Question

With regard to the “safe harbors†from the federal Medicare anti-kickback statute, which of the following statements, if any, is true?

None of the answers listed.

If an arrangement does not meet all of the requirements of a safe harbor, legality of that arrangement under the federal Medicare anti-kickback statute would depend on whether the referring physician has an ownership interest in an entity or a compensation arrangement with an entity.

If an arrangement does not meet all of the requirements of a safe harbor, it is not necessarily illegal, but legality under the federal Medicare anti-kickback statute would depend on the intent of the parties.

If an arrangement does not meet all of the requirements of a safe harbor, that arrangement violates the federal Medicare anti-kickback statute.

Answer 1

If an arrangement does not meet all of the requirements of a safe harbor, it is not necessarily illegal, but legal under the federal medicare anti-kickback statute would depend on the intent of the parties.
Regulatory safe harbor and anti-kickback law protect arrangement when individual or entity accepts to refer a patient to the entity for special service or another individual when the party receiving the referral to refer the patient again at some time or with other circumstances. federal investigations under the anti-kickback statute is a defense strategy that makes the safe harbor.
safe harbor regulations explain the various payment and business models through federal anti-kickback statutes when offenses not treated under the statute. value bases arrangement that physician faces through stark laws regulatory exceptions that include new safe harbors that meaningful but not complete financial risk.
personal service arrangement that not qualified as employment relationship that qualifies for safe harbor protection under anti-kickback statute that some condition for the provision of service that does not violate the state or federal law.