The Co-Managed Surgical Case and the Undisclosed Referral Fee
Dr. Brooks performs a comprehensive exam and diagnoses a patient with visually significant cataract and moderate dry eye. He refers the patient to a nearby ophthalmology group for surgery and asks that the patient return to him for postoperative care. The surgical group offers Dr. Brooks a "co-management fee" of $150 per patient, paid directly to him, and also offers to cover his attendance at a weekend refractive surgery seminar if he sends at least 10 patients per quarter. Dr. Brooks also owns a 20% interest in an optical dispensary next door and routinely writes the post-op prescriptions and recommends that dispensary for glasses. The patient asks Dr. Brooks whether the surgeon is "the best" and whether Dr. Brooks makes money from the referral.
1. Analyze the $150 co-management fee and the seminar offer under fee-splitting and referral rules.
Read the worked answer
A legitimate co-management fee must be for actual, documented postoperative services that Dr. Brooks personally provides, at fair market value, and disclosed to the patient; a flat per-patient payment that is not tied to specific services looks like a prohibited fee-split or kickback for the referral. The seminar offer conditioned on sending at least 10 patients per quarter is a volume-based inducement and is clearly problematic - it ties a benefit to referrals rather than to services. Both arrangements should be restructured or declined: bill only for documented post-op care actually rendered, at fair value, with patient disclosure and compliance with anti-kickback/fee-splitting rules, and refuse volume-based inducements.
2. How should Dr. Brooks answer the patient's questions about the surgeon's quality and about whether he profits from the referral?
Read the worked answer
He must answer honestly. He should not claim the surgeon is "the best" unless he can substantiate it; he can describe the surgeon's qualifications and explain that the patient is free to choose any surgeon. On the financial question, he should disclose any financial interest or co-management arrangement that could influence the recommendation, and explain the co-management plan (who provides post-op care and how it is billed). Concealing a financial interest while recommending the referral is deceptive and undermines informed consent. Transparency protects both the patient and the license.
3. What issues arise from Dr. Brooks's ownership interest in the dispensary and his post-op prescribing?
Read the worked answer
The ownership interest creates a conflict of interest that must be disclosed, and the practice must avoid steering patients in a way that is deceptive or that exploits the professional relationship. Recommending the dispensary is permissible only with disclosure of the financial interest and assurance that the recommendation is based on the patient's needs; patients must be told they may fill prescriptions elsewhere. Post-op prescribing should be clinically justified and documented, not driven by dispensary revenue. The practice should have a written conflict-of-interest and disclosure policy, and Dr. Brooks should ensure the co-management and dispensary arrangements comply with referral, fee-splitting, and advertising rules.