Ok, I admit I only glossed over that link, but now having further read it. It's not a case it's a "petition of the court" the provider had done. In reading it through I get the impression the provider retained permission based on two key things..the office space and the idea they would have a "cap" in place. This was obviously the right thing to do for the provider and I would think any provider in one of those states could do the same thing and petition the court for an exception. (billing company better be worth it huh?) I'm thinking if they were just an outsourced billing company the provider would not really have gone through all that trouble and expense. that's my opinion.