1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CMS Extends Deadline For Publication of Final Stark II, Phase III Rule

CMS Extends Deadline For Publication of Final Stark II, Phase III Rule

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.21.07

As expected, CMS announced today that it is extending the timeline for publication of the final rule implementing the Stark Law (the “Phase III Rule”) for one year. With this extension, the interim final rule issued on March 26, 2004 (the “Phase II Rule”) will remain in effect until March 26, 2008, at which time CMS will publish the Phase III Rule.

The timeline for publishing a final regulation cannot exceed three years from the date of publication of the proposed interim final rule, unless there are “exceptional circumstances.” CMS attributes the “numerous and varied” public comments received following publication of the Phase II Rule, as well as the substantial “interagency coordination” among CMS, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Department of Justice, (resulting from their joint authority to enforce the Stark Law), as the justification for the one-year extension.

This leaves unanswered for at least one more year critical and outstanding issues under the Stark Law, including: 1) the Law’s applicability to Medicaid referrals and claims; 2) the potential for expansion of the physician recruitment exception to accommodate certain practical considerations; and 3) the potential narrowing of the in-office ancillary services exception to preclude certain referral practices that are understood to be deemed questionable by CMS.

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...