology condo lab staffed by itinerant personnel was hard to ignore.
3) Where the model came from and how it spread
Pod labs emerged first among entrepreneurial urologists, with Florida and Texas becoming early centers of activity. Specialized companies formed to promote the model nationally, offering turnkey development, staffing, and compliance narratives to urology and GI practices interested in capturing anatomic pathology revenue.
By the early 2000s, pod labs were being marketed explicitly as a way to reclaim revenue lost to independent pathology laboratories while remaining technically compliant with Stark and anti-kickback rules through IOAS structuring.
4) Why it gained traction: replacing lost revenue
The rise of pod labs coincided with significant Medicare reimbursement reductions for procedural specialties, particularly urology. These cuts intensified the search for ancillary revenue streams. Anatomic pathology—predictable, high-volume, and well reimbursed—became an obvious target.
This economic origin story mattered. The more clearly pod labs were framed as revenue-replacement vehicles rather than patient-care innovations, the harder it became to sustain a credible clinical justification.
5) The compliance “tell”: engineered form over substance
Journalists and observers repeatedly noted unusual secrecy surrounding pod lab operations. Organizers avoided publicity, and site visits revealed arrangements that felt more like regulatory constructs than organic medical practices: long corridors of locked doors, each representing a nominally separate physician practice, staffed by the same personnel moving between them.
Even contemporaneous observers captured the core problem succinctly: these arrangements appeared designed to satisfy the formal elements of IOAS while recreating exactly the self-referral incentives Stark was meant to prevent.
6) How pod labs collapsed: pressure, not prohibition
Pod labs were never outlawed by a single bright-line rule. Instead, regulatory pressure accumulated gradually. CMS, the Office of Inspector General, and enforcement agencies increasingly treated pod labs as abusive contractual joint ventures, especially when they relied on expansive interpretations of “in-office” that bore little resemblance to ordinary practice operations.
The decisive blow came through Medicare payment policy, particularly the anti-markup rules implemented in 2008, which sharply limited the ability of physician groups to profit from purchased pathology services. Once the markup opportunity disappeared, the economic rationale for pod labs weakened dramatically. Litigation failed to reverse these changes, and prominent pod lab operators were eventually sold or exited the market.
Why this history matters now
Pod labs collapsed not because ownership or in-house testing is inherently suspect, but because formal compliance did not rescue arrangements whose underlying purpose was revenue capture. The IOAS exception was designed to allow efficient, patient-centered ancillary care—not to serve as a vehicle for industrialized internalization of downstream diagnostics.
This distinction remains central today. Pathologists have long been permitted to order additional tests as part of completing a case because those decisions are bounded by professional norms and clinical necessity. When diagnostic workflows expand—whether into molecular testing or genomics—the pod lab history reminds regulators and providers alike that permission does not end the analysis. Substance, governance, and restraint ultimately determine whether an arrangement withstands scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.