Hopefully we can start airing our differences with a bit fewer pejorative statements...
First, these are state laws, all of which differ in many ways except one: They were written to help eliminate the occurrences where physicians were referring services to facilities which they either had an ownership interest in, or were paid by the facilities for referring patients. Many times, especially in cases where a state attorney is trying to decide whether or not a law has been violated, the intent of the law is closely examined. In this case, no state that I am aware of had any intent whatsoever to limit physician/billing entity relationships with a fee splitting legislation. However, the point here is that THEY CAN BE INTERPRETED in that way, and many may choose the safer path of not seeking percentage contracts.
The fact is, a percentage contract between biller and physician does not provide the same self referring benefits that lab and diagnostic testing self referrals do. Sure, a practitioner could upcode, or bill for services not provided, but the billing service relationship does not provide any extra ability to do so. In fact, most relationships between providers and billing services retard such occurrences. Again, the intent of the law will likely play a key role in the decision making of any prosecuting party.
I for one refuse to chastise anyone for trying to be on the safe side of any law.
One last thought. I spent a good number of hours over the last few days of last week pouring over court records to find any cases (in the state that I am providing billing services for) of fee splitting that involved a billing service. I could not find a single one. Not to say I couldn't have missed any, but it seems somewhat unlikely.