(a) Basic rule. A provider, practitioner, or supplier that furnished services which constitute custodial care under § 411.15(g) or that are not reasonable and necessary under § 411.15(k) is considered to have known that the services were not covered if any one of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section is met.
(b) Notice from the QIO, intermediary or carrier. The QIO, intermediary, or carrier had informed the provider, practitioner, or supplier that the services furnished were not covered, or that similar or reasonably comparable services were not covered.
(c) Notice from the utilization review committee or the beneficiary's attending phyician. The utilization review group or committee for the provider or the beneficiary's attending physician had informed the provider that these services were not covered.
(d) Notice from the provider, practitioner, or supplier to the beneficiary. Before the services were furnished, the provider, practitioner or supplier informed the beneficiary that -
(1) The services were not covered; or
(2) The beneficiary no longer needed covered services.
(e) Knowledge based on experience, actual notice, or constructive notice. It is clear that the provider, practitioner, or supplier could have been expected to have known that the services were excluded from coverage on the basis of the following:
(1) Its receipt of CMS notices, including manual issuances, bulletins, or other written guides or directives from intermediaries, carriers, or QIOs, including notification of QIO screening criteria specific to the condition of the beneficiary for whom the furnished services are at issue and of medical procedures subject to preadmission review by a QIO.
(2) Federal Register publications containing notice of national coverage decisions or of other specifications regarding noncoverage of an item or service.
(3) Its knowledge of what are considered acceptable standards of practice by the local medical community.