Glossary · Compliance

Stark Law (physician self-referral)

The Stark Law (Section 1877 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn) prohibits physicians from referring Medicare or Medicaid patients to any entity for designated health services when the physician or an immediate family member holds a financial relationship with that entity, unless a specific statutory or regulatory exception is met.

Verified May 8, 2026 · 8 sources ↓

Drawn from CMSNIHPavalonAAPC42 U.S.C.

Definition

Source · Editorial summary grounded in 8 cited references ↓

Originally enacted in 1992 and significantly expanded in 1995, the Stark Law is a strict-liability federal statute—intent to violate it is irrelevant. It bars two things simultaneously: the referring physician from sending patients to a financially related entity for designated health services (DHS), and that entity from submitting or causing to be submitted any claim for services that resulted from a prohibited referral. A 'financial relationship' covers both ownership and investment interests as well as compensation arrangements, and it extends to a physician's immediate family members. The law applies to Medicare and, via Section 1903(s) of the Social Security Act, to Medicaid as well.

Designated health services encompass a defined list of service categories—clinical laboratory services, physical and occupational therapy, radiology and imaging, radiation therapy, durable medical equipment, home health services, outpatient prescription drugs, parenteral and enteral nutrients, prosthetics and orthotics, inpatient and outpatient hospital services, and others. CMS identifies the precise CPT and HCPCS codes belonging to each DHS category and updates that list annually on its website. Orthopedic practices are especially exposed because imaging (MRI, X-ray), physical therapy, DME, and outpatient hospital services are all DHS categories routinely bundled into orthopedic care pathways.

The statute establishes numerous exceptions—grouped broadly into general exceptions, ownership/investment exceptions, and compensation-arrangement exceptions—that, when fully satisfied, permit otherwise-prohibited referrals. The December 2020 'Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations' (MCR) final rule added three new value-based arrangement exceptions, a limited-remuneration exception, and a cybersecurity-donation exception, and updated foundational definitions used across the regulations (42 C.F.R. §§411.350–411.389). Compliance depends on meeting every element of a chosen exception, not just most of them.

Why it matters

A single prohibited referral can trigger a civil monetary penalty (CMP) of up to $15,000 per improperly referred service, and a 'circumvention scheme' carries a CMP of up to $100,000 per scheme, plus exclusion from all federal healthcare programs. Because Stark is strict liability, a well-intentioned orthopedic group that invests in an imaging center or a physical therapy practice and begins routing patients there—without structuring the arrangement to meet an applicable exception before the first referral—faces retroactive denial of every related Medicare and Medicaid claim, mandatory repayment with interest, and potential False Claims Act exposure. On the billing side, coders and compliance teams must recognize that a claim submitted for DHS resulting from a prohibited referral is itself impermissible, meaning downstream denial and recoupment risk falls on the billing entity even if the coder had no knowledge of the underlying arrangement.

Common mistakes

Where people most often go wrong with this concept.

Source · Editorial brief grounded in cited references ↓

  • Assuming the in-office ancillary services exception automatically covers imaging or physical therapy referrals to a separate legal entity the practice has invested in—it applies only when services are furnished in the same building or a centralized building of the group practice and billed under the group.
  • Treating Stark compliance as a one-time contract review rather than an ongoing obligation—exception requirements (e.g., fair-market-value compensation, written agreement in place) must be satisfied continuously, not just at signing.
  • Conflating Stark Law with the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS): Stark is strict liability and civil; AKS requires intent and carries criminal exposure. An arrangement can violate one without violating the other, or violate both.
  • Overlooking immediate family member financial relationships—a spouse's ownership stake in an ASC or imaging center triggers the same referral prohibition as the physician's own ownership.
  • Failing to update financial arrangements after a Medicare Physician Fee Schedule update changes which CPT/HCPCS codes are on the annual DHS Code List, inadvertently pulling new services into a previously compliant arrangement.
  • Self-disclosing a potential violation to the OIG voluntary disclosure protocol instead of the CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP)—Stark violations must be disclosed through the CMS SRDP, not the OIG pathway.
  • Believing a value-based care contract (e.g., Medicare Advantage or ACO) automatically exempts compensation arrangements from Stark scrutiny—value-based exceptions added by the 2020 MCR rule have specific qualifying criteria that must be independently verified.

Frequently asked questions

Source · Generated from the editorial pipeline, verified against 8 cited references ↓

01Does the Stark Law apply to Medicaid patients or only Medicare?
Both. Section 1903(s) of the Social Security Act extends the Stark Law's referral prohibition to the Medicaid program, not just Medicare.
02What are the penalties for a Stark Law violation?
Civil monetary penalties up to $15,000 per improperly referred service, up to $100,000 per circumvention scheme, possible repayment of all related claims with interest, and exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid. There is no criminal penalty under Stark itself, but False Claims Act exposure can attach to the same conduct.
03Is the Stark Law violated only if the physician intended to self-refer improperly?
No. Stark is a strict-liability statute—intent is irrelevant. If a prohibited referral occurred and no exception was fully satisfied at the time, a violation exists regardless of good faith.
04How does an orthopedic group invest in an imaging center without triggering Stark?
The arrangement must qualify under a statutory or regulatory exception before any referrals are made. Common candidates include the in-office ancillary services exception (if imaging is furnished within the group's own practice), the publicly traded securities exception, or, for rural areas, the rural provider exception. Each exception has specific and non-waivable requirements; legal counsel should confirm full compliance before the first referral.
05What is the CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP)?
The SRDP is the official CMS mechanism for voluntarily disclosing actual or potential Stark Law violations. Using it can result in a reduced settlement amount. It is distinct from the OIG voluntary disclosure protocol, which is used for Anti-Kickback Statute and other fraud issues—submitting a Stark disclosure to the wrong protocol is itself a compliance error.
06How does CMS define which services are 'designated health services' subject to Stark?
CMS publishes an annual list of CPT and HCPCS codes mapping to the DHS categories defined in the statute. Beginning January 1, 2023, this Code List is published exclusively on the CMS website and must be checked each calendar year because codes can be added, removed, or reassigned.
07Does the 2020 MCR final rule change anything for orthopedic practices participating in value-based models?
Yes. The December 2020 rule created three new exceptions for compensation arrangements that qualify as 'value-based arrangements,' which can provide flexibility for orthopedic practices in ACOs, bundled payment programs, or similar risk-sharing models—provided all qualifying criteria under 42 C.F.R. §411.357 are met.

Mira AI Scribe

Mira does not generate or modify clinical referral orders, but the Stark Law creates direct documentation triggers that the AI scribe layer should flag. **Flag for compliance review when a note contains:** - A referral for imaging (MRI, CT, X-ray), physical therapy, occupational therapy, DME (braces, crutches, TENS units), or outpatient hospital services where the rendering entity is identified in the note or order. - Any language suggesting an ownership, investment, or compensation relationship between the referring provider and the receiving entity (e.g., 'our imaging center,' 'our PT clinic,' 'our ASC'). - A referral involving a provider whose name matches or closely resembles a documented immediate family member of the ordering physician. **Mira scribe behavior:** - Do NOT auto-populate the rendering entity on a DHS referral order without a compliance-cleared entity list. - When a DHS referral is documented, insert a structured compliance note prompt: 'Confirm this referral satisfies an applicable Stark exception before claim submission.' - Do NOT suggest or default to an affiliated entity for DHS ordering unless that entity appears on the practice's pre-approved Stark-compliant vendor list. - If the note documents a new investment or compensation arrangement with a DHS entity, flag for immediate compliance and legal review before any referrals are placed. Remember: Stark is strict liability. Documenting a referral is itself the triggering act; intent is not relevant to violation determination.

See Mira's approach
Ready?

Ready to transform your orthopedic practice?

See how orthopedic practices are running documentation, billing, and operations on a single voice-first platform.

Get started for free