Buy Back Model

[Anonymous]

Anyone heard of the buy back model? I had an Office Mgr tell me PLUS was writing off their Client Bill Balance if they continued to send specimens. They claimed it was refered to as the "Buy Back Model" but they were upset because PLUS only credited the amount they were charged per CPT for Client Bill and the actual billing was more profitable.
Sounds like another shady model offered from a shady company!
I assume the credit amount which matches the client bill amount is a sneaky way of issue credits to fly below the OIG radar.
Anyone care to elaborate??

 

[Anonymous]

This is very common at Plus (minus). Numerous accounts have benefited from this illegal and unethical practice. OIG would love Plus!

 

[Anonymous]

I have been hearing about this lately also. Not entirely sure I understand it but from what I am hearing it seems like a central lab (i.e Plus, Bostwick, CBL) offers to assume the risk of non-payment for a pathology study but only if the referring group agrees to send all specimens to the central lab. I think clients doing split billing are beginning to see that there is a percentage of studies that are not re-imbursed for whatever reason by the third party payer. In a non-payment situation the central lab re-imburses the clinician for the cost of the test so that it becomes a break even and not a loss for the doc referring the biopsies to the lab. Sorta like insurance for the referring doc, they have no risk of losing money on any study.

I am sure if there are written agreements that any detail requiring 100% biopsy referral is omitted, I think this would be illegal. Sound to me like another gimmick technique that pushes the limit of Stark. Probably won't be long before payers, medicare, state medical boards, etc crack down. Plus and similar labs are like little viruses, mutating to gain every little advantage possible and change as the environment forces them to (in order to survive).

 

[Anonymous]

I have been hearing about this lately also. Not entirely sure I understand it but from what I am hearing it seems like a central lab (i.e Plus, Bostwick, CBL) offers to assume the risk of non-payment for a pathology study but only if the referring group agrees to send all specimens to the central lab. I think clients doing split billing are beginning to see that there is a percentage of studies that are not re-imbursed for whatever reason by the third party payer. In a non-payment situation the central lab re-imburses the clinician for the cost of the test so that it becomes a break even and not a loss for the doc referring the biopsies to the lab. Sorta like insurance for the referring doc, they have no risk of losing money on any study.

I am sure if there are written agreements that any detail requiring 100% biopsy referral is omitted, I think this would be illegal. Sound to me like another gimmick technique that pushes the limit of Stark. Probably won't be long before payers, medicare, state medical boards, etc crack down. Plus and similar labs are like little viruses, mutating to gain every little advantage possible and change as the environment forces them to (in order to survive).

CMS is investigating several labs in NY and NJ. Keep your eyes and ears open and watch your backs. Big Brother GE is in the business now, and they like to kiss and tell...The Feds and the OIG listen to them BIG TIME!

 

[Anonymous]

I have been hearing about this lately also. Not entirely sure I understand it but from what I am hearing it seems like a central lab (i.e Plus, Bostwick, CBL) offers to assume the risk of non-payment for a pathology study but only if the referring group agrees to send all specimens to the central lab. I think clients doing split billing are beginning to see that there is a percentage of studies that are not re-imbursed for whatever reason by the third party payer. In a non-payment situation the central lab re-imburses the clinician for the cost of the test so that it becomes a break even and not a loss for the doc referring the biopsies to the lab. Sorta like insurance for the referring doc, they have no risk of losing money on any study.

I am sure if there are written agreements that any detail requiring 100% biopsy referral is omitted, I think this would be illegal. Sound to me like another gimmick technique that pushes the limit of Stark. Probably won't be long before payers, medicare, state medical boards, etc crack down. Plus and similar labs are like little viruses, mutating to gain every little advantage possible and change as the environment forces them to (in order to survive).

This is what you do when your products suck, reps cant sell on science and upper management is working on their exit strategy. Nothing ever changes.

 

[Anonymous]

This is what you do when your products suck, reps cant sell on science and upper management is working on their exit strategy. Nothing ever changes.

The exit strategy is now shot. No one will buy plus now. AP is way too risky to invest in.

 

[Anonymous]

EEEDDDDDDWINNNNNNN
EEEDDDDDDWINNNNNNN

 

[Anonymous]

CMS is investigating several labs in NY and NJ. Keep your eyes and ears open and watch your backs. Big Brother GE is in the business now, and they like to kiss and tell...The Feds and the OIG listen to them BIG TIME!

The CEO of GE is tight with Obama. See the connection?

 

[Anonymous]

The CEO of GE is tight with Obama. See the connection?

You bunch of plus has beens who could not cut it. DO you really think GE gives a shit about this tiny business. This business is not even the size of a pimple on your fat lazy asses to GE.

Why dont you shut up and go sell something. Or find a job since you could not cut it at plus