Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

Advanced Search
  Home Breaking News Newsletters Books & Reports Events Jobs Advisory Board Interviews e-Alert Contact Us
Diagnostic Imaging & Intelligence   •   G2 Compliance   •   Laboratory Industry   •   National Intelligence   •   Diagnostic Testing & Technology  
     
 
National Intelligence Report

California Expands Pathology Direct Billing Law
September 24, 2007

A California bill that would require direct billing for anatomic pathology services, not just cytopathology, recently passed the state legislature and is currently on the desk of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has 30 days to sign or veto the measure. If he does not act by then, the bill automatically becomes law.

Schwarzenegger is expected to sign it, Robert. J. Achermann, executive director of the California Society of Pathologists, told NIR, noting that it has broad bipartisan support despite some opposition. The Society led the drive to get the legislation passed, and the College of American Pathologists supported the effort. The bill, SB 661, cleared the California Senate unanimously on September 10 and the Assembly by a vote of 86-2 on September 4.

The bill would prohibit clinicians from billing patients and third-party payers for anatomic pathology services not performed or directly supervised by the clinician. Current state law prohibits direct billing for cytopathology, including Pap smears, and also bars physicians from marking up other clinical lab services.

The definition of anatomic pathology services in SB 661 is consistent with model CAP legislative language, including histopathology, cytopathology, hematology, subcellular pathology, surgical pathology, and blood banking services performed by a pathologist, noted Gretchen Schaefer, CAP’s vice president for communications in advocacy, in the September 13 issue of Statline.

According to CAP data, 13 states have direct billing statutes for pathology services: Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Iowa, Montana, and Kansas. In addition, six states have anti-markup provisions: California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Fourteen states require disclosure of physician charges: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Utah.

   

 

Archives

 
     
  Home Privacy Awards & Scholarships Advisory Board Contact Us Advertising Blogs & Online Resources List Rentals

Copyright © 1999-2008 Washington G-2 Reports. No portion of the material presented on this site may be used without express written permission from authorized personnel at Washington G-2 Reports. Washington G-2 Reports is an operating unit of IOMA, the Institute of Management & Administration, Inc.