Stark Law

[Amethyst Veralyn]

When a doctor refers a patient to a place that they or their family owns, they

are said to, "have a financial interest," and this

violates the law, but this is too narrow minded.

What if a practitioner sends

their patient to a place that they or their family owns

but it's because there is

no one else they trust or becuase the patient genuinely needs the referral

or because they have a genuine concern for them.

Every practitioner is accountable for

what happens to their patient so what would be wrong with referring them to their own clinic or their

relatives if this is someone they know and trust?

How can they create laws just assuming that every single practitioner is JUST trying to make money by

sending patients to their own relatives or their own clinic?

The stark law is written to make it so they can not send patients to these places

even if there are reasons OTHER THAN FINANCIAL GAIN.

How would they get around this legal restriction if they were genuinely afraid for their patients

to be seen by someone who they didn't know or didn't trust?

[elkpark]

IMHO, the Stark law is not "too narrow minded." The reason the law was passed in the first place is because there were such blatant abuses of the system in the past. Human nature being what it is (not to mention greed), I have no doubt there would be many abuses again if the law were relaxed.