The definition refers to “general market value,” which now also includes separate standards for asset acquisitions, compensation arrangements, and equipment and space rentals. While these revised definitions do not result in major changes in content, CMS`s comment on fair market value provides important information: Ultimately, CMS appears to view the FMV changes as minor revisions to clarify, organize, and unbundle the FMV volume or value standard. The final definitions do little to resolve the historical valuation difficulties arising from the distinction between JVMs under Stark and JVMs under general market principles (in fact, CMS has removed all of its statements equating the two concepts). And despite CMS`s explanation in the preamble to the final settlement, the final definitions do not take into account awards based on the specific circumstances of the parties. Janvi R. Shah, MBA, MSF, is a Senior Financial Analyst at HCC. Ms. Shah holds a master`s degree in finance from Washington University in St. Louis. It develops market value and business suitability assessments for healthcare businesses, assets and services. In addition, it prepares, reviews and analyzes the projected and pro forma financial statements to determine the most likely future net economic benefits in terms of health care businesses, assets and services, and applies usage demand and reimbursement trends to project specialists and ancillary services and revenue streams (ASTC).
Fair market value: CMS has revised the definition of fair market value (“FMV”) and created a stand-alone definition of “fair market value” – a concept that was previously included in the FMV definition. CMS has also finalized its proposal to eliminate the “volume or value standard” from the FMV definition. The agency explained that the FMV and the volume or value standard are separate compensation requirements that must be met independently for each applicable exception to the Stark Act. In particular, CMS removed from the FMV definition the phrase that directly referred to the fair market price because it was “not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of the expected or actual recommendations.” [1] The only exception is the effective date of 19. January 2021, some changes to the definition of “group practice” have an effective date of January 1, 2022 to give medical practices more time to adjust their compensation methods. For more information, see Dinsmore`s legal notice on changes to the physician group practice definition, available here. The expert in the SCCI Hospital Houston case considered several factors in assessing economic adequacy, including: (1) hospital size, number of patients, patient visual acuity, and patient needs; (2) the quality, activities and involvement of medical personnel and the need for medical management; (3) the number of committees and regular meetings requiring the physician`s intervention; and (4) the quality of hospital management and interdisciplinary coordination of patient services.23 CMS`s release of the new Stark Final Rule was coordinated with the Office of the Inspector General`s (OIG) publication of the new Safe Harbor provisions for the federal anti-bribery law.