as agitprop. That's true right and left.
Below is the bit of statute that they refer to. Whether it's all the relevant statutory language, whether it's been redefined by case law, I don't know. Perhaps this isn't the language that the rule promulgated in 2012 is based on at all, in which case it's a red herring. Again, don't know.
(32) provide that no payment under the plan for any care or service provided to an individual shall be made to anyone other than such individual or the person or institution providing such care or service, under an assignment or power of attorney or otherwise; except that—
(A) in the case of any care or service provided by a physician, dentist, or other individual practitioner, such payment may be made (i) to the employer of such physician, dentist, or other practitioner if such physician, dentist, or practitioner is required as a condition of his employment to turn over his fee for such care or service to his employer, or (ii) (where the care or service was provided in a hospital, clinic, or other facility) to the facility in which the care or service was provided if there is a contractual arrangement between such physician, dentist, or practitioner and such facility under which such facility submits the bill for such care or service;
(B) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed (i) to prevent the making of such a payment in accordance with an assignment from the person or institution providing the care or service involved if such assignment is made to a governmental agency or entity or is established by or pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or (ii) to preclude an agent of such person or institution from receiving any such payment if (but only if) such agent does so pursuant to an agency agreement under which the compensation to be paid to the agent for his services for or in connection with the billing or collection of payments due such person or institution under the plan is unrelated (directly or indirectly) to the amount of such payments or the billings therefor, and is not dependent upon the actual collection of any such payment;
(C) in the case of services furnished (during a period that does not exceed 14 continuous days in the case of an informal reciprocal arrangement or 90 continuous days (or such longer period as the Secretary may provide) in the case of an arrangement involving per diem or other fee-for-time compensation) by, or incident to the services of, one physician to the patients of another physician who submits the claim for such services, payment shall be made to the physician submitting the claim (as if the services were furnished by, or incident to, the physician’s services), but only if the claim identifies (in a manner specified by the Secretary) the physician who furnished the services; and
(D) in the case of payment for a childhood vaccine administered before October 1, 1994, to individuals entitled to medical assistance under the State plan, the State plan may make payment directly to the manufacturer of the vaccine under a voluntary replacement program agreed to by the State pursuant to which the manufacturer (i) supplies doses of the vaccine to providers administering the vaccine, (ii) periodically replaces the supply of the vaccine, and (iii) charges the State the manufacturer’s price to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the vaccine so administered (which price includes a reasonable amount to cover shipping and the handling of returns);
The plain language would rule out deducting things like professional development at a community college or health insurance. Again, since any disagreement immediately triggers intense ill will, hence lack of cooperation, hence a disregard for the rules that usually follow conversation and discussion, I feel compelled to state I don't have a clue as to whether courts have rendered the language non-plain or if there are other provisions in statute covering such things.
The rule that they're proposing deleting can be found at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/447.10.
(g)Individual practitioners. Payment may be made to -
(1) The employer of the practitioner, if the practitioner is required as a condition of employment to turn over his fees to the employer;
(2) The facility in which the service is provided, if the practitioner has a contract under which the facility submits the claim; or
(3) A foundation, plan, or similar organization operating an organized health care delivery system, if the practitioner has a contract under which the organization submits the claim.
(4) In the case of a class of practitioners for which the Medicaid program is the primary source of service revenue, payment may be made to a third party on behalf of the individual practitioner for benefits such as health insurance, skills training and other benefits customary for employees.
Notice that this would apply only to anybody whose government check is primarily from Medicaid. The current regulation makes it look like a paycheck and not payment for services.
Proper fix: Revise the Act. Less proper fix: Pursue the documentation-related alternative and hope that nobody has standing. As it is, I don't see how the statute authorizes the deductions. And a bit of me looks at the claims of people like Lyft and Uber drivers, who do consistent work and get a consistent paycheck, maybe with deductions, and on the basis of that relationship claim employee status as opposed to being contracted with on a fee-for-service basis. Such things should be decided through thought and not through negligence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
