{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024752475247524754, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00891089108910891, 'mean_word_length': 5.3584905660377355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Federal anti-referral status raises unanswered questions. Part I: Group practice issues.

Although legislation is pending that would require the federal government is issue advisory opinions to those seeking to comply with Stark II (see Press Release #26-A, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, July 1, 1994, at 26), such legislation would not entirely solve these interpretive problems, as questions encountered under Stark II are likely to be far too frequent and the response time too long to make it practical to obtain opinions each time. Thus, until such time as Stark II is amended, clarifying regulations are issued, or courts interpret it meaning, physicians who practice in groups that provide designated services must hope that federal enforcement agencies use common sense and understanding in applying an ambiguous statute to real life situations, affording leniency toward participants in arrangements that fit within reasonable interpretations of the statute's exceptions.