DQ 4-1

3 rd

.

response

from DQ 4

-

1

Stark laws were enacted to minimize corrupt physician relationships that created unethical situations from which

physicians had a monetary benefit. Stark laws prohibit physicians and their families from making referrals to an

entity that they have a financ

ial relationship for certain services (Tharp, 2014). Those services are called

designated health services (DHS) and include, laboratory, radiology, physical and occupational therapy, durable

medical equipment and home health services to name a few (Schmitz

& Moodie, 2018). Stark law also allows for

over 30 exceptions, meaning there are instances when referrals to an outside entity for DHS are acceptable even if

a financial relationship exists. One such exception is if the physician is employed by the entity

to which referrals

are made (Tharp, 2014).

After reading about Stark law one would wonder whether a law with so many exceptions could be truly effective.

If a physician and another entity were desirous of having a relationship that was financially benefic

ial, they would

have several options from which to choose in setting it up to avoid the penalties under Stark law. In addition,

recent changes in regulations that are designed to move health care from volume to value, are causing health care

organizations

to look at new ways to deliver care. Stark law has created some obstacles to organizations trying to

be innovative in driving value. However, Tharp (2014) points out there are ways to set up agreements that would

minimize the risk to health care organizati

ons for Stark law violations.

While, I believe Stark law has had some success in preventing unethical behavior, I do not think Stark law (or any

law) can be 100% successful at changing behavior. There are always those that will absolutely do their best to

follow laws and policies to the letter. Then there are those that will skirt the boundaries of compliance or look for

loopholes. Finally, there are those who are ignorant requirements or blatantly ignore them all together.

Schmitz, K., & Moodie, B. (2018).

A Stark reminder: Some common compliance pitfalls.

Journal

of

health

care

compliance

,

20

(2), 5

–

11. Retrieved from

https://search

-

ebscohost

-

com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=131123519&site=eds

-

live&scope=site

Tharp, J. (2014). Stark law and the affordable care act: Bridging the disconnect.

Journal

of

legal

Medicine,

35

,

433

-

444. Retrieved

from

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&A

N=9805

3546&site=eds

-

live&scope=site

3 rd. response from DQ 4-1

Stark laws were enacted to minimize corrupt physician relationships that created unethical situations from which

physicians had a monetary benefit. Stark laws prohibit physicians and their families from making referrals to an

entity that they have a financial relationship for certain services (Tharp, 2014). Those services are called

designated health services (DHS) and include, laboratory, radiology, physical and occupational therapy, durable

medical equipment and home health services to name a few (Schmitz & Moodie, 2018). Stark law also allows for

over 30 exceptions, meaning there are instances when referrals to an outside entity for DHS are acceptable even if

a financial relationship exists. One such exception is if the physician is employed by the entity to which referrals

are made (Tharp, 2014).

After reading about Stark law one would wonder whether a law with so many exceptions could be truly effective.

If a physician and another entity were desirous of having a relationship that was financially beneficial, they would

have several options from which to choose in setting it up to avoid the penalties under Stark law. In addition,

recent changes in regulations that are designed to move health care from volume to value, are causing health care

organizations to look at new ways to deliver care. Stark law has created some obstacles to organizations trying to

be innovative in driving value. However, Tharp (2014) points out there are ways to set up agreements that would

minimize the risk to health care organizations for Stark law violations.

While, I believe Stark law has had some success in preventing unethical behavior, I do not think Stark law (or any

law) can be 100% successful at changing behavior. There are always those that will absolutely do their best to

follow laws and policies to the letter. Then there are those that will skirt the boundaries of compliance or look for

loopholes. Finally, there are those who are ignorant requirements or blatantly ignore them all together.

Schmitz, K., & Moodie, B. (2018). A Stark reminder: Some common compliance pitfalls. Journal of health care

compliance, 20(2), 5–11. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=131123519&site=eds-live&scope=site

Tharp, J. (2014). Stark law and the affordable care act: Bridging the disconnect. Journal of legal Medicine, 35,

433-444. Retrieved

from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9805

3546&site=eds-live&scope=site