Bindinglaw

US · guidance

CMS Pub. 100-16, ch. 6, § 20.2

Consultation in Development of Credentialing Policies

activein force · 2026-08-25 – presentas-observed

Credentialing and recredentialing standards for types of providers and for specialists

should be reviewed by clinical peers, through establishment of a credentialing committee

or other mechanism. In addition, there should be a process for peer review when the MA

organization is considering employing or contracting with a provider who does not meet

its established credentialing standards.

(Source: 42 CFR 422.204(b)(2)(iii) and additional instructions.)

History

(Rev. 24, 06-06-03)

Provenance

Source
cms.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-25
Edition
iom-2026-08-25
Content hash
a2e858c2264d6a2af747a9634255c14f5864b60ccacf6c6872b7379798252dbd
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.