Starting a Medical Billing Business > Starting Your Own Medical Billing Business
Pricing your billing service
RichardP:
Linda, can you clarify how you are interpreting that legal clause for me. That is all I want. I'm not intending to argue one side or the other.
My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part is tied only to the professional subcontractor or consultant part - as that entire phrase is bounded by commas: the entity known as a [professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine] - as distinguished from the other entities described in the list.
My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part does not modify in any way the partner, employee, [or] associate in a professional firm or corporation parts.
QUESTION: I assume you have an EIN from the IRS?? If you do, and for those who do, are you and they not considered professional firms?
Also - the share in phrase throws me. In legal language, that phrase is usually used separately and distinctly from the term earned. As in, the earnings from all 5 partners are thrown into the pot and each partner receives a share of the total (shares in), based on some predetermined formula. In such a situation, the partner's compensation is based on something other than what he actually earned.
QUESTION: In legal language, and based on the example I gave, earnings are quite often distinguished from shares in or sharing in. Do you know for certain that this distinction does not hold in the legal language you have quoted here?
Again, just looking for clarification - not an argument. I know you are not a lawyer, so I understand that you may not know for certain.
PMRNC:
--- Quote ---My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part does not modify in any way the partner, employee, [or] associate in a professional firm or corporation parts.
--- End quote ---
I'm really not understanding what your asking.. Again..this is what it says: other than: a partner, employee, associate in a professional firm or corporation, professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine, or a legally authorized trainee practicing under the supervision of a licensee.
I'm going to bow out and refer you to a few legal authorities on the matter.. for me it doesn't matter what you charge, how you charge, I don't care.. I'm MORE than happy to gain the business of the billing companies with little to no regard for there potential clients legal liabilities. Here are the legal entities to which I will refer you to for better real understanding of the law:
http://www.lilesparker.com/
http://michaelhcohen.com/
http://www.wachler.com/
https://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/1105Ethics.pdf
http://www.drlaw.com/?gclid=CM-C5qiLz8UCFc4kgQodKDAAPA
So charge what you want, and how you want..maybe you could throw us a bone and let us know what state and what provider your doing a % on and then us reputable billing companies can come in and take the account.
And hey.. don't bother to get an attorney.. it would seem counter productive to go against legal advice.
Rclausing:
--- Quote from: RichardP on May 19, 2015, 10:06:43 PM ---Linda, can you clarify how you are interpreting that legal clause for me. That is all I want. I'm not intending to argue one side or the other.
My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part is tied only to the professional subcontractor or consultant part - as that entire phrase is bounded by commas: the entity known as a [professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine] - as distinguished from the other entities described in the list.
My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part does not modify in any way the partner, employee, [or] associate in a professional firm or corporation parts.
QUESTION: I assume you have an EIN from the IRS?? If you do, and for those who do, are you and they not considered professional firms?
Also - the share in phrase throws me. In legal language, that phrase is usually used separately and distinctly from the term earned. As in, the earnings from all 5 partners are thrown into the pot and each partner receives a share of the total (shares in), based on some predetermined formula. In such a situation, the partner's compensation is based on something other than what he actually earned.
QUESTION: In legal language, and based on the example I gave, earnings are quite often distinguished from shares in or sharing in. Do you know for certain that this distinction does not hold in the legal language you have quoted here?
Again, just looking for clarification - not an argument. I know you are not a lawyer, so I understand that you may not know for certain.
--- End quote ---
I'm totally with you on this. Exactly where I was coming from.
--- Quote --- I'm MORE than happy to gain the business of the billing companies with little to no regard for there potential clients legal liabilities.
--- End quote ---
This is just over the top, and rude to infer such a thing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version