Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care Hospitals RY 2007: Proposed Annual Payment Rate Updates, Policy Changes, and Clarification, 4648-4779 [06-665]
Download as PDF
4648
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 412
[CMS–1485–P]
RIN 0938–AO06
Medicare Program; Prospective
Payment System for Long-Term Care
Hospitals RY 2007: Proposed Annual
Payment Rate Updates, Policy
Changes, and Clarification
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
update the annual payment rates for the
Medicare prospective payment system
(PPS) for inpatient hospital services
provided by long-term care hospitals
(LTCHs). The proposed payment
amounts and factors used to determine
the updated Federal rates that are
described in this proposed rule were
determined based on the LTCH PPS rate
year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.
The annual update of the long-term care
diagnosis-related group (LTC–DRG)
classifications and relative weights
remains linked to the annual
adjustments of the acute care hospital
inpatient diagnosis-related group
system, and would continue to be
effective each October 1. The proposed
outlier threshold for July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007, would also be
derived from the LTCH PPS rate year
calculations. We are also proposing to
make policy changes and clarifications.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–1485–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (no duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on specific issues
in this regulation to https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking/.
(Attachments should be in Microsoft
Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however,
we prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments (one original and two
copies) to the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–1485–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
P, P.O. Box 8012, Baltimore, MD 21244–
8012.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments (one
original and two copies) to the following
address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–1485–
P, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments (one original
and two copies) before the close of the
comment period to one of the following
addresses. If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
7197 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey
Building, 200 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244–1850.
(Because access to the interior of the
HHH Building is not readily available to
persons without Federal Government
identification, commenters are
encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main
lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock
is available for persons wishing to retain
a proof of filing by stamping in and
retaining an extra copy of the comments
being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
Submission of comments on
paperwork requirements. You may
submit comments on this document’s
paperwork requirements by mailing
your comments to the addresses
provided at the end of the ‘‘Collection
of Information Requirements’’ section in
this document.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tzvi Hefter, (410) 786–4487 (General
information).
Judy Richter, (410) 786–2590 (General
information, payment adjustments for
special cases, and onsite discharges
and readmissions, interrupted stays,
co-located providers, and short-stay
outliers).
Michele Hudson, (410) 786–5490
(Calculation of the payment rates,
LTC–DRGs, relative weights and casemix index, market basket, wage index,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
budget neutrality, and other payment
adjustments).
Ann Fagan, (410) 786–5662 (Patient
classification system).
Miechal Lefkowitz, (410) 786–5316
(High-cost outliers and cost-to-charge
ratios).
Linda McKenna, (410) 786–4537
(Payment adjustments, interrupted
stay, and transition period).
Nancy Kenly, (410) 786–7792 (Federal
rate update and case-mix index).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Public Comments: We
welcome comments from the public on
all issues set forth in this rule to assist
us in fully considering issues and
developing policies. You can assist us
by referencing the file code [CMS–1485P] and the specific ‘‘issue identifier’’
that precedes the section on which you
choose to comment.
Inspection of Public Comments: All
comments received before the close of
the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. CMS posts all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on its public website as
soon as possible after they are received.
Comments received timely will be
available for public inspection as they
are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative and Regulatory Authority
B. Criteria for Classification as a LTCH
1. Classification as a LTCH
2. Hospitals Excluded From the LTCH PPS
C. Transition Period for Implementation of
the LTCH PPS
D. Limitation on Charges to Beneficiaries
E. Administrative Simplification
Compliance Act (ASCA) and Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA) Compliance
II. Summary of Major Contents of This
Proposed Rule
III. Long-Term Care Diagnosis-Related Group
(LTC-DRG) Classifications and Relative
Weights
A. Background
B. Patient Classifications Into DRGs
C. Organization of DRGs
D. Update of LTC-DRGs
E. ICD–9–CM Coding System
1. Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set
(UHDDS) Definitions
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
2. Maintenance of the ICD–9–CM Coding
System
3. Coding Rules and Use of ICD–9-CM
Codes in LTCHs
F. Method for Updating the LTC-DRG
Relative Weights
IV. Proposed Changes to the LTCH PPS
Payment Rates for the 2007 LTCH PPS
Rate Year
A. Overview of the Development of the
Payment Rates
B. Proposed LTCH PPS Market Basket
1. Overview of the RPL Market Basket
2. Proposed Methodology for Determining
the Operating Portion of the RPL LTCH
PPS Market Basket
3. Proposed Methodology for Determining
the Capital Portion of the RPL Market
Basket
4. Proposed Market Basket Estimate for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
C. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
1. Background
2. Description of a Preliminary Model of an
Update Framework Under the LTCH PPS
3. Proposed Update to the Standard
Federal Rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate
Year
4. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
D. Calculation of Proposed LTCH
Prospective Payments for the 2007 LTCH
PPS Rate Year
1. Proposed Adjustment for Area Wage
Levels
a. Background
b. Geographic Classifications/Labor Market
Area Definitions
c. Proposed Labor-Related Share
d. Proposed Wage Index Data
2. Proposed Adjustment for Cost-of-Living
in Alaska and Hawaii
3. Proposed Adjustment for High-Cost
Outliers
a. Background
b. Cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs)
c. Establishment of the Proposed FixedLoss Amount
d. Reconciliation of Outlier Payments
Upon Cost Report Settlement
e. Application of Outlier Policy to ShortStay Outlier Cases
4. Other Payment Adjustments
5. Proposed Budget Neutrality Offset To
Account for the Transition Methodology
6. One-time Prospective Adjustment to the
Standard Federal Rate.
V. Other Proposed Policy Changes for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
A. Proposed Adjustments for Special Cases
1. Adjustment of Short-Stay Outlier Cases
a. Proposed Changes to the Method for
Determining the Payment Amount for
Short-Stay Outlier Cases
b. Proposed Changes to the Determination
for Cost-to-Charge Ratios (CCRs) and
Reconciliation of Short-Stay Outlier
Cases
2. The 3-Day or Less Interruption of Stay
B. Special payment provisions for LTCH
Hospitals Within Hospitals (HwHs) and
LTCH Satellites
VI. Computing the Proposed Adjusted
Federal Prospective Payments for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
VII. Transition Period
VIII. Payments to New LTCHs
IX. Method of Payment
X. Monitoring
XI. RTI Report on MedPAC June 2004 LTCH
Recommendations
A. Overview of the Issues
B. Describing the LTCH Universe Since FY
2003
C. Patient, Facility, and Alternative
Treatment Site Analysis
D. Specific Findings From Claims Analysis
XII. Collection of Information Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum—Tables
Appendix A—Description of a Preliminary
Model of an Update Framework Under
the LTCH PPS
Acronyms
Because of the many terms to which
we refer by acronym in this proposed
rule, we are listing the acronyms used
and their corresponding terms in
alphabetical order below:
3M 3M Health Information Systems
AHA American Hospital Association
AHIMA American Health Information
Management Association
ALOS Average length of stay
APR All patient refined
ASCA Administrative Simplification
Compliance Act of 2002 (Pub. L.
107–105)
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(Pub. L. 105–33)
BBRA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
[State Children’s Health Insurance
Program] Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106–113)
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
[State Children’s Health Insurance
Program] Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
554)
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBSA Core-based statistical area
CC Complications and comorbidities
CCR Cost-to-charge ratio
C&M Coordination and maintenance
CMI Case-mix index
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
CMSA Consolidated metropolitan
statistical area
COLA Cost of living adjustment
COPS Medicare conditions of
participation
CPI Consumer Price Indexes
DSH Disproportionate share of lowincome patients
DRGs Diagnosis-related groups
ECI Employment Cost Indexes
FI Fiscal intermediary
FY Federal fiscal year
HCRIS Hospital cost report
information system
HHA Home health agency
HHS (Department of) Health and
Human Services
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4649
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (Pub. L.
104–191)
HIPC Health Information Policy
Council
HwHs Hospitals Within Hospitals
ICD–9–CM International Classification
of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
Clinical Modification (codes)
IME Indirect medical education
I–O Input-Output
IPF Inpatient psychiatric facility
IPPS Acute Care Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment System
IRF Inpatient rehabilitation facility
LOS Length of stay
LTC–DRG Long-term care diagnosisrelated group
LTCH Long-term care hospital
MCE Medicare code editor
MDC Major diagnostic categories
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission
MedPAR Medicare provider analysis
and review file
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108–173)
MSA Metropolitan statistical area
NCHS National Center for Health
Statistics
NECMA New England County
metropolitan area
OPM U.S. Office of Personnel
Management
O.R. Operating room
OSCAR Online Survey Certification
and Reporting (System)
PIP Periodic interim payment
PLI Professional liability insurance
PMSA Primary metropolitan statistical
area
PPI Producer Price Indexes
PPS Prospective payment system
QIO Quality Improvement
Organization (formerly Peer Review
organization (PRO))
RPL Rehabilitation psychiatric longterm care (hospital)
RTI Research Triangle Institute,
International
RY Rate year (July 1 through June 30)
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SSO Short-stay outlier
TEFRA Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L.
97–248)
UHDDS Uniform hospital discharge
data set
I. Background
[If you choose to comment on issues in
this section, please include the caption
‘‘BACKGROUND’’ at the beginning of
your comments.]
A. Legislative and Regulatory Authority
Section 123 of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP (State Children’s
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4650
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Health Insurance Program] Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA)
(Pub. L. 106–113) as amended by
section 307(b) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of
2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106–554) provide
for payment for both the operating and
capital-related costs of hospital
inpatient stays in long-term care
hospitals (LTCHs) under Medicare Part
A based on prospectively set rates. The
Medicare prospective payment system
(PPS) for LTCHs applies to hospitals
described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of
the Social Security Act (the Act),
effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2002.
Section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of the Act
defines a LTCH as ‘‘a hospital which has
an average inpatient length of stay (as
determined by the Secretary) of greater
than 25 days.’’ Section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II) of the Act also
provides an alternative definition of
LTCHs: specifically, a hospital that first
received payment under section 1886(d)
of the Act in 1986 and has an average
inpatient length of stay (LOS) (as
determined by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (the Secretary)) of
greater than 20 days and has 80 percent
or more of its annual Medicare inpatient
discharges with a principal diagnosis
that reflects a finding of neoplastic
disease in the 12-month cost reporting
period ending in FY 1997.
Section 123 of the BBRA requires the
PPS for LTCHs to be a per discharge
system with a diagnosis-related group
(DRG) based patient classification
system that reflects the differences in
patient resources and costs in LTCHs
while maintaining budget neutrality.
Section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, among
other things, mandates that the
Secretary shall examine, and may
provide for, adjustments to payments
under the LTCH PPS, including
adjustments to DRG weights, area wage
adjustments, geographic reclassification,
outliers, updates, and a disproportionate
share adjustment.
In a Federal Register document
issued on August 30, 2002, we
implemented the LTCH PPS authorized
under BBRA and BIPA (67 FR 55954).
This system uses information from
LTCH patient records to classify
patients into distinct long-term care
diagnosis-related groups (LTC-DRGs)
based on clinical characteristics and
expected resource needs. Payments are
calculated for each LTC-DRG and
provisions are made for appropriate
payment adjustments. Payment rates
under the LTCH PPS are updated
annually and published in the Federal
Register.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
The LTCH PPS replaced the
reasonable cost-based payment system
under the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA)
(Pub. L. 97–248) for payments for
inpatient services provided by a LTCH
with a cost reporting period beginning
on or after October 1, 2002. (The
regulations implementing the TEFRA
reasonable cost-based payment
provisions are located at 42 CFR Part
413.) With the implementation of the
PPS for acute care hospitals authorized
by the Social Security Amendments of
1983 (Pub. L. 98–21), which added
section 1886(d) to the Act, certain
hospitals, including LTCHs, were
excluded from the PPS for acute care
hospitals and were paid their reasonable
costs for inpatient services subject to a
per discharge limitation or target
amount under the TEFRA system. For
each cost reporting period, a hospitalspecific ceiling on payments was
determined by multiplying the
hospital’s updated target amount by the
number of total current year Medicare
discharges. The August 30, 2002 final
rule further details the payment policy
under the TEFRA system (67 FR 55954).
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we
also presented an in-depth discussion of
the LTCH PPS, including the patient
classification system, relative weights,
payment rates, additional payments,
and the budget neutrality requirements
mandated by section 123 of the BBRA.
The same final rule that established
regulations for the LTCH PPS under 42
CFR part 412, subpart O, also contained
LTCH provisions related to covered
inpatient services, limitation on charges
to beneficiaries, medical review
requirements, furnishing of inpatient
hospital services directly or under
arrangement, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. We refer
readers to the August 30, 2002 final rule
for a comprehensive discussion of the
research and data that supported the
establishment of the LTCH PPS (67 FR
55954).
On June 6, 2003, we published a final
rule in the Federal Register (68 FR
34122) that set forth the 2004 annual
update of the payment rates for the
Medicare PPS for inpatient hospital
services furnished by LTCHs. It also
changed the annual period for which
the payment rates are effective. The
annual updated rates are now effective
from July 1 through June 30 instead of
from October 1 through September 30.
We refer to the July through June time
period as a ‘‘long-term care hospital rate
year’’ (LTCH PPS rate year). In addition,
we changed the publication schedule for
the annual update to allow for an
effective date of July 1. The payment
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amounts and factors used to determine
the annual update of the LTCH PPS
Federal rate is based on a LTCH PPS
rate year. While the LTCH payment rate
update is effective July 1, the annual
update of the LTC–DRG classifications
and relative weights are linked to the
annual adjustments of the acute care
hospital inpatient DRGs and are
effective each October 1.
On May 6, 2005, we published the
Prospective Payment System for LongTerm Care Hospitals: Annual Payment
Rate Updates, Policy Changes, and
Clarifications final rule (70 FR 24168)
(hereinafter referred to as the RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule). In this rule, we
set forth the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year
annual update of the payment rates for
the Medicare PPS for inpatient hospital
services provided by LTCHs. We also
discussed clarification of the
notification policy for colocated LTCHs
and satellite facilities. The RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule also included a
provision to extend the surgical DRG
exception in the 3-day or less
interruption of stay policy at § 412.531
as well as a provision that clarified and
modified existing notification
requirements for the purpose of
implementing § 412.532.
B. Criteria for Classification as a LTCH
1. Classification as a LTCH
Under the existing regulations at
§ 412.23(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i), which
implement section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of
the Act, to qualify to be paid under the
LTCH PPS, a hospital must have a
provider agreement with Medicare and
must have an average Medicare
inpatient LOS of greater than 25 days.
Alternatively, § 412.23(e)(2)(ii) states
that for cost reporting periods beginning
on or after August 5, 1997, a hospital
that was first excluded from the PPS in
1986 and can demonstrate that at least
80 percent of its annual Medicare
inpatient discharges in the 12-month
cost reporting period ending in FY 1997
have a principal diagnosis that reflects
a finding of neoplastic disease must
have an average inpatient LOS for all
patients, including both Medicare and
non-Medicare inpatients, of greater than
20 days.
Section 412.23(e)(3) provides that,
subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(iv) of this
section, the average Medicare inpatient
LOS, specified under § 412.23(e)(2)(i) is
calculated by dividing the total number
of covered and noncovered days of stay
of Medicare inpatients (less leave or
pass days) by the number of total
Medicare discharges for the hospital’s
most recent complete cost reporting
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
period. Section 412.23 also provides
that subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(iv) of
this section, the average inpatient LOS
specified under § 412.23(e)(2)(ii) is
calculated by dividing the total number
of days for all patients, including both
Medicare and non-Medicare inpatients
(less leave or pass days) by the number
of total discharges for the hospital’s
most recent complete cost reporting
period.
In the RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule
(69 FR 25674), we specified the
procedure for calculating a hospital’s
inpatient average length of stay (ALOS)
for purposes of classification as a LTCH.
That is, if a patient’s stay includes days
of care furnished during two or more
separate consecutive cost reporting
periods, the total days of a patient’s stay
would be reported in the cost reporting
period during which the patient is
discharged (69 FR 25705). Therefore, we
revised the regulations at
§ 412.23(e)(3)(ii) to specify that,
effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after July 1, 2004, in
calculating a hospital’s ALOS, if the
days of an inpatient stay involve days of
care furnished during two or more
separate consecutive cost reporting
periods, the total number of days of the
stay are considered to have occurred in
the cost reporting period during which
the inpatient was discharged.
Fiscal intermediaries (FIs) verify that
LTCHs meet the ALOS requirements.
We note that the inpatient days of a
patient who is admitted to a LTCH
without any remaining Medicare days of
coverage, regardless of the fact that the
patient is a Medicare beneficiary, will
not be included in the above
calculation. Because Medicare would
not be paying for any of the patient’s
treatment, data on the patient’s stay
would not be included in the Medicare
claims processing systems. As described
in § 409.61, in order for both covered
and noncovered days of a LTCH
hospitalization to be included, a patient
admitted to the LTCH must have at least
one remaining benefit day (68 FR
34123).
The FI’s determination of whether or
not a hospital qualified as an LTCH is
based on the hospital’s discharge data
from the hospital’s most recent
complete cost reporting period
(§ 412.23(e)(3)) and is effective at the
start of the hospital’s next cost reporting
period (§ 412.22(d)). However, if the
hospital does not meet the ALOS
requirement as specified in
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i) and (ii), the hospital
may provide the intermediary with data
indicating a change in the ALOS by the
same method for the period of at least
5 months of the immediately preceding
6-month period (69 FR 25676). Our
interpretation of the current regulations
at § 412.23(e)(3) was to allow hospitals
to submit data using a period of at least
5 months of the most recent data from
the immediately preceding 6-month
period.
As we stated in the Inpatient
Prospective Payment System (IPPS)
final rule, published August 1, 2003,
prior to the implementation of the LTCH
PPS, we did rely on data from the most
recently submitted cost report for
purposes of calculating the ALOS. The
calculation to determine whether an
acute care hospital qualifies for LTCH
status was based on total days and
discharges for LTCH inpatients.
However, with the implementation of
the LTCH PPS, for the ALOS specified
under § 412.23(e)(2)(i), we revised
§ 412.23(e)(3)(i) to only count total days
and discharges for Medicare inpatients
(67 FR 55970 through 55974). In
addition, the ALOS specified under
§ 412.23(e)(2)(ii) is calculated by
dividing the total number of days for all
patients, including both Medicare and
non-Medicare inpatients (less leave or
pass days) by the number of total
discharges for the hospital’s most recent
complete cost reporting period. As we
discussed in the August 1, 2003 IPPS
final rule, we are unable to capture the
necessary data from our present cost
reporting forms. Therefore, we have
notified FIs and LTCHs that until the
cost reporting forms are revised, for
purposes of calculating the ALOS, we
4651
will be relying upon census data
extracted from Medicare Provider
Analysis and Review (MedPAR) files
that reflect each LTCH’s cost reporting
period (68 FR 45464). Requirements for
hospitals seeking classification as
LTCHs that have undergone a change in
ownership, as described in § 489.18, are
set forth in § 412.23(e)(3)(iv).
2. Hospitals Excluded From the LTCH
PPS
The following hospitals are paid
under special payment provisions, as
described in § 412.22(c) and, therefore,
are not subject to the LTCH PPS rules:
• Veterans Administration hospitals.
• Hospitals that are reimbursed under
State cost control systems approved
under 42 CFR part 403.
• Hospitals that are reimbursed in
accordance with demonstration projects
authorized under section 402(a) of the
Social Security Amendments of 1967
(Pub. L. 90–248) (42 U.S.C. 1395b–1) or
section 222(a) of the Social Security
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–603)
(42 U.S.C. 1395b–1 (note)) (Statewide
all-payer systems, subject to the rate-ofincrease test at section 1814(b) of the
Act).
• Nonparticipating hospitals
furnishing emergency services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
C. Transition Period for Implementation
of the LTCH PPS
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we
provided for a 5-year transition period
from reasonable cost-based
reimbursement to a full Federal
prospective payment based on 100
percent of the Federal rate for LTCHs
(67 FR 56038). However, existing LTCHs
and LTCHs that are not defined as new
in § 412.533(d) have the option to elect
to be paid based on 100 percent of the
Federal prospective payment. During
the 5-year period, two payment
percentages are to be used to determine
a LTCH’s total payment under the PPS.
The blend percentages are as shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
Prospective payment federal rate
percentage
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Cost reporting periods beginning on or after
October
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Reasonable costbased reimbursement rate
percentage
20
40
60
80
100
80
60
40
20
0
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4652
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
D. Limitation on Charges to
Beneficiaries
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we
presented an in-depth discussion of
beneficiary liability under the LTCH
PPS (67 FR 55974 through 55975). In the
RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule (69 FR
25676), we clarified that the discussion
of beneficiary liability in the August 30,
2002 final rule was not meant to
establish rates or payments for, or define
Medicare-eligible expenses. Under
§ 412.507, as consistent with other
established hospital prospective
payment systems, a LTCH may not bill
a Medicare beneficiary for more than the
deductible and coinsurance amounts as
specified under § 409.82, § 409.83, and
§ 409.87 and for items and services as
specified under § 489.30(a), if the
Medicare payment to the LTCH is the
full LTC–DRG payment amount.
However, under the LTCH PPS,
Medicare will only pay for days for
which the beneficiary has coverage until
the short-stay outlier (SSO) threshold is
exceeded. (See section V.A.1.a. of this
preamble.) Therefore, if the Medicare
payment was for a SSO case (§ 412.529)
that was less than the full LTC–DRG
payment amount because the
beneficiary had insufficient remaining
Medicare days, the LTCH could also
charge the beneficiary for services
delivered on those uncovered days
(§ 412.507).
E. Administrative Simplification
Compliance Act and Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act
Compliance
Claims submitted to Medicare must
comply with both the Administrative
Simplification Compliance Act (ASCA)
(Pub. L. 107–105), and Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) (Pub. L. 104–191). Section 3 of
ASCA requires the Medicare Program, to
deny payment under Part A or Part B for
any expenses for items or services ‘‘for
which a claim is submitted other than
in an electronic form specified by the
Secretary.’’ Section 1862(h) of the Act
(as added by section 3(a) of ASCA)
provides that the Secretary shall waive
such denial in two types of cases and
may also waive such denial ‘‘in such
unusual cases as the Secretary finds
appropriate.’’ (Also, see 68 FR 48805,
August 15, 2003, implementing section
3 of ASCA.) Section 3 of ASCA operates
in the context of the Administrative
Simplification provisions of HIPAA,
which include, among other provisions,
the transactions and code sets standards
requirements codified as 45 CFR parts
160 and 162, subparts A and I through
R (generally known as the Transactions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Rule). The Transactions Rule requires
covered entities, including covered
providers, to conduct covered electronic
transactions according to the applicable
transactions and code sets standards.
II. Summary of the Major Contents of
This Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, we are setting
forth the proposed annual update to the
payment rates for the Medicare LTCH
PPS, as well as, proposing other policy
changes. The following is a summary of
the major areas that we are addressing
in this proposed rule:
In section III of this preamble, we
discuss the LTCH PPS patient
classification and the relative weights
which remain linked to the annual
adjustments of the acute care hospital
inpatient DRG system, and are based on
the annual revisions to the International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth
Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD–9CM) codes effective each October 1.
In section IV.B. of this preamble, we
propose to adopt the ‘‘Rehabilitation,
Psychiatric, Long Term Care (RPL)’’
market basket under the LTCH PPS in
place of the excluded hospital with
capital market basket.
As discussed in section IV.C. of this
preamble, we are proposing a zero
percent update to the LTCH PPS Federal
rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
instead of the most recent estimate of
the LTCH PPS market basket.
Also in section IV.C. of this preamble,
we discuss the proposed prospective
payment rate for RY 2007, and in
section IV.D. we discuss the applicable
adjustments to the proposed payment
rates, including the proposed revisions
to the wage index, the proposed cost-ofliving adjustment factors, the proposed
outlier threshold, and the proposed
transition period budget neutrality
factor for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year.
We are also proposing revisions to the
cost-to-charge ratio and reconciliation
provisions as they apply to LTCH
outlier payment policies.
In section IV.D.1.c. of this preamble,
we also discuss our proposal to revise
the LTCH PPS labor-related share based
on RPL market basket. Also in section
IV.D. of this preamble, we are proposing
to postpone the deadline for making the
one-time prospective adjustment for the
Federal rate at § 412.523(d)(3).
In section V.A. of this preamble, we
are proposing to revise the existing
payment adjustment for SSO cases by
reducing the part of the current payment
formula that is based on costs and
adding a fourth component to the
current payment formula. Also in
section V.A. of this preamble, we are
proposing to sunset the surgical DRG
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exception to the payment policy
established under the 3-day or less
interruption of stay regulations at
§ 412.531(a)(1).
In section V.B. of this preamble, for
LTCH hospitals within hospitals
(HwHs) and LTCH satellites, we are
proposing to clarify at § 412.534(c) that
under the policy for adjusting the LTCH
PPS payment based on the amount that
would be determined under the IPPS
payment methodology, we calculate the
LTCH PPS payment amount that is
equivalent to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS. We are also
proposing to codify in regulations the
general formula we currently use to give
affect to the regulations as they pertain
to calculating an amount under subpart
O that is equivalent to an amount that
would be determined under § 412.1(a).
In section X. of this preamble, we will
discuss our on-going monitoring
protocols under the LTCH PPS.
In section XI of this preamble, we will
discuss the recommendations made by
the Research Triangle Institute,
International’s (RTI) evaluation of the
feasibility of adopting recommendations
made in the June 2004 MedPAC Report.
In section XIII of this preamble, we
analyze the impact of the proposed
changes presented in this proposed rule
on Medicare expenditures, Medicareparticipating LTCHs, and Medicare
beneficiaries.
In Appendix A of this proposed rule,
we present a description of a
preliminary model of an update
framework under the LTCH PPS that we
may propose to use in the future for
purposes of the annual updating of the
LTCH PPS Federal rate in future years.
III. Long-Term Care Diagnosis-Related
Group (LTC-DRG) Classifications and
Relative Weights
[If you choose to comment on issues in
this section, please include the caption
‘‘LTC–DRG CLASSIFICATIONS AND
RELATIVE WEIGHTS’’ at the beginning
of your comments.]
A. Background
Section 123 of the BBRA specifically
requires that the PPS for LTCHs be a per
discharge system with a DRG-based
patient classification system reflecting
the differences in patient resources and
costs in LTCHs while maintaining
budget neutrality. Section 307(b)(1) of
BIPA modified the requirements of
section 123 of the BBRA by specifically
requiring that the Secretary examine
‘‘the feasibility and the impact of basing
payment under such a system [the
LTCH PPS] on the use of existing (or
refined) hospital DRGs that have been
modified to account for different
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
resource use of LTCH patients as well as
the use of the most recently available
hospital discharge data.’’
In accordance with section 123 of the
BBRA as amended by section 307(b)(1)
of BIPA and § 412.515, we use
information derived from LTCH PPS
patient records to classify these cases
into distinct LTC–DRGs based on
clinical characteristics and estimated
resource needs. The LTC–DRGs used as
the patient classification component of
the LTCH PPS correspond to the
hospital inpatient DRGs in the IPPS. We
assign an appropriate weight to the
LTC–DRGs to account for the difference
in resource use by patients exhibiting
the case complexity and multiple
medical problems characteristic of
LTCHs.
In a departure from the IPPS, we use
low volume LTC–DRGs (less than 25
LTCH cases) in determining the LTC–
DRG weights, since LTCHs do not
typically treat the full range of
diagnoses as do acute care hospitals. In
order to manage the large number of low
volume DRGs (all DRGs with fewer than
25 cases), we group low volume DRGs
into 5 quintiles based on average charge
per discharge. (A listing of the current
composition of low volume quintiles
used in determining the FY 2006 LTC–
DRG relative weights appears in the FY
2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47329
through 47332).) We also account for
adjustments to payments for cases in
which the stay at the LTCH is less than
or equal to five-sixths of the geometric
ALOS and classify these cases as SSO
cases. (A detailed discussion of the
application of the Lewin Group model
that was used to develop the LTC–DRGs
appears in the August 30, 2002 LTCH
PPS final rule (67 FR 55978).)
B. Patient Classifications Into DRGs
Generally, under the LTCH PPS,
Medicare payment is made at a
predetermined specific rate for each
discharge; that payment varies by the
LTC–DRG to which a beneficiary’s stay
is assigned. Cases are classified into
LTC–DRGs for payment based on the
following six data elements:
(1) Principal diagnosis.
(2) Up to eight additional diagnoses.
(3) Up to six procedures performed.
(4) Age.
(5) Sex.
(6) Discharge status of the patient.
As indicated in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule, upon the discharge
of the patient from a LTCH, the LTCH
must assign appropriate diagnosis and
procedure codes from the most current
version of the ICD–9–CM. HIPAA
transactions and code sets standards
regulations (45 CFR parts 160 and 162)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
require that no later than October 16,
2003, all covered entities must comply
with the applicable requirements of
subparts A and I through R of part 162.
Among other requirements, those
provisions direct covered entities that
electronically transmit institutional
health care claim or equivalent
encounter information, for instance, to
use the ASC X12N 837 Health Care
Claim: Institutional, Volumes 1 and 2,
version 4010, and the applicable
standard medical data code sets. (See 45
CFR 162.1002 and 45 CFR 162.1102).
Medicare FIs enter the clinical and
demographic information into their
claims processing systems and subject
this information to a series of automated
screening processes called the Medicare
Code Editor (MCE). These screens are
designed to identify cases that require
further review before assignment into a
DRG can be made. During this process,
the following types of cases are selected
for further development:
• Cases that are improperly coded.
(For example, diagnoses are shown that
are inappropriate, given the sex of the
patient. Code 68.6, Radical abdominal
hysterectomy, would be an
inappropriate code for a male.)
• Cases including surgical procedures
not covered under Medicare. (For
example, organ transplant in a nonapproved transplant center.)
• Cases requiring more information.
(For example, ICD–9–CM codes are
required to be entered at their highest
level of specificity. There are valid 3digit, 4-digit, and 5-digit codes. That is,
code 262, Other severe protein-calorie
malnutrition, contains all appropriate
digits, but if it is reported with either
fewer or more than 3 digits, the claim
will be rejected by the MCE as invalid.)
• Cases with principal diagnoses that
do not usually justify admission to the
hospital. (For example, code 437.9,
unspecified cerebrovascular disease.
While this code is valid according to the
ICD–9–CM coding scheme, a more
precise code should be used for the
principal diagnosis.)
After screening through the MCE,
each claim will be classified into the
appropriate LTC–DRG by the Medicare
LTCH GROUPER software. As indicated
in August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final rule,
the Medicare GROUPER software,
which is used under the LTCH PPS, is
specialized computer software, and is
the same GROUPER software program
used under the IPPS. The GROUPER
software was developed as a means of
classifying each case into a DRG on the
basis of diagnosis and procedure codes
and other demographic information
(age, sex, and discharge status).
Following the LTC–DRG assignment,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4653
the Medicare FI determines the
prospective payment by using the
Medicare PRICER program, which
accounts for hospital-specific
adjustments. Under the LTCH PPS, we
provide an opportunity for the LTCH to
review the LTC–DRG assignments made
by the FI and to submit additional
information within a specified
timeframe as specified in § 412.513(c).
The GROUPER software is used both
to classify past cases in order to measure
relative hospital resource consumption
to establish the DRG weights and to
classify current cases for purposes of
determining payment. The records for
all Medicare hospital inpatient
discharges are maintained in the
MedPAR file. The data in this file are
used to evaluate possible DRG
classification changes and to recalibrate
the DRG weights during our annual
update under both the IPPS (§ 412.60(e))
and the LTCH PPS (§ 412.517). As
discussed in greater detail in sections
III.D. and E. of this preamble, with the
implementation of section 503(a) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108–173), there is
the possibility that one feature of the
GROUPER software program may be
updated twice during a Federal fiscal
year (FY) (October 1 and April 1) as
required by the statute for the IPPS (69
FR 48954 through 48957). Specifically,
as we discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule, ICD–9 diagnosis and
procedure codes for new medical
technology may be created and added to
existing DRGs in the middle of the
Federal FY on April 1 (70 FR 47323).
However, this policy change will have
no effect on the LTC–DRG relative
weights, which will continue to be
updated only once a year (October 1),
nor will there be any impact on
Medicare payments under the LTCH
PPS. The use of the ICD–9–CM code set
is also compliant with the current
requirements of the Transactions and
Code Sets Standards regulations at 45
CFR parts 160 and 162, published in
accordance with HIPAA.
C. Organization of DRGs
The DRGs are organized into 25 major
diagnostic categories (MDCs), most of
which are based on a particular organ
system of the body; the remainder
involve multiple organ systems (such as
MDC 22, Burns). Accordingly, the
principal diagnosis determines MDC
assignment. Within most MDCs, cases
are then divided into surgical DRGs and
medical DRGs. Surgical DRGs are
assigned based on a surgical hierarchy
that orders operating room (O.R.)
procedures or groups of O.R. procedures
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4654
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
by resource intensity. The GROUPER
software program does not recognize all
ICD–9–CM procedure codes as
procedures that affect DRG assignment,
that is, procedures which are not
surgical (for example, EKG), or minor
surgical procedures (for example, 86.11,
Biopsy of skin and subcutaneous tissue).
The medical DRGs are generally
differentiated on the basis of diagnosis.
Both medical and surgical DRGs may be
further differentiated based on age, sex,
discharge status, and presence or
absence of complications or
comorbidities (CC). We note that CCs
are defined by certain secondary
diagnoses not related to, or not
inherently a part of, the disease process
identified by the principal diagnosis.
(For example, the GROUPER software
would not recognize a code from the
800.0x series, Skull fracture, as a CC
when combined with principal
diagnosis 850.4, Concussion with
prolonged loss of consciousness,
without return to preexisting conscious
level.) In addition, we note that the
presence of additional diagnoses does
not automatically generate a CC, as not
all DRGs recognize a comorbid or
complicating condition in their
definition. (For example, DRG 466,
Aftercare without History of Malignancy
as Secondary Diagnosis, is based solely
on the principal diagnosis, without
consideration of additional diagnoses
for DRG determination.)
In its June 2000, Report to Congress,
MedPAC recommended that the
Secretary ‘‘* * * improve the hospital
inpatient prospective payment system
by adopting, as soon as practicable,
diagnosis-related group refinements that
more fully capture differences in
severity of illness among patients,’’
(Recommendation 3A, p. 63). In
response to that recommendation, we
determined at that time that it was not
practical to develop a refinement to
inpatient hospital DRGs based on
severity due to time and resource
requirements. However, this does not
preclude us from development of a
severity-adjusted DRG refinement in the
future. That is, a refinement to the list
of CCs could be incorporated into the
existing DRG structure. It is also
possible that a more comprehensive
severity adjusted structure may be
created if a new code set is adopted.
That is, if ICD–9–CM is replaced by
ICD–10–CM (for diagnostic coding) and
ICD–10–PCS (for procedure coding) or
by other code sets, a severity concept
may be built into the resulting DRG
assignments. Of course, any change to
the code set would be adopted through
the process established in the HIPAA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Administrative Simplification
Standards provisions.
In its March 2005 Report to Congress,
‘‘Physician-Owned Specialty
Hospitals,’’ MedPAC recommended that
the Secretary improve payment
accuracy in the hospital IPPS by, among
other things, ‘‘refining the current DRGs
to more fully capture differences in
severity of illness among patients.’’
(Recommendation 1, p. 93.) In the FY
2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47474
through 47479), we stated that we
expected to make changes to the DRGs
to better reflect severity of illness and
we indicated that we plan to conduct a
comprehensive review of the CCs list for
FY 2007. We also indicated that we are
considering the possibility of proposing
to use the All Patient Refined (APR)
DRGs under the IPPS for FY 2007. We
explained that we did not propose to
adopt the APR–DRGS under the IPPS for
FY 2006 because it would represent a
significant undertaking that could have
a substantial effect on all hospitals and
there was insufficient time to fully
analyze a change of that magnitude.
However, as an interim step to better
recognize severity in the DRG system for
FY 2006, until we can complete a more
comprehensive analysis of the APR–
DRG system and CC list as part of a
complete analysis of the MedPAC
recommendations that we plan to
perform over the next year, we
established cardiovascular DRGs 547
through 558 as described in the FY 2006
IPPS final rule (70 FR 47474 through
47478).
D. Update of LTC–DRGs
For FY 2006, the LTC–DRG patient
classification system was based on
LTCH data from the FY 2004 MedPAR
file, which contained hospital bills data
from the March 2005 update. The
patient classification system consists of
526 DRGs that formed the basis of the
FY 2006 LTCH PPS GROUPER program.
The 526 LTC–DRGs included two ‘‘error
DRGs.’’ As in the IPPS, we included two
error DRGs in which cases that cannot
be assigned to valid DRGs will be
grouped. These two error DRGs are DRG
469 (Principal Diagnosis Invalid as a
Discharge Diagnosis) and DRG 470
(Ungroupable). (See the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule (70 FR 47323 through 47341)).
The other 524 LTC–DRGs are the same
DRGs used in the IPPS GROUPER
program for FY 2006 (Version 23.0).
In the past, the annual update to the
CMS DRGs was based on the annual
revisions to the ICD–9–CM codes and
was effective each October 1. Recently,
the ICD–9–CM coding update process
was revised as discussed in greater
detail in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FR 48954 through 48957). Specifically,
section 503(a) of the MMA includes a
requirement for updating ICD–9–CM
codes twice a year instead of the current
process of annual updates on October 1
of each year. This requirement is
included as part of the amendments to
the Act relating to recognition of new
medical technology under the IPPS. (For
additional information on this
provision, including its implementation
and its impact on the LTCH PPS, refer
to the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR
48952 through 48957) and the RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR 24172
through 24177).)
As discussed in the RY 2006 LTCH
PPS final rule, with the implementation
of section 503(a) of the MMA, there is
the possibility that one feature of the
GROUPER software program may be
updated twice during a Federal FY
(October 1 and April 1) as required by
the statute for the IPPS (70 FR 24173
through 24175). Specifically, ICD–9–CM
diagnosis and procedure codes for new
medical technology may be created and
added to existing DRGs in the middle of
the Federal FY on April 1. No new LTC–
DRGs will be created or deleted.
Consistent with our current practice,
any changes to the DRGs or relative
weights will be made at the beginning
of the next Federal FY (October 1).
Therefore, there will not be any impact
on Medicare payments under the LTCH
PPS. The use of the ICD–9–CM code set
is also compliant with the current
requirements of the Transactions and
Code Sets Standards regulations at 45
CFR parts 160 and 162, issued under
HIPAA.
As we explained in the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule, in the health care industry,
historically annual changes to the ICD–
9–CM codes were effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1 each year (70 FR 47323). Thus, the
manual and electronic versions of the
GROUPER software, which are based on
the ICD–9–CM codes, were also revised
annually and effective for discharges
occurring on or after October 1 each
year. The patient classification system
used under the LTCH PPS (LTC–DRGs)
is based on the DRG patient
classification system used under the
IPPS, which historically had been
updated annually and effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1 through September 30 each year. As
we also mentioned, the ICD–9–CM
coding update process was revised as a
result of the implementation of section
503(a) of the MMA, which includes a
requirement for updating ICD–9–CM
codes as often as twice a year instead of
the current process of annual updates
on October 1 of each year. As discussed
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule, this
requirement is included as part of the
amendments to the Act relating to
recognition of new medical technology
under the IPPS (69 FR 48954 through
48957). Section 503(a) of the MMA
amended section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the
Act by adding a new paragraph (vii)
which states that ‘‘the Secretary shall
provide for the addition of new
diagnosis and procedure codes in [sic]
April 1 of each year, but the addition of
such codes shall not require the
Secretary to adjust the payment (or
diagnosis-related group classification)
* * * until the FY that begins after such
date.’’ This requirement will improve
the recognition of new technologies
under the IPPS by accounting for those
ICD–9–CM codes in the MedPAR claims
data at an earlier date.
Despite the fact that aspects of the
GROUPER software may be updated to
recognize any new technology ICD–9–
CM codes, there will be no impact on
either LTC–DRG assignments or
payments under the LTCH PPS at that
time. That is, changes to the LTC–DRGs
(such as the creation or deletion of LTC–
DRGs) and the relative weights will
continue to be updated in the manner
and timing (October 1) as they are now.
Updates to the GROUPER software for
both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS (for
relative weights and the creation or
deletion of DRGs) are made in the
annual IPPS proposed and final rules
and are effective each October 1. We
also explained that since we do not
publish a midyear IPPS rule, April 1
code updates will not be published in
a midyear IPPS rule. Rather, we will
assign any new diagnosis or procedure
codes to the same DRG in which its
predecessor code was assigned, so that
there will be no impact on the DRG
assignments. Any coding updates will
be available through the Web sites
provided in section III.E. of this
preamble and through the Coding Clinic
for ICD–9–CM. Publishers and software
vendors currently obtain code changes
through these sources in order to update
their code books and software system. If
new codes are implemented on April 1,
revised code books and software
systems, including the GROUPER
software program, will be necessary
because we must use current ICD–9–CM
codes. Therefore, for purposes of the
LTCH PPS, because each ICD–9–CM
code must be included in the GROUPER
algorithm to classify each case into a
LTC–DRG, the GROUPER software
program used under the LTCH PPS
would need to be revised to
accommodate any new codes.
In implementing section 503(a) of the
MMA, there will only be an April 1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
update if new technology codes are
requested and approved. We note that
any new codes created for April 1
implementation will be limited to those
diagnosis and procedure code revisions
primarily needed to describe new
technologies and medical services.
However, we reiterate that the process
of discussing updates to the ICD–9–CM
has been an open process through the
ICD–9–CM Coordination and
Maintenance Committee since 1995.
Requestors will be given the
opportunity to present the merits for a
new code and make a clear and
convincing case for the need to update
ICD–9–CM codes for purposes of the
IPPS new technology add-on payment
process through an April 1 update.
Discharges between October 1, 2005,
and September 30, 2006, (Federal FY
2006) are using Version 23.0 of the
GROUPER software for both the IPPS
and the LTCH PPS. Consistent with our
current practice, any changes to the
DRGs or relative weights will be made
at the beginning of the Federal FY
(October 1). We will notify LTCHs of
any revised LTC–DRG relative weights
based on the final DRGs and the
applicable version of the GROUPER
software program that will be effective
October 1, 2006, in the annual IPPS
proposed and final rules. At the
September 2005 ICD–9–CM
Coordination and Maintenance
Committee meeting, there were no
requests for an April 1, 2006
implementation of ICD–9–CM codes,
and therefore, the next update to the
ICD–9–CM coding system will not occur
until October 1, 2006 (FY 2007).
Presently, as there were no coding
changes suggested for an April 1, 2006
update, the ICD–9–CM coding set
implemented on October 1, 2005, will
continue through September 30, 2006
(FY 2006). The next update to the LTC–
DRGs and relative weights for FY 2007
will be presented in the FY 2007 IPPS
proposed and final rules. Furthermore,
we would notify LTCHs of any revisions
to the GROUPER software used under
the IPPS and LTCH PPS that would be
implemented April 1, 2007.
E. ICD–9–CM Coding System
1. Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set
(UHDDS) Definitions
Because the assignment of a case to a
particular LTC–DRG will help
determine the amount that will be paid
for the case, it is important that the
coding is accurate. Classifications and
terminology used in the LTCH PPS are
consistent with the ICD–9–CM and the
UHDDS, as recommended to the
Secretary by the National Committee on
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4655
Vital and Health Statistics (‘‘Uniform
Hospital Discharge Data: Minimum Data
Set, National Center for Health
Statistics, April 1980’’) and as revised in
1984 by the Health Information Policy
Council (HIPC) of HHS.
We note that the ICD–9–CM coding
terminology and the definitions of
principal and other diagnoses of the
UHDDS are consistent with the
requirements of the HIPAA
Administrative Simplification Act of
1996 (45 CFR part 162). Furthermore,
the UHDDS was used as a standard for
the development of policies and
programs related to hospital discharge
statistics by both governmental and
nongovernmental sectors for over 30
years. In addition, the following
definitions (as described in the 1984
Revision of the UHDDS, approved by
the Secretary for use starting January
1986) are requirements of the ICD–9–
CM coding system, and have been used
as a standard for the development of the
CMS DRGs:
• Diagnoses are defined to include all
diagnoses that affect the current hospital
stay.
• Principal diagnosis is defined as the
condition established after study to be
chiefly responsible for occasioning the
admission of the patient to the hospital
for care.
• Other diagnoses (also called
secondary diagnoses or additional
diagnoses) are defined as all conditions
that coexist at the time of admission,
that develop subsequently, or that affect
the treatment received or the LOS or
both. Diagnoses that relate to an earlier
episode of care that have no bearing on
the current hospital stay are excluded.
• All procedures performed will be
reported. This includes those that are
surgical in nature, carry a procedural
risk, carry an anesthetic risk, or require
specialized training.
We provide LTCHs with a 60-day
window after the date of the notice of
the initial LTC–DRG assignment to
request review of that assignment.
Additional information may be
provided by the LTCH to the FI as part
of that review.
2. Maintenance of the ICD–9–CM
Coding System
The ICD–9–CM Coordination and
Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a
Federal interdepartmental committee,
co-chaired by the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) and CMS, that
is charged with maintaining and
updating the ICD–9–CM system. The
C&M Committee is jointly responsible
for approving coding changes, and
developing errata, addenda, and other
modifications to the ICD–9–CM to
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4656
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
reflect newly developed procedures and
technologies and newly identified
diseases. The C&M Committee is also
responsible for promoting the use of
Federal and non-Federal educational
programs and other communication
techniques with a view toward
standardizing coding applications and
upgrading the quality of the
classification system.
The NCHS has lead responsibility for
the ICD–9–CM diagnosis codes included
in the Tabular List and Alphabetic
Index for Diseases, while we have the
lead responsibility for the ICD–9–CM
procedure codes included in the
Tabular List and Alphabetic Index for
Procedures. The C&M Committee
encourages participation by healthrelated organizations in this process and
holds public meetings for discussion of
educational issues and proposed coding
changes twice a year at the CMS Central
Office located in Baltimore, Maryland.
The agenda and dates of the meetings
can be accessed on our Web site at:
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes.
As discussed previously in this
section of the preamble, section 503(a)
of the MMA includes a requirement for
updating ICD–9–CM codes twice a year
instead of the current process of annual
updates on October 1 of each year. This
requirement will improve the
recognition of new technologies under
the IPPS by accounting for them in the
GROUPER software at an earlier date.
Because this new statutory requirement
could have a significant impact on
health care providers, coding staff,
publishers, system maintainers, and
software systems, among others, we
solicited comments on our proposed
provisions to implement this
requirement as part of the FY 2005 IPPS
proposed rule (69 FR 28220 through
28221). We responded to comments and
published our new policy regarding the
updating of ICD–9–CM codes in the FY
2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 48954
through 48957).
While this new requirement states
that the Secretary shall not adjust the
payment of the DRG classification for
any codes created for use on April 1,
DRG software and other systems will
have to be updated in order to recognize
and accept the new codes. If any coding
changes were implemented on April 1,
the Medicare GROUPER software
program used under both the IPPS and
the LTCH PPS would need to be revised
to reflect the new ICD–9–CM codes
because the LTC–DRGs are the same
DRGs used under the IPPS.
Furthermore, although the GROUPER
software used under both the IPPS and
the LTCH PPS would need to be revised
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
to accommodate the new codes effective
April 1, there would be no additions or
deletions of DRGs nor would the
relative weights used under the IPPS
and the LTCH PPS, respectively, be
changed until the annual update
October 1 (to the extent that those
changes are warranted), just as they are
historically updated. As the LTCH PPS
is based on the IPPS, we adopted the
same approach used under the IPPS for
potential April 1 ICD–9–CM coding
changes. That is, we will assign any new
diagnosis codes or procedure codes to
the same DRG in which its predecessor
code was assigned, so there will be no
DRG impact in terms of potential DRG
assignment until the following October
1. We will maintain the current method
of publicizing any new code changes, as
noted below. Current addendum and
code title information is published on
the CMS Web page at: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9Provider
DiagnosticCodes/04_addendum.asp.
Summary tables showing new, revised,
and deleted code titles are also posted
on the following CMS Web page:
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/
07_summarytables.asp. Information on
ICD–9–CM diagnosis codes can be
found at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/.
Information on new, revised, and
deleted ICD–9–CM codes is also
available in the American Hospital
Association (AHA) publication Coding
Clinic for ICD–9–CM. AHA also
distributes information to publishers
and software vendors. We also send
copies of all ICD–9–CM coding changes
to our contractors for use in updating
their systems and providing education
to providers.
If the April 1 changes are made to
ICD–9–CM diagnosis or procedure
codes, LTCHs will be required to obtain
the new codes, coding books, or encoder
updates, and make other system changes
in order to capture and report the new
codes. When we implemented section
503(a) of the MMA in the FY 2005 IPPS
final rule, we indicated that we were
aware of the additional burden this will
have on health care providers.
It should be noted that any new codes
created for April 1 implementation will
be limited to those diagnosis and
procedure code revisions primarily
needed to describe new technologies
and medical services. However, we
reiterate that the process for discussing
updates to the ICD–9–CM has been an
open process through the ICD–9–CM
C&M Committee since 1995. Any
requestor who makes a clear and
convincing case for the need to update
ICD–9–CM codes for purposes of the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IPPS new technology add-on payment
process through an April 1 update will
be given the opportunity to present the
merits of their proposed new code.
At the September 2005 C&M
Committee meeting, no new codes were
proposed for update on April 1, 2006.
While no DRG additions or deletions or
changes to relative weights will occur
prior to the usual October 1 update, in
the event any new codes were created
to describe new technologies and
medical services through an April 1,
2006 update, under our policy
established in the RY 2006 final rule (70
FR 24176), LTCH systems would be
expected to recognize and report those
new codes through the channels as
described in this section.
The ICD–9–CM coding changes that
have been adopted by the C&M
Committee would become effective
either at the beginning of each Federal
FY (October 1) or, in the case of codes
created to capture new technology,
April 1 of each year. Coders will be
expected to use the most current ICD–
9–CM codes, as updated. Because we do
not publish a mid-year IPPS rule, the
currently accepted avenues of
information dissemination will be used
to inform all ICD–9–CM code users of
any changes to the coding system. These
avenues were described in section III.D.
of this preamble and were discussed at
length in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69
FR 48956). Coders in LTCHs using the
updated ICD–9–CM coding system will
be on the same schedule as the rest of
the health care industry. In the past, the
updated ICD–9–CM was not available
for use until October 1 of each year.
Therefore, because the LTCH PPS and
the IPPS use the same GROUPER
software, the LTCH PPS will be directly
affected by the statutory mandates
directed at the IPPS as amended by
section 503(a) of the MMA. (We note
that there is no statutory requirement in
the LTCH PPS to make additional
payments for new technology.) The
practical effect of this provision is that
the GROUPER software must accept
new ICD–9–CM codes reflecting the
incorporation of new technologies into
inpatient treatment at an acute care
hospital prior to the scheduled annual
update of the GROUPER software.
Despite the fact that there are no
provisions for additional payments for
new technology under the LTCH PPS as
there are under the IPPS, statutory
compliance requires an alteration of the
GROUPER software used under the
IPPS, and since the LTCH PPS uses the
same GROUPER software that is used
under the IPPS, this consequently
means that the GROUPER software used
under the LTCH PPS would change.’’
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
While DRG assignments would not
change from October 1 through
September 30, it is possible that there
could be additional new ICD–9–CM
diagnosis and procedure codes during
that time, which would be assigned to
predecessor DRGs. For both the IPPS
and LTCH coders, it is possible that
there will be ICD–9–CM codes in effect
from October 1 through March 31, with
additional ICD–9–CM codes in effect
from April 1 through September 30.
Presently, as there were no coding
changes suggested for an April 1, 2006
update, the ICD–9–CM coding set
implemented on October 1, 2005, will
continue through September 30, 2006
(FY 2006).
Of particular note to LTCHs are the
invalid diagnosis codes (Table 6C) and
the invalid procedure codes (Table 6D)
located in the annual proposed and final
rules for the IPPS. Claims with invalid
codes are not processed by the Medicare
claims processing system.
3. Coding Rules and Use of ICD–9–CM
Codes in LTCHs
We emphasize the need for proper
coding by LTCHs. Inappropriate coding
of cases can adversely affect the
uniformity of cases in each LTC–DRG
and produce inappropriate weighting
factors at recalibration. We continue to
urge LTCHs to focus on improved
coding practices. Because of concerns
raised by LTCHs concerning correct
coding, we have asked the AHA to
provide additional clarification or
instruction on proper coding in the
LTCH setting. The AHA will provide
this instruction via their established
process of addressing questions through
their publication ‘‘Coding Clinic for
ICD–9–CM.’’ Written questions or
requests for clarification may be
addressed to the Central Office on ICD–
9–CM, American Hospital Association,
One North Franklin, Chicago, IL 60606.
A form for question(s) is available for
download and can be mailed on AHA’s
Web site at: www.ahacentraloffice.org.
In addition, current coding guidelines
are available at the NCHS Web site:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/
ftpserv/ftpicd9/ftpicd9.htm#conv.
In conjunction with the cooperating
parties (AHA, the American Health
Information Management Association
(AHIMA), and NCHS), we reviewed
actual medical records and are
concerned about the quality of the
documentation under the LTCH PPS, as
was the case at the beginning of the
IPPS. We fully believe that, with
experience, the quality of the
documentation and coding will
improve, as it did for the IPPS. The
cooperating parties have plans to assist
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
their members with improvement in
documentation and coding issues for the
LTCHs through specific questions and
coding guidelines. The importance of
good documentation is emphasized in
the revised ICD–9–CM Official
Guidelines for Coding and Reporting:
‘‘A joint effort between the attending
physician and coder is essential to
achieve complete and accurate
documentation, code assignment, and
reporting of diagnoses and procedures.
The importance of consistent, complete
documentation in the medical record
cannot be overemphasized. Without this
documentation, the application of all
coding guidelines is a difficult, if not
impossible, task.’’ (Coding Clinic for
ICD–9–CM, Fourth Quarter 2002, page
115)
To improve medical record
documentation, LTCHs should be aware
that if the patient is being admitted for
continuation of treatment of an acute or
chronic condition, guidelines at Section
I.B.10 of the Coding Clinic for ICD–9–
CM, Fourth Quarter 2002 (page 129) are
applicable concerning selection of
principal diagnosis. To clarify coding
advice issued in the August 30, 2002
final rule (67 FR 55979), at Guideline
I.B.12, Late Effects, we state that a late
effect is considered to be the residual
effect (condition produced) after the
acute phase of an illness or injury has
terminated (Coding Clinic for ICD–9–
CM, Fourth Quarter 2002, page 129).
Regarding whether a LTCH should
report the ICD–9–CM code(s) for an
unresolved acute condition instead of
the code(s) for late effect of
rehabilitation, we emphasize that each
case must be evaluated on its unique
circumstances and coded appropriately.
Depending on the documentation in the
medical record, either a code reflecting
the acute condition or rehabilitation
could be appropriate in a LTCH.
Since implementation of the LTCH
PPS, our Medicare FIs have conducted
training and provided assistance to
LTCHs in correct coding. We have also
issued manuals containing procedures
as well as coding instructions to LTCHs
and FIs. We will continue to conduct
training and provide guidance on an asneeded basis. We also refer readers to
the detailed discussion on correct
coding practices in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule (67 FR 55981
through 55983). Additional coding
instructions and examples will be
published in Coding Clinic for ICD–9–
CM.
F. Method for Updating the LTC–DRG
Relative Weights
As discussed in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule that implemented
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4657
the LTCH PPS, under the LTCH PPS,
each LTCH will receive a payment that
represents an appropriate amount for
the efficient delivery of care to Medicare
patients (67 FR 55984). The system must
be able to account adequately for each
LTCH’s case-mix in order to ensure both
a fair distribution of Medicare payments
and access to adequate care for those
Medicare patients whose care is more
costly. Therefore, in § 412.523(c), we
adjust the standard Federal PPS rate by
the LTC–DRG relative weights in
determining payment to LTCHs for each
case.
Under this payment system, relative
weights for each LTC–DRG are a
primary element used to account for the
variations in cost per discharge and
resource utilization among the payment
groups as described in § 412.515. To
ensure that Medicare patients who are
classified to each LTC–DRG have access
to an appropriate level of services and
to encourage efficiency, we calculate a
relative weight for each LTC–DRG that
represents the resources needed by an
average inpatient LTCH case in that
LTC–DRG. For example, cases in a LTC–
DRG with a relative weight of 2 will, on
average, cost twice as much as cases in
a LTC–DRG with a weight of 1.
As we discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule, the LTC–DRG relative weights
effective under the LTCH PPS for
Federal FY 2006 were calculated using
the March 2005 update of FY 2004
MedPAR data and Version 23.0 of the
GROUPER software (70 FR 47325). We
use total days and total charges in the
calculation of the LTC–DRG relative
weights.
By nature, LTCHs often specialize in
certain areas, such as ventilatordependent patients and rehabilitation
and wound care. Some case types
(DRGs) may be treated, to a large extent,
in hospitals that have, from a
perspective of charges, relatively high
(or low) charges. Distribution of cases
with relatively high (or low) charges in
specific LTC–DRGs has the potential to
inappropriately distort the measure of
average charges. To account for the fact
that cases may not be randomly
distributed across LTCHs, we use a
hospital-specific relative value method
to calculate relative weights. We believe
this method removes this hospitalspecific source of bias in measuring
average charges. Specifically, we reduce
the impact of the variation in charges
across providers on any particular LTC–
DRG relative weight by converting each
LTCH’s charge for a case to a relative
value based on that LTCH’s average
charge. (See the FY 2006 IPPS final rule
for further information on the hospital-
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4658
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
specific relative value methodology (70
FR 47328 through 47329).)
In order to account for LTC–DRGs
with low volume (that is, with fewer
than 25 LTCH cases), we grouped those
low volume LTC–DRGs into 1 of 5
categories (quintiles) based on average
charges, for the purposes of determining
relative weights. For FY 2006 based on
the FY 2004 MedPAR data, we
identified 171 LTC–DRGs that contained
between 1 and 24 cases. This list of low
volume LTC–DRGs was then divided
into 1 of the 5 low volume quintiles,
each containing a minimum of 34 LTC–
DRGs (171/5 = 34 with 1 LTC–DRG as
a remainder). Each of the low volume
LTC–DRGs grouped to a specific
quintile received the same relative
weight and ALOS using the formula
applied to the regular LTC–DRGs (25 or
more cases). (See the FY 2006 IPPS final
rule for further explanation of the
development and composition of each
of the 5 low volume quintiles for FY
2006 (70 FR 47329 through 47332).)
After grouping the cases in the
appropriate LTC–DRG, we calculated
the relative weights by first removing
statistical outliers and cases with a LOS
of 7 days or less. Next, we adjusted the
number of cases remaining in each
LTC–DRG for the effect of short-stay
outlier cases under § 412.529. The shortstay adjusted discharges and
corresponding charges were used to
calculate ‘‘relative adjusted weights’’ in
each LTC–DRG using the hospitalspecific relative value method. We also
adjusted the LTC–DRG relative weights
to account for nonmonotonically
increasing relative weights. That is, we
made an adjustment if cases classified to
the LTC–DRG ‘‘with complications or
comorbidities (CCs)’’ of a ‘‘with CC’’/
‘‘without CC’’ pair had a lower average
charge than the corresponding LTC–
DRG ‘‘without CCs’’ by assigning the
same weight to both LTC–DRGs in the
‘‘with CC’’/‘‘without CC’’ pair. (See the
FY 2006 IPPS final rule for further
details on the steps for calculating the
LTC–DRG relative weights (70 FR 47336
through 47341).)
In addition, of the 526 LTC–DRGs in
the LTCH PPS for FY 2006, based on
LTCH cases in the FY 2004 MedPAR
files, we identified 196 LTC–DRGs for
which there were no LTCH cases in the
database. That is, no patients who
would have been classified to those
DRGs were treated in LTCHs during FY
2004 and, therefore, no charge data were
reported for those DRGs. Thus, in the
process of determining the relative
weights of LTC–DRGs, we were unable
to determine weights for these 196 LTC–
DRGs using the method described in
this section of the preamble. However,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
since patients with a number of the
diagnoses under these LTC–DRGs may
be treated at LTCHs beginning in FY
2006, we assigned relative weights to
each of the 196 ‘‘no volume’’ LTC–DRGs
based on clinical similarity and relative
costliness to one of the remaining 330
(526 ¥ 196 = 330) LTC–DRGs for which
we were able to determine relative
weights, based on the FY 2004 claims
data. (A list of the current no-volume
LTC–DRGs and further explanation of
their FY 2006 relative weight
assignment can be found in the FY 2006
IPPS final rule (70 FR 47337 through
47341).)
Furthermore, for FY 2006, we
established LTC–DRG relative weights
of 0.0000 for heart, kidney, liver, lung,
and simultaneous pancreas/kidney
transplants (LTC–DRGs 103, 302, 480,
495, 512 and 513, respectively) because
Medicare will only cover these
procedures if they are performed at a
hospital that has been certified for the
specific procedures by Medicare and
presently no LTCH has been so certified.
If in the future, however, a LTCH
applies for certification as a Medicareapproved transplant center, we believe
that the application and approval
procedure would allow sufficient time
for us to propose appropriate weights
for the LTC–DRGs affected. At the
present time, we included these 6
transplant LTC–DRGs in the GROUPER
software program for administrative
purposes. As the LTCH PPS uses the
same GROUPER software program for
LTCHs as is used under the IPPS,
removing these DRGs would be
administratively burdensome.
As we noted previously, there were
no new ICD–9–CM code requests for an
April 1, 2006 update. Therefore, Version
23.0 of the DRG GROUPER software
established in the FY 2006 IPPS final
rule (70 FR 47284 through 47322) will
continue to be effective until October 1,
2006. Moreover, the LTC–DRGs and
relative weights for FY 2006 established
in that same IPPS final rule (70 FR
47681 through 47689) will continue to
be effective until October 1, 2006, (just
as they would have been even if there
had been any new ICD–9–CM code
requests for an April 1, 2006 update).
Accordingly, Table 3 in the Addendum
to this proposed rule lists the LTC–
DRGs and their respective relative
weights, geometric mean LOS, and fivesixths of the geometric mean LOS that
we will continue to use for the period
of July 1, 2006 through September 30,
2006. (This table is the same as table 11
of the Addendum to the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule (70 FR 47681 through 47689).
The next update to the ICD–9–CM
coding system will be presented in the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FY 2007 IPPS proposed rule (since there
will be no April 1, 2006 updates to the
ICD–9–CM coding system). The final
update to the ICD–9–CM coding system
that would become effective October 1,
2006, and the final DRGs and GROUPER
for FY 2007 that would be used for the
IPPS and the LTCH PPS, effective
October 1, 2006, will be presented in the
IPPS FY 2007 proposed and final rule in
the Federal Register. At that time, we
will also present the next annual update
to the LTC–DRG relative weights based
on the final DRGs and GROUPER
software version that will be established
for FY 2007.
IV. Proposed Changes to the LTCH PPS
Payment Rates for the 2007 LTCH PPS
Rate Year
[If you choose to comment on issues in
this section, please include the caption
‘‘PROPOSED CHANGES TO LTCH PPS
PAYMENT RATES FOR THE 2007
LTCH PPS RATE YEAR’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
A. Overview of the Development of the
Payment Rates
The LTCH PPS was effective for a
LTCH’s first cost reporting period
beginning on or after October 1, 2002.
Effective with that cost reporting period,
LTCHs are paid, during a 5-year
transition period, on the basis of an
increasing proportion of the LTCH PPS
Federal rate and a decreasing proportion
of a hospital’s payment under the
reasonable cost-based payment system,
unless the hospital makes a one-time
election to receive payment based on
100 percent of the Federal rate (see
§ 412.533). New LTCHs (as defined at
§ 412.23(e)(4)) are paid based on 100
percent of the Federal rate, with no
phase-in transition payments.
The basic methodology for
determining LTCH PPS Federal
prospective payment rates is set forth in
the regulations at § 412.515 through
§ 412.532. Below we discuss the
proposed factors that will be used to
update the LTCH PPS standard Federal
rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
that would be effective for LTCHs
discharges occurring on or after July 1,
2006 through June 30, 2007. When we
implemented the LTCH PPS in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56029
through 56031), we computed the LTCH
PPS standard Federal payment rate for
FY 2003 by updating the best available
(FY 1998 or FY 1999) Medicare
inpatient operating and capital costs per
case data, using the excluded hospital
market basket.
Section 123(a)(1) of the BBRA
requires that the PPS developed for
LTCHs be budget neutral. Therefore, in
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
calculating the standard Federal rate
under § 412.523(d)(2), we set total
estimated LTCH PPS payments equal to
estimated payments that would have
been made under the reasonable costbased payment methodology had the
PPS for LTCHs not been implemented.
Section 307(a) of BIPA specified that the
increases to the hospital-specific target
amounts and cap on the target amounts
for LTCHs for FY 2002 provided for by
section 307(a)(1) of BIPA shall not be
taken into account in the development
and implementation of the LTCH PPS.
Furthermore, as specified at
§ 412.523(d)(1), the standard Federal
rate is reduced by an adjustment factor
to account for the estimated proportion
of outlier payments under the LTCH
PPS to total estimated LTCH PPS
payments (8 percent). For further details
on the development of the FY 2003
standard Federal rate, see the August 30,
2002 LTCH PPS final rule (67 FR 56027
through 56037), and for subsequent
updates to the LTCH PPS Federal rate,
refer to the following final rules: RY
2004 LTCH PPS final rule (68 FR 34134
through 34140), RY 2005 LTCH PPS
final rule (69 FR 25682 through 25684),
and RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70
FR 24179 through 24180).
B. Proposed LTCH PPS Market Basket
Historically, the Medicare program
used a market basket to account for
price increases of the services furnished
by providers. The market basket used
for the LTCH PPS includes both
operating and capital-related costs of
LTCHs because the LTCH PPS uses a
single payment rate for both operating
and capital-related costs. The
development of the LTCH PPS standard
Federal rate is discussed in further
detail in the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS
final rule (67 FR 56027 through 56033).
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67
FR 56016 through 56017 and 56030),
which implemented the LTCH PPS, we
established the use of the excluded
hospital with capital market basket as
the LTCH PPS market basket. The
excluded hospital market basket was
used to update the limits on LTCHs’
operating costs for inflation under the
former reasonable cost-based (TEFRA)
payment system. We explained in that
same final rule that we believe that the
use of the excluded hospital market
basket to update LTCHs’ costs for
inflation was appropriate because the
excluded hospital market basket (with a
capital component) measures price
increases of the services furnished by
excluded hospitals, including LTCHs.
Since the costs of LTCHs are included
in the excluded hospital market basket,
this market basket index, in part, also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
reflects the costs of LTCHs. However, in
order to capture the total costs
(operating and capital-related) of
LTCHs, we added a capital component
to the excluded hospital market basket
for use under the LTCH PPS. We refer
to this index as the ‘‘Excluded Hospital
with Capital’’ market basket. Currently,
the excluded hospital with capital
market basket used to update LTCH PPS
payments is based on 1997 Medicare
cost report data and includes Medicare
participating psychiatric, rehabilitation,
long term care, cancer, and childrens
hospitals (68 FR 34137). (For further
details on the development of the FY
1997-based LTCH PPS market basket,
see the RY 2004 LTCH PPS final rule (68
FR 34134 through 34137)).
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24179), we noted that based on
our research, we did not develop a
market basket specific to LTCH services.
Presently, we are still unable to create
a separate market basket specifically for
LTCHs due to the small number of
facilities and the limited data that are
provided (for instance, approximately
15 percent of LTCHs reported contract
labor cost data for 2002). We noted in
that same final rule that we would
discuss the use of the ‘‘Rehabilitation,
Psychiatric and Long-Term Care (RPL)
market basket’’ under the LTCH PPS,
which is currently used under the IRF
PPS. The RPL market basket is based on
the operating and capital costs of
inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs),
inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs)
and LTCHs. Since all IRFs are now paid
under the IRF PPS Federal payment
rate, nearly all LTCHs are paid 100
percent of the Federal rate under the
LTCH PPS, and most IPFs are
transitioning to payment based on 100
percent of the Federal per diem
payment amount under the IPF PPS
(payments will be based on 100 percent
of the Federal rate for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after January 1,
2008), under broad authority conferred
upon the Secretary by section 123 of the
BBRA as amended by section 307(b) of
BIPA to develop the LTCH PPS, we are
proposing to adopt the RPL market
basket as the appropriate market basket
of goods and services under the LTCH
PPS for discharges occurring on or after
July 1, 2006. The RPL market basket
would reflect the operating and capital
cost structures for these hospitals.
Specifically, beginning in the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, we are proposing
to adopt under the LTCH PPS the RPL
market basket based on FY 2002 cost
report data as it is the best available
data. We choose to use the FY 2002
Medicare cost reports because these are
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4659
the most recent, relatively complete cost
data for IRFs, IPF, and LTCHs serving
Medicare beneficiaries.
We propose to exclude childrens,
cancer hospitals, and religious
nonmedical healthcare institutions
(RNHCIs) from the RPL market basket
because their payments are based
entirely on reasonable costs subject to
rate-of-increase limits established under
the authority of section 1886(b) of the
Act, and implemented in § 413.40.
Childrens and cancer hospitals are not
reimbursed under a PPS. Also, based on
FY 2002 data, the cost structures for
childrens and cancer hospitals are
noticeably different than the cost
structures of the IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs.
The services offered in IRFs, IPFs, and
LTCHs are typically more laborintensive than those offered in cancer
and childrens hospitals. Therefore, the
compensation cost weights for IRFs,
IPFs, and LTCHs are larger than those in
cancer and childrens hospitals. In
addition, the depreciation cost weights
for IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs are noticeably
smaller than those for childrens and
cancer hospitals.
Therefore, including the fact that
IRFs, IPFs and LTCHs are subject to a
PPS while childrens, cancer and
RNCHIs continue to receive payment
based on reasonable costs, we believe a
market basket based on the data of IRFs,
IPFs and LTCHs is appropriate to use
under the LTCH PPS since it is the best
available data that would reflect the cost
structures of LTCHs. In the following
discussion we provide a background on
market baskets and describe the
methodologies we propose to use under
broad authority conferred upon the
Secretary by section 123 of the BBRA as
amended by section 307(b) of BIPA to
develop the LTCH PPS for purposes of
determining the operating and capital
portions of the FY 2002-based RPL
market basket.
1. Overview of the RPL Market Basket
The proposed RPL market basket is a
fixed weight, Laspeyres-type price index
that is constructed in three steps. First,
a base period is selected (in this case,
FY 2002) and total base period
expenditures are estimated for a set of
mutually exclusive and exhaustive
spending categories based upon type of
expenditure. Then the proportion of
total operating costs that each category
represents is determined. These
proportions are called cost or
expenditure weights. Second, each
expenditure category is matched to an
appropriate price or wage variable,
referred to as a price proxy. In nearly
every instance, these price proxies are
price levels derived from publicly
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4660
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
available statistical series that are
published on a consistent schedule,
preferably at least on a quarterly basis.
Finally, the expenditure weight for each
cost category is multiplied by the level
of its respective price proxy for a given
period. The sum of these products (that
is, the expenditure weights multiplied
by their price levels) for all cost
categories yields the composite index
level of the market basket in a given
period. Repeating this step for other
periods produces a series of market
basket levels over time. Dividing an
index level for a given period by an
index level for an earlier period
produces a rate of growth in the input
price index over that time period.
A market basket is described as a
fixed-weight index because it quantifies
the cost, at another time, to purchase the
same mix of goods and services
purchased to provide hospital services
in a base period. The effects on total
expenditures resulting from changes in
the quantity or mix of goods and
services (intensity) purchased
subsequent to the base period are not
measured. In this manner, the market
basket measures only pure price change.
Only when the index is rebased would
the quantity and intensity effects be
captured in the cost weights. Therefore,
we rebase the market basket periodically
so that cost weights reflect changes in
the mix of goods and services that
hospitals purchase (hospital inputs) to
furnish patient care between base
periods.
The terms rebasing and revising,
while often used interchangeably,
actually denote different activities.
Rebasing means moving the base year
for the structure of costs of an input
price index (for example, shifting the
base year cost structure from FY 1997 to
FY 2002). Revising means changing data
sources, methodology, or price proxies
used in the input price index. In this
proposed rule, we are proposing to
rebase and revise the market basket used
to update the LTCH PPS. Specifically, as
noted above in this section, for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, we are proposing
to use the FY 2002-based RPL market
basket, which is described in greater
detail below in this section.
2. Proposed Methodology for Operating
Portion of the RPL Market Basket
The proposed operating portion of the
FY 2002-based RPL market basket
consists of several major cost categories
derived from the FY 2002 Medicare cost
reports for IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs. We
choose to use the FY 2002 Medicare cost
reports because these are the most
recent, relatively complete cost data for
IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs serving Medicare
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
beneficiaries. Generally, if detailed cost
data are not available for these Medicare
cost reports, we prefer to use the PPS
hospital (IPPS) Medicare cost reports to
supplement IPF, IRF, and LTCH data
because this is a comprehensive source
of cost data for hospitals serving
Medicare beneficiaries. When the IPPS
Medicare cost report data are not
available, we choose the best publicly
available data source, such as the
Bureau of Economic Analysis InputOutput Tables.
We use the IRF, IPF, and LTCH
Medicare cost reports to derive these
major cost categories for the RPL market
basket which include wages, drugs,
professional liability insurance (PLI),
and a residual ‘‘all other.’’ As stated
above in this section, we propose to use
FY 2002 as the base year because we
believe this is the most recent, relatively
complete year of Medicare cost report
data. Due to insufficient Medicare cost
report data for IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs,
we propose to develop cost weights for
benefits, contract labor, and blood and
blood products using the FY 2002-based
IPPS market basket (70 FR 23384),
which we explain in more detail later in
this section. For example, less than 30
percent of IRF, IPF, and LTCH reported
benefit cost data in FY 2002. We noticed
an increase in the cost data for these
expense categories over the last four
years. (we note that in the future, there
may be sufficient IRFs, IPFs, and LTCHs
cost report data to develop the weights
for these expenditure categories.
Since the cost weights for the
proposed RPL market basket are based
on facility costs, we are proposing to
limit our sample to hospitals with a
Medicare average LOS within a
comparable range of the total facility
ALOS. We believe this provides a more
accurate reflection of the structure of
costs for Medicare treatments. Our goal
is to measure cost shares that are
reflective of case-mix and practice
patterns associated with providing
services to Medicare beneficiaries.
We propose to use those cost reports
for IRFs and LTCHs whose Medicare
ALOS is within 15 percent (that is, 15
percent higher or lower) of the total
facility ALOS for the hospital. This is
the same edit applied to the FY 1992based and FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket.
Consistent with the development of the
RPL market basket adopted under the
IRF PPS in the FY 2006 IRF PPS final
rule (70 FR 47909), we propose 15
percent because it includes those LTCHs
and IRFs whose Medicare LOS is within
approximately 5 days of the facility
LOS. We believe this edit provides us
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with a representative sample of LTCHs
and IRFs serving Medicare beneficiaries.
We propose to use a less stringent
measure of Medicare LOS for IPFs
whose ALOS is within 30 or 50 percent
(depending on the total facility ALOS)
of the total facility ALOS. This less
stringent edit allows us to increase our
sample size by over 150 reports and
produce a cost weight more consistent
with the overall facility. When
developing the FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket, the
edit we applied to IPFs was based on
the best available data at the time.
The detailed cost categories under the
residual (that is, the remaining portion
of the market basket after excluding
wages and salaries, drugs, and
professional liability cost weights) are
derived from the FY 2002-based IPPS
market basket and the 1997 Benchmark
Input-Output (I–O) Tables published by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce. The FY 2002based IPPS market basket was
developed using FY 2002 Medicare
hospital cost reports with the most
recent and detailed cost data (70 FR
47388). The 1997 Benchmark I–O is the
most recent, comprehensive source of
cost data for all hospitals. The proposed
RPL cost weights for benefits, contract
labor, and blood and blood products
were derived using the FY 2002-based
IPPS market basket. For example, the
ratio of the benefit cost weight to the
wages and salaries cost weight in the FY
2002-based IPPS market basket was
applied to the RPL wages and salaries
cost weight to derive a benefit cost
weight for the RPL market basket. The
remaining proposed RPL operating cost
categories were derived using the 1997
Benchmark I–O Tables, aged to 2002
using relative price changes. (The
methodology we used to age the data
involves applying the annual price
changes from the price proxies to the
appropriate cost categories. We repeat
this practice for each year.) Therefore,
using this methodology, roughly 59
percent of the proposed RPL market
basket is accounted for by wages, drugs,
and PLI data from FY 2002 Medicare
cost report data for IRFs, LTCHs, and
IPFs.
The following is a summary outlining
the choice of the proxies we propose to
use for the operating portion of the
market basket. The price proxies for the
capital portion are described in more
detail in section IV.B.3. of this
preamble. With the exception of the
Professional Liability proxy, all the
proposed price proxies for the operating
portion of the proposed RPL market
basket are based on Bureau of Labor
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Statistics (BLS) data and are grouped
into one of the following BLS categories:
• Producer Price Indexes (PPIs)
measure price changes for goods sold in
other than retail markets. PPIs are
preferable price proxies for goods that
hospitals purchase as inputs in
producing their outputs because the
PPIs would better reflect the prices
faced by hospitals. For example, we
propose to use a special PPI for
prescription drugs, rather than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
prescription drugs because hospitals
generally purchase drugs directly from
the wholesaler. The PPIs that we
propose to use measure price change at
the final stage of production.
• Consumer Price Indexes (CPIs)
measure changes in the prices of final
goods and services bought by the typical
consumer. Because they may not
represent the price faced by a producer,
we use CPIs only if an appropriate PPI
were not available, or if the
expenditures were more similar to those
of retail consumers in general rather
than purchases at the wholesale level.
For example, the CPI for food purchases
away from home is used as a proxy for
contracted food services.
• Employment Cost Indexes (ECIs)
measure the rate of change in employee
wage rates and employer costs for
employee benefits per hour worked.
These indexes are fixed-weight indexes
and strictly measure the change in wage
rates and employee benefits per hour.
Appropriately, they are not affected by
shifts in employment mix.
We evaluated the price proxies using
the criteria of reliability, timeliness,
availability, and relevance. Reliability
indicates that the index is based on
valid statistical methods and has low
sampling variability. Widely accepted
statistical methods ensure that the data
were collected and aggregated in a way
that can be replicated. Low sampling
variability is desirable because it
indicates that the sample reflects the
typical members of the population.
(Sampling variability is variation that
occurs by chance because a sample was
surveyed rather than the entire
population.) Timeliness implies that the
proxy is published regularly, preferably
at least once a quarter.
The market baskets are updated
quarterly, and therefore, it is important
that the underlying price proxies be upto-date, reflecting the most recent data
available. We believe that using proxies
that are published regularly (at least
quarterly, when possible) helps to
ensure that we are using the most recent
data available to update the market
basket. We strive to use publications
that are disseminated frequently
because we believe that this is an
optimal way to stay abreast of the most
current data available. Availability
means that the proxy is publicly
available. We prefer that our proxies are
publicly available because this will help
ensure that our market basket updates
are as transparent to the public as
possible. In addition, this enables the
public to be able to obtain the price
proxy data on a regular basis.
Finally, relevance means that the
proxy is applicable and representative
of the cost category weight to which it
is applied. The CPIs, PPIs, and ECIs
selected by us to be proposed in this
regulation meet these criteria. Therefore,
we believe that they continue to be the
best measure of price changes for the
cost categories to which they would be
applied.
We note that the proxies are the same
as those used for the FY 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket, which is currently used under
the LTCH PPS, and are the same proxies
as those used for the FY 2002-based
excluded hospital market basket that is
used to update the reasonable costbased portion of LTCHs’ blended
transition payments (70 FR 47399
through 47403). Because these proxies
meet our criteria of reliability,
timeliness, availability, and relevance,
we believe they continue to be the best
measure of price changes for the cost
categories. For further discussion on the
4661
FY 1997-based excluded hospital with
capital market basket, see the 2004
LTCH PPS rate year final rule (68 FR
34134 through 34136). For further
discussion on the FY 2002-based
excluded hospital market basket, see the
FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47400
through 47403).
Table 2 sets forth the complete
proposed 2002-based RPL market basket
including cost categories, weights, and
price proxies. For comparison purposes,
the corresponding FY 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket, which is currently used under
the LTCH PPS, is also listed.
Wages and salaries are 52.895 percent
of total costs for the proposed FY 2002based RPL market basket compared to
47.335 percent for the FY 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket. Employee benefits are 12.982
percent for the proposed FY 2002-based
RPL market basket compared to 10.244
percent for the FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket. As
a result, compensation costs (wages and
salaries plus employee benefits) for the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket are 65.877 percent of costs
compared to 57.579 percent for the FY
1997-based excluded hospital with
capital market basket. Of the 8
percentage-point difference between the
compensation shares, approximately
three percentage points are due to the
proposed new base year (FY 2002
instead of FY 1997), three percentage
points are due to revised LOS edit (that
is, including only IRFs and LTCHs
whose Medicare ALOS is within 15
percent of the total facility ALOS for the
hospital and including only IPFs whose
Medicare average LOS in within 30 or
50 percent of the total facility ALOS),
and the remaining two percentage
points are due to the proposed
exclusion of other types of IPPSexcluded hospitals (that is, only
including IPFs, IRFs, and LTCHs in the
market basket and excluding childrens,
cancer hospitals and RNCHIs.).
TABLE 2.—PROPOSED FY 2002-BASED RPL MARKET BASKET COST CATEGORIES, WEIGHTS, AND PROXIES WITH FY
1997-BASED EXCLUDED HOSPITAL WITH CAPITAL MARKET BASKET USED FOR COMPARISON
FY 1997-based
excluded
hospital with
capital
market basket
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Expense categories
Proposed FY
2002-based
RPL market
basket
Total ...............................................................
100.000
100.000
Compensation ................................................
Wages and Salaries * .............................
Employee Benefits * ................................
Professional Fees, Non-Medical ....................
57.579
47.335
10.244
4.423
65.877
52.895
12.982
2.892
Proposed FY 2002 RPL market basket price proxies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ECI–Wages and Salaries, Civilian Hospital Workers.
ECI–Benefits, Civilian Hospital Workers.
ECI–Compensation for Professional, Specialty & Technical
Workers.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4662
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—PROPOSED FY 2002-BASED RPL MARKET BASKET COST CATEGORIES, WEIGHTS, AND PROXIES WITH FY
1997-BASED EXCLUDED HOSPITAL WITH CAPITAL MARKET BASKET USED FOR COMPARISON—Continued
FY 1997-based
excluded
hospital with
capital
market basket
Expense categories
Proposed FY
2002-based
RPL market
basket
Utilities ...........................................................
Electricity ................................................
Fuel Oil, Coal, etc. ..................................
Water and Sewage .................................
Professional Liability Insurance .....................
All Other Products and Services ...................
All Other Products ..................................
Pharmaceuticals .....................................
Food: Direct Purchase ............................
Food: Contract Service ...........................
Chemicals ...............................................
Blood and Blood Products ** ..................
Medical Instruments ...............................
Photographic Supplies ............................
Rubber and Plastics ...............................
Paper Products .......................................
Apparel ...................................................
Machinery and Equipment ......................
Miscellaneous Products ..........................
All Other Services ..........................................
Telephone ...............................................
Postage ...................................................
All Other: Labor Intensive .......................
All Other: Non-labor Intensive ................
Capital-Related Costs ....................................
Depreciation ............................................
Fixed Assets ...........................................
Movable Equipment ................................
Interest Costs .........................................
Nonprofit .................................................
1.180
0.726
0.248
0.206
0.733
27.117
17.914
6.318
1.122
1.043
2.133
0.748
1.795
0.167
1.366
1.110
0.478
0.852
0.783
9.203
0.348
0.702
4.453
3.700
8.968
5.586
3.503
2.083
2.682
2.280
0.656
0.351
0.108
0.197
1.161
19.265
13.323
5.103
0.873
0.620
1.100
..........................
1.014
0.096
1.052
1.000
0.207
0.297
1.963
5.942
0.240
0.682
2.219
2.800
10.149
6.186
4.250
1.937
2.775
2.081
For Profit .................................................
0.402
0.694
Other Capital-Related Costs ..................
0.699
1.187
Proposed FY 2002 RPL market basket price proxies
PPI–Commercial Electric Power.
PPI–Refined Petroleum Products.
CPI–U—Water & Sewage Maintenance
CMS Professional Liability Premium Index.
PPI Prescription Drugs.
PPI Processed Foods & Feeds.
CPI–U Food Away From Home.
PPI Industrial Chemicals.
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
Medical Instruments & Equipment.
Photographic Supplies.
Rubber & Plastic Products.
Converted Paper & Paperboard Products.
Apparel.
Machinery & Equipment.
Finished Goods less Food & Energy.
CPI–U Telephone Services.
CPI–U Postage.
ECI–Compensation for Private Service Occupations.
CPI–U All Items.
Boeckh Institutional Construction 23-year useful life.
WPI Machinery & Equipment 11-year useful life.
Average yield on domestic municipal bonds (source:
Moody’s Aaa bonds vintage).
Average yield on Moody’s AAA bonds vintage weighted (23
years).
CPI–U Residential Rent.
* Labor-related
** Blood and blood-related products are included in miscellaneous products
Note: Due to rounding, weights may not sum to total.
a. Wages and Salaries
For measuring the price growth of
wages in the proposed FY 2002-based
RPL market basket, we propose to use
the ECI for wages and salaries for
civilian hospital workers as the proxy
for wages in the RPL market basket.
The proposed FY 2002-based RPL
market basket uses the ECI for employee
benefits for civilian hospital workers.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
The ECI for compensation for
professional and technical workers in
private industry would be applied to
this category since it includes
occupations such as management and
consulting, legal, accounting, and
engineering services.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
h. Pharmaceuticals
The percentage change in the price of
prescription drugs as measured by the
PPI (PPI Code #PPI32541DRX) would be
used as a proxy for this cost category.
d. Fuel, Oil, Coal, and Gasoline.
The percentage change in the price of
gas fuels as measured by the PPI
(Commodity Code #0552) would be
applied to this component.
e. Electricity
The percentage change in the price of
commercial electric power as measured
by the PPI (Commodity Code #0542)
would be applied to this component.
b. Employee Benefits
c. Nonmedical Professional Fees
f. Water and Sewerage
The percentage change in the price of
water and sewage maintenance as
measured by the CPI for all urban
consumers (CPI Code
#CUUR0000SEHG01) would be applied
to this component.
Professional Liability Index for the
proxy of this category. In the FY 1997based excluded hospital with capital
market basket, the same proxy was used.
We continue to research options for
improving our proxy for PLI. This
research includes exploring various
options for expanding our current
survey, including the identification of
another entity that would be willing to
work with us to collect more complete
and comprehensive data. We are also
exploring other options such as third
party or industry data that might assist
us in creating a more precise measure of
PLI premiums. At this time we have not
identified a preferred option, therefore
no change is proposed for the proxy in
this proposed rule.
g. Professional Liability Insurance (PLI)
The proposed FY 2002-based RPL
market basket would use the percentage
change in hospital PLI premiums as
estimated by the CMS Hospital
The following is an explanation of the
proposed expense categories from Table
2.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
This is a special index produced by BLS
as a proxy in the 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket.
i. Food: Direct Purchases
The percentage change in the price of
processed foods and feeds as measured
by the PPI (Commodity Code #02)
would be applied to this component.
j. Food: Contract Service
The percentage change in the price of
food purchased away from home as
measured by the CPI for all urban
consumers (CPI Code #CUUR0000SEFV)
would be applied to this component.
k. Chemicals
The percentage change in the price of
industrial chemical products as
measured by the PPI (Commodity Code
#061) would be applied to this
component. While the chemicals
hospitals purchase include industrial as
well as other types of chemicals, the
industrial chemicals component
constitutes the largest proportion by far.
Thus we believe that Commodity Code
#061 is the appropriate proxy.
l. Medical Instruments
The percentage change in the price of
medical and surgical instruments as
measured by the PPI (Commodity Code
#1562) would be applied to this
component.
m. Photographic Supplies
The percentage change in the price of
photographic supplies as measured by
the PPI (Commodity Code #1542) would
be applied to this component.
n. Rubber and Plastics
The percentage change in the price of
rubber and plastic products as measured
by the PPI (Commodity Code #07)
would be applied to this component.
o. Paper Products
The percentage change in the price of
converted paper and paperboard
products as measured by the PPI
(Commodity Code #0915) would be
used.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
p. Apparel
The percentage change in the price of
apparel as measured by the PPI
(Commodity Code #381) would be
applied to this component.
q. Machinery and Equipment
The percentage change in the price of
machinery and equipment as measured
by the PPI (Commodity Code #11)
would be applied to this component.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
r. Miscellaneous Products
The percentage change in the price of
all finished goods less food and energy
as measured by the PPI (Commodity
Code #SOP3500) would be applied to
this component. Using this index would
remove the double-counting of food and
energy prices, which are captured
elsewhere in the market basket. The
weight for this cost category is higher,
in part, than in the 1997-based index
because the weight for blood and blood
products (1.188) is added to it. In the
1997-based excluded hospital with
capital market basket we included a
separate cost category for blood and
blood products, using the BLS PPI for
blood and derivatives as a price proxy.
A review of recent trends in the PPI for
blood and derivatives suggests that its
movements may not be consistent with
the trends in blood costs faced by
hospitals. While this proxy did not
match exactly with the product
hospitals are buying, its trend over time
appears to be reflective of the historical
price changes of blood purchased by
hospitals. However, an apparent
divergence between the BLS PPI for
blood and derivatives and trends in
blood costs faced by hospitals over
recent years led us to reevaluate
whether the PPI for blood and
derivatives was an appropriate measure
of the changing price of blood. As
discussed in both the FY 2006 IPPS and
IRF PPS proposed rules, we ran test
market baskets classifying blood into
three separate cost categories: Blood and
blood products; contained within
chemicals as was done for the 1992based excluded hospital with capital
market basket; and, within
miscellaneous products. These
categories use as proxies the following
PPIs: the PPI for blood and blood
products, the PPI for chemicals, and the
PPI for finished goods less food and
energy, respectively. Of these three
proxies, the PPI for finished goods less
food and energy moved most like the
recent blood cost and price trends. In
addition, the impact on the overall
market basket by using different proxies
for blood was negligible, mostly due to
the relatively small weight for blood in
the market basket.
Therefore, we are proposing to use the
PPI for finished goods less food and
energy for the blood proxy because we
believe it more appropriately proxies
price changes (not quantities or required
tests) associated with blood purchased
by hospitals because it moved most like
the recent blood cost and price trends.
(We note that we would continue to
evaluate this proxy for its
appropriateness and, if adopted, would
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4663
explore the development of alternative
price indexes to proxy the price changes
associated with this cost for
presentation in a future proposed rule.)
s. Telephone
The percentage change in the price of
telephone services as measured by the
CPI for all urban consumers (CPI Code
#CUUR0000SEED) would be applied to
this component.
t. Postage
The percentage change in the price of
postage as measured by the CPI for all
urban consumers (CPI Code
#CUUR0000SEEC01) would be applied
to this component.
u. All Other Services, Labor Intensive
The percentage change in the ECI for
compensation paid to service workers
employed in private industry would be
applied to this component.
v. All Other Services, Nonlabor
Intensive
The percentage change in the all items
component of the CPI for all urban
consumers (CPI Code # CUUR0000SA0)
would be applied to this component.
3. Proposed Methodology for Capital
Portion of the RPL Market Basket
Unlike for the operating costs of the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket, we did not have IRF, IPF, and
LTCH FY 2002 Medicare cost report
data for the capital cost weights, due to
a change in the FY 2002 reporting
requirements. Rather, we propose to use
these hospitals’ expenditure data for the
capital cost categories of depreciation,
interest, and other capital expenses for
FY 2001, and age the data to a FY 2002
base year using relevant price proxies.
We believe this is the best approach
since these data are the capital cost
structures of those IRFs, IPFs and
LTCHs serving Medicare beneficiaries
that require inpatient hospital services.
We calculated weights for the
proposed RPL market basket capital
costs using the same set of Medicare
cost reports used to develop the
operating share for IRFs, IPFS, and
LTCHs in order to use consistent
expense data in developing the
proposed weights for both operating and
capital costs. The resulting proposed
capital weight for the FY 2002 base year
is 10.149 percent. This is based on FY
2001 Medicare cost report data for IRFs,
IPFs, and LTCHs, aged to FY 2002 using
relevant price proxies.
Lease expenses are not a separate cost
category in the proposed market basket,
but are distributed among the cost
categories of depreciation, interest, and
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4664
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
other, reflecting the assumption that the
underlying cost structure of leases is
similar to capital costs in general. We
assumed 10 percent of lease expenses
are overhead and assigned them to the
other capital expenses cost category as
overhead. We base this assignment of 10
percent of lease expenses to overhead
on the common assumption that
overhead is 10 percent of costs. The
remaining lease expenses were
distributed to the three cost categories
based on the weights of depreciation,
interest, and other capital expenses not
including lease expenses.
Depreciation contains two
subcategories: building and fixed
equipment, and movable equipment.
The proposed split between building
and fixed equipment and movable
equipment was determined using the FY
2001 Medicare cost reports for IRFs,
IPFs, and LTCHs. We believe this is the
best available data source because it
reflects the capital cost structures of
those IRFs, IPFs and LTCHs serving
Medicare beneficiaries. This
methodology was also used to compute
the 1997-based index (67 FR 50044).
The proposed total interest expense
cost category is split between the
government/nonprofit and for-profit
hospitals. The 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket
allocated 85 percent of the total interest
cost weight to the government nonprofit
interest, proxied by average yield on
domestic municipal bonds, and 15
percent to for-profit interest, proxied by
average yield on Moody’s Aaa bonds.
We propose to derive the split using
the relative FY 2001 Medicare cost
report data for PPS hospitals on interest
expenses for the government/nonprofit
and for-profit hospitals. Due to
insufficient Medicare cost report data
for IPFs, IRFs, and LTCHs, we propose
to use the same split used in the IPPS
capital input price index, which is 75
percent of the total interest cost weight
of the government/non-profit interest
and 25 percent of for-profit interest. We
believe that this split reflects the latest
relative cost structure of interest
expenses for hospitals because it is
based on the most recent complete
hospital cost report data and, therefore,
we propose to use a 75–25 split to
allocate interest expenses to
government/nonprofit and for-profit
hospitals’ interest (70 FR 47408).
Since capital is acquired and paid for
over time, capital expenses in any given
year are determined by both past and
present purchases of physical and
financial capital. The vintage-weighted
capital index is intended to capture the
long-term consumption of capital, using
vintage weights for depreciation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
(physical capital) and interest (financial
capital). These vintage weights reflect
the purchase patterns of building and
fixed equipment and movable
equipment over time. Depreciation and
interest expenses are determined by the
amount of past and current capital
purchases. Therefore we are proposing
to use the vintage weights to compute
vintage-weighted price changes
associated with depreciation and
interest expense.
Vintage weights are an integral part of
the proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket. Capital costs are inherently
complicated and are determined by
complex capital purchasing decisions,
over time, based on factors such as
interest rates and debt financing. In
addition, capital is depreciated over
time instead of being consumed in the
same period it is purchased. The capital
portion of the proposed FY 2002-based
RPL market basket would reflect the
annual price changes associated with
capital costs, and would be a useful
simplification of the actual capital
investment process. By accounting for
the vintage nature of capital, we are able
to provide an accurate, stable annual
measure of price changes. Annual
nonvintage price changes for capital are
unstable due to the volatility of interest
rate changes. Therefore, they do not
reflect the actual annual price changes
for Medicare capital-related costs. The
capital component of the proposed FY
2002-based RPL market basket would
reflect the underlying stability of the
capital acquisition process and provide
hospitals with the ability to plan for
changes in capital payments.
To calculate the vintage weights for
depreciation and interest expenses, we
needed a time series of capital
purchases for building and fixed
equipment and movable equipment. We
found no single source that provides the
best time series of capital purchases by
hospitals for all of the above
components of capital purchases. The
early Medicare Cost Reports were not
sufficiently completed to have capital
data to meet this need. While the AHA
Panel Survey provided a consistent
database back to 1963, it did not provide
annual capital purchases. However, the
AHA Panel Survey provided a time
series of depreciation expenses through
1997 which could be used to infer
capital purchases over time. From 1998
to 2001, hospital depreciation expenses
were calculated by multiplying the AHA
Annual Survey total hospital expenses
by the ratio of depreciation to total
hospital expenses from the Medicare
cost reports. Beginning in 2001, the
AHA Annual Survey began collecting
depreciation expenses. We note that we
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hope to be able to propose to use these
data in proposed rebasings that would
be presented in future proposed rules.
In order to estimate capital purchases
from AHA data on depreciation and
interest expenses, the expected life for
each cost category (building and fixed
equipment, movable equipment, and
debt instruments) is needed. Due to
insufficient Medicare cost report data
for IPFs, IRFs, and LTCHs, we propose
to use FY 2001 Medicare Cost Reports
for IPPS hospitals to determine the
expected life of building and fixed
equipment and movable equipment. We
believe this data source reflects the
latest relative cost structure of
depreciation expenses for all hospital
types, including IPFs, IRFs, and LTCHs,
and is the best available data at this
time. The expected life of any piece of
equipment can be determined by
dividing the value of the asset
(excluding fully depreciated assets) by
its current year depreciation amount.
This calculation yields the estimated
useful life of an asset if depreciation
were to continue at current year levels,
assuming straight-line depreciation.
From the FY 2001 Medicare cost reports
for IPPS hospitals the expected life of
building and fixed equipment was
determined to be 23 years, and the
expected life of movable equipment was
determined to be 11 years.
We also propose to use the fixed and
movable weights derived from FY 2001
Medicare cost reports for IPFs, IRFs, and
LTCHs to separate the depreciation
expenses into annual amounts of
building and fixed equipment
depreciation and movable equipment
depreciation because this is the best
available data source. By multiplying
the annual depreciation amounts by the
expected life calculations from the FY
2001 Medicare cost reports, year-end
asset costs for building and fixed
equipment and movable equipment
were determined. Then, we calculated a
time series back to 1963 of annual
capital purchases by subtracting the
previous year asset costs from the
current year asset costs. From this
capital purchase time series we are able
to calculate the vintage weights for
building and fixed equipment, movable
equipment, and debt instruments. An
explanation of each of these sets of
vintage weights follows.
For proposed building and fixed
equipment vintage weights, the real
annual capital purchase amounts for
building and fixed equipment derived
from the AHA Panel Survey were used.
The real annual purchase amount was
used to capture the actual amount of the
physical acquisition, net of the effect of
price inflation. This real annual
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4665
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
purchase amount for building and fixed
equipment was produced by deflating
the nominal annual purchase amount by
the building and fixed equipment price
proxy, the Boeckh Institutional
Construction Index. This is the same
proxy used for the FY 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket. We believe this proxy continues
to meet our criteria of reliability,
timeliness, availability, and relevance.
Since building and fixed equipment has
an expected life of 23 years, the vintage
weights for building and fixed
equipment are deemed to represent the
average purchase pattern of building
and fixed equipment over 23-year
periods. With real building and fixed
equipment purchase estimates back to
1963, 16 23-year periods could be
averaged to determine the average
vintage weights for building and fixed
equipment that are representative of
average building and fixed equipment
purchase patterns over time. Vintage
weights for each 23-year period are
calculated by dividing the real building
and fixed capital purchase amount in
any given year by the total amount of
purchases in the 23-year period. This
calculation is done for each year in the
23-year period, and for each of the 16
23-year periods. The average of each
year across the 16 23-year periods is
used to determine the 2002 average
building and fixed equipment vintage
weights.
For proposed movable equipment
vintage weights, the real annual capital
purchase amounts for movable
equipment derived from the AHA Panel
Survey were used to capture the actual
amount of the physical acquisition, net
of price inflation. This real annual
purchase amount for movable
equipment is calculated by deflating the
nominal annual purchase amount by the
movable equipment price proxy, the PPI
for Machinery and Equipment. This is
the same proxy used for the FY 1997based excluded hospital with capital
market basket. We believe this proxy,
which meets our criteria, is the best
measure of price changes for this cost
category. Since movable equipment has
an expected life of 11 years, the vintage
weights for movable equipment are
deemed to represent the average
purchase pattern of movable equipment
over an 11-year period. With real
movable equipment purchase estimates
available back to 1963, 28 11-year
periods could be averaged to determine
the average vintage weights for movable
equipment that are representative of
average movable equipment purchase
patterns over time. Vintage weights for
each 11-year period are calculated by
dividing the real movable capital
purchase amount for any given year by
the total amount of purchases in the 11year period. This calculation is done for
each year in the 11-year period, and for
each of the 28 11-year periods. The
average of the 28 11-year periods is used
to determine the proposed FY 2002
average movable equipment vintage
weights.
For proposed interest vintage weights,
the nominal annual capital purchase
amounts for total equipment (building
and fixed and movable) derived from
the AHA Panel and Annual Surveys
were used. Nominal annual purchase
amounts were used to capture the value
of the debt instrument. Since hospital
debt instruments have an expected life
of 23 years, the vintage weights for
interest are deemed to represent the
average purchase pattern of total
equipment over 23-year periods. With
nominal total equipment purchase
estimates available back to 1963, 16 23year periods could be averaged to
determine the average vintage weights
for interest that are representative of
average capital purchase patterns over
time. Vintage weights for each 23-year
period are calculated by dividing the
nominal total capital purchase amount
for any given year by the total amount
of purchases in the 23-year period. This
calculation is done for each year in the
23-year period and for each of the 16 23year periods. The average of the 16 23year periods is used to determine the
proposed FY 2002 average interest
vintage weights. The proposed vintage
weights for the index are presented in
Table 3.
In addition to the proposed price
proxies for depreciation and interest
costs described above in the vintage
weighted capital section, we propose to
use the CPI–U for Residential Rent as a
price proxy for other capital-related
costs. Other capital-related costs are
mainly composed of taxes and
insurance. There is no price proxy for
these specific costs; however, we
believe the price changes associated
with these costs would be reflected in
the price changes of residential rent
because rent is assumed to move with
taxes and insurance on order to
maintain profit margins. The price
proxies for each of the capital cost
categories are the same as those used for
the IPPS final rule (67 FR 50044) capital
input price index.
TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CMS FY 2002-BASED RPL MARKET BASKET CAPITAL VINTAGE WEIGHTS
Fixed assets
(23 year weights)
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Year
1 .................................................................................................................................
2 .................................................................................................................................
3 .................................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................................
6 .................................................................................................................................
7 .................................................................................................................................
8 .................................................................................................................................
9 .................................................................................................................................
10 ...............................................................................................................................
11 ...............................................................................................................................
12 ...............................................................................................................................
13 ...............................................................................................................................
14 ...............................................................................................................................
15 ...............................................................................................................................
16 ...............................................................................................................................
17 ...............................................................................................................................
18 ...............................................................................................................................
19 ...............................................................................................................................
20 ...............................................................................................................................
21 ...............................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Movable assets
(11 year weights)
Interest:
capital-related
(23 year weights)
.021
.022
.025
.027
.029
.031
.033
.035
.038
.040
.042
.045
.047
.049
.051
.053
.056
.057
.058
.060
.060
.065
.071
.077
.082
.086
.091
.095
.100
.106
.112
.117
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
.010
.012
.014
.016
.019
.023
.026
.029
.033
.036
.039
.043
.048
.053
.056
.059
.062
.064
.066
.070
.071
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4666
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CMS FY 2002-BASED RPL MARKET BASKET CAPITAL VINTAGE WEIGHTS—Continued
Fixed assets
(23 year weights)
Movable assets
(11 year weights)
Interest:
capital-related
(23 year weights)
22 ...............................................................................................................................
23 ...............................................................................................................................
.061
.061
..............................
..............................
.074
.076
Total ....................................................................................................................
1.000
1.000
1.000
Year
4. Proposed Market Basket Estimate for
the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
As discussed previously in this
proposed rule, beginning in the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, we are proposing
to adopt the FY 2002-based RPL market
basket as the appropriate market basket
of goods and services under the LTCH
PPS. We are proposing a zero percent
update to the LTCH PPS Federal rate for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year rather than
proposing an update based solely on the
most recent estimate of the proposed
LTCH PPS market basket as we have
done in the past. However, as we
discuss in section IV.D.1.c. of this
preamble, we are proposing to revise the
LTCH PPS labor-related share based on
the proposed RPL market basket. In
Table 4, we are presenting a comparison
of the most recent estimates of the
increase to the current LTCH PPS
market basket (that is, the FY 1997-
based excluded hospital with capital
market basket) and the proposed FY
2002-based RPL market basket.
Based on Global Insight’s 3rd quarter
2005 forecast with history through the
2nd quarter of 2005, the most recent
estimate of the RPL market basket for
July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 (the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year) is 3.6 percent.
Global Insight, Inc. is a nationally
recognized economic and financial
forecasting firm that contracts with CMS
to forecast the components of the market
baskets. Using the current FY 1997based excluded hospital with capital
market basket, Global Insight’s 3rd
quarter 2005 forecast, with history
through the 2nd quarter of 2005, for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year would also be
3.6 percent. Table 4 compares the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket and the FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket
percent changes. For both the historical
and forecasted periods between FY 2000
and FY 2008, the difference between the
two market baskets is minor with the
exception of FY 2002, where the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket increased 3/10 of a percentage
point higher than the FY 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket. This is primarily due to the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL having a
larger compensation (this is, the sum of
wages and salaries and benefits) cost
weight than the FY 1997-based index
and the price changes associated with
compensation costs increasing much
faster than the prices of other market
basket components. Also contributing is
the ‘‘all other nonlabor intensive’’ cost
weight, which is smaller in the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket than in the FY 1997-based index,
as well as the slower price changes
associated with these costs.
TABLE 4.—PROPOSED FY 2002-BASED RPL MARKET BASKET AND FY 1997-BASED EXCLUDED HOSPITAL WITH CAPITAL
MARKET BASKET, PERCENT CHANGES: 2000–2008
Proposed
rebased FY
2002-based RPL
market basket
Fiscal year (FY)
FY 1997-based
excluded hospital
market basket
with capital
3.8
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.5
Historical data:
RY 2001 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2002 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2003 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2004 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2005 ....................................................................................................................................................
Average RY 2001–2005 ..................................................................................................................................
Forecast:
RY 2006 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2007 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2008 ....................................................................................................................................................
RY 2009 ....................................................................................................................................................
Average RY 2006–2009 ..................................................................................................................................
Source: Global Insight, Inc. 3rd Qtr 2005, @USMACRO/CNTL0905 @CISSIM/TL0805.SIM.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
C. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for
the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
1. Background
Under the existing regulations at
§ 412.523(c)(3)(ii), we update the
standard Federal rate annually to adjust
for the most recent estimate of the
projected increases in prices for LTCH
inpatient hospital services. We
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
established this regulation in the August
30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56030), which
implemented the LTCH PPS, because at
that time we believed that was the most
appropriate method for updating the
LTCH PPS Standard Federal rate
annually for years after FY 2003. When
we moved the date of the annual update
of the LTCH PPS from October 1 to July
1 in the RY 2004 LTCH PPS final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(68 FR 34138), we revised
§ 412.523(c)(3) to specify that for LTCH
PPS rate years beginning on or after July
1, 2003, the annual update to the
standard Federal rate for the LTCH
prospective payment system would be
equal previous rate year’s Federal rate
updated by the most recent estimate of
increases in the appropriate market
basket of goods and services included in
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
covered inpatient LTCH services
because, at that time, we continued to
believe that was the most appropriate
method for updating the LTCH PPS
Standard Federal rate annually for years
after RY 2004. As established in the RY
2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24179), based on the most recent
estimate of the excluded hospital with
capital market basket, adjusted to
account for the change in the LTCH PPS
rate year update cycle, the current LTCH
PPS standard Federal rate which is
effective from July 1, 2005 through June
30, 2006 (the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year)
is $38,086.04 (70 FR 24179). In the
discussion that follows, we explain how
we developed the proposed standard
Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. Specifically, we explain our
rationale, which is based on our ongoing
monitoring activities, for proposing a
zero percent update to the standard
Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year rather than proposing to solely use
the most recent estimate of the proposed
RPL market basket as the update factor
for the Federal rate for the upcoming
rate year. Thus, the proposed standard
Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year would be $38,086.04.
2. Description of a Preliminary Model of
an Update Framework Under the LTCH
PPS
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67
FR 56087), which implemented the
LTCH PPS, we stated that in the future
we may propose to develop a framework
to update payments to LTCHs that
would account for other appropriate
factors that affect the efficient delivery
of services and care provided to
Medicare patients. A conceptual basis
for the proposal of developing an update
framework in the future was presented
in Appendix B of that same final rule
(67 FR 56086). In subsequent final rules
that updated the LTCH PPS standard
Federal rate for years after FY 2003, we
explained that we did not propose an
update framework because we had not
yet collected sufficient data to allow for
the analysis and development of a
framework under the LTCH PPS (see 68
FR 34134, 69 FR 25682, and 70 FR
24179). Since the LTCH PPS was
implemented just slightly over 3 years
ago (for cost reporting periods beginning
on or after October 1, 2002) and due to
the time lag in the availability of
Medicare data, we continue to believe
that we still do not yet have sufficient
data to develop an update framework
upon which to base the proposed
update to the standard Federal rate for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year.
Although we do not have enough
complete data at this time to propose an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
update for RY 2007 based on an update
framework, we believe that the almost 2
full years of data generated under the
LTCH PPS is sufficient data to begin the
discussion of the development of a
potential update framework that we may
propose to use in the future under the
LTCH PPS for the annual update to the
LTCH standard Federal rate. Therefore,
although we are not proposing to
employ an analytical update framework
in this proposed rule to determine the
proposed 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
update to the standard Federal rate, in
Appendix A of this proposed rule, we
are presenting a preliminary model of
an update framework, using the best
available data and concepts, which we
may propose to adopt at some time in
the future.
We are soliciting comments on this
preliminary update framework
methodology and its application that
may be proposed in the future. Also, we
would appreciate comments regarding
recommendations to improve it. We
note that this preliminary model of an
update framework for the LTCH PPS is
based on the conceptual discussion of a
LTCH PPS update framework that was
presented in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56086), and is similar to the
update framework formerly used to
develop the operating IPPS annual
update recommendation (69 FR 28816
through 28817) and that which is
currently used under the capital IPPS
for inpatient short-term acute-care
hospitals set forth at § 412.308(c)(1)(ii).
3. Proposed Update to the Standard
Federal Rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS
Rate Year
Currently, under § 412.523, the
annual update to the LTCH PPS
standard Federal rate is equal to the
most recent estimate of increases in the
prices of an appropriate market basket
of goods and services included in
covered inpatient LTCH services (that
is, presently, the excluded hospital with
capital market basket). As we indicated
in previous LTCH PPS final rules (67 FR
56014, 68 FR 34157, 69 FR 25712, and
70 FR 24209 through 24213), we have
developed a monitoring system to assist
us in evaluating the LTCH PPS. We have
used the results of these monitoring
efforts, along with the most recently
available LTCH PPS data to assess
current payment adequacy under the
LTCH PPS. As we discuss in greater
detail, because we believe that current
payments are more than adequate to
account for price increases in the
services furnished by LTCHs during the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year, under the
broad authority conferred upon the
Secretary by section 123 of the BBRA as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4667
amended by section 307(b) of BIPA to
include appropriate adjustments in the
establishment of the LTCH PPS, we are
proposing to revise § 412.523(c)(3)(ii), to
specify that, for discharges occurring on
or after July 1, 2006 and on or before
June 30, 2007, the standard Federal rate
from the previous year would be
updated by a factor of zero percent. That
is, the standard Federal rate for the July
1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 rate year
would remain the same as the standard
Federal rate in effect during the 2006
rate year (July 1, 2005 through June 30,
2006), that is, $38,086.04.
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67
FR 56014), we describe an on-going
monitoring component of the new LTCH
PPS that would enable us to evaluate
the impact of the new payment policies.
We stated that if our data indicate that
changes to the system might be
warranted, we may consider proposing
revisions to these policies in the future.
Since the implementation of the LTCH
PPS (for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2002),
there has been tremendous growth in
the number of LTCHs reimbursed by
Medicare. Specifically, the number of
LTCHs has almost doubled over the past
3 years from approximately 200 LTCHs
in FY 2003 to 378 LTCHs at the start of
FY 2005. In addition, Medicare
spending for LTCHs has also grown
rapidly, as noted in MedPAC’s June
2004 Report to Congress (page 122).
Rapid increases in LTCH growth and
Medicare spending under the LTCH
PPS, in conjunction with the fact that
over 98 percent of LTCHs are currently
paid based fully on the Federal rate
(rather than choosing to be paid under
a blend of the reasonable cost-based
(TEFRA) payment amount and the
LTCH PPS Federal rate payment
amount), prompted us to examine
changes in LTCHs’ patient case-mix
index (CMI) and margins under the
LTCH PPS. Margins are defined as
payment-to-cost ratios of LTCH
inpatient Medicare payments to LTCH
inpatient Medicare costs. We believe the
proposed zero percent update factor for
RY 2007 is supported by our findings
regarding CMI, Medicare margins, and
patient census based on the most recent
complete LTCH data. The following is a
discussion of our analysis of each of
these factors.
A LTCH’s CMI is defined as its case
weighted average LTC–DRG relative
weight for all its discharges in a given
period. Changes in CMI consist of two
components: ‘‘real’’ CMI changes and
‘‘apparent’’ CMI changes. Real CMI
increase is defined as the increase in the
average LTC–DRG relative weights
resulting from the hospital’s treatment
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4668
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of more resource intensive patients.
Apparent CMI increase is defined as the
increase in CMI due to changes in
coding practices. Observed CMI increase
is defined as real CMI increase plus the
increase in computed CMI due to
changes in coding practices (including
better documentation of the medical
record by physicians and more complete
coding of the medical record by coders).
If LTCH patients have more costly
impairments, lower functional status, or
increased comorbidities, and thus
require more resources in the LTCH, we
would consider this a real change in
case-mix. Conversely, if LTCH patients
have the same impairments, functional
status, and comorbidities but are coded
differently, resulting in higher payment,
we consider this an apparent change in
case-mix. We believe that changes in
payment rates should accurately reflect
changes in LTCHs’ true cost of treating
patients (real CMI increase), and should
not be influenced by changes in coding
practices (apparent CMI increase).
Apparent CMI increase results in a case
being grouped to a LTC–DRG with a
higher weight than it would be without
such changes in coding practices, which
results in a higher LTCH PPS payment
that does not necessarily reflect the true
cost of treating the patient. Therefore,
under the broad discretionary authority
conferred upon the Secretary by section
123 of the BBRA as amended by section
307(b) of BIPA to include appropriate
adjustments in the establishment of the
LTCH PPS, we are proposing to revise
the annual update to the LTCH PPS
standard Federal rate set forth at
§ 412.523(a)(2) for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year to adjust the payment amount
for LTCH inpatient hospital services to
eliminate the effect of coding or
classification changes that do not reflect
real changes in LTCHs’ case-mix. It is
important to eliminate the effect of
coding or classification changes
because, as discussed above in this
section, they do not reflect the true cost
of treating patients. We believe that the
adjustment we are proposing to
eliminate the effect of coding or
classification changes that do not reflect
real changes in LTCHs’ case-mix would
reduce the amount that RY 2007 LTCH
PPS payments would have been absent
this adjustment so that payments would
become more aligned with the true costs
of treating LTCH patients.
As described in our August 30, 2002
final rule, we contracted with 3M
Health Information Systems (3M) to
analyze LTCH data to support our
efforts in developing the original LTCH
PPS in 2002. We have continued our
contract with 3M to assist CMS in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
developing potential refinements to the
LTCH PPS, including some of the
proposed changes presented in this
proposed rule. As part of this research,
we asked 3M to examine changes in
case-mix and coding since the
implementation of the LTCH PPS based
on the most recently available data. As
part of their analysis, 3M compared FY
2003 LTCH claims data from the first
year of implementation of the PPS with
the FY 2001 claims data (generated prior
to the implementation of the LTCH
PPS), which is the same LTCH claims
data used to develop the LTCH PPS.
The analysis performed by 3M
indicates that the observed case-mix in
LTCHs increased by 5.6 percent
between FY 2001 and FY 2003. The
average annual CMI increase from FY
2001 to FY 2003 was 2.75 percent. Since
coding of diagnoses was not a factor in
determining payments under the former
reasonable cost-based (TEFRA) payment
system, and since payments were not
directly tied to diagnosis codes, there
was no incentive for LTCHs to attempt
to influence payments through changes
in coding practices. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the observed
2.75 percent change in case-mix in the
years prior to the implementation of the
LTCH PPS represent the value for the
real CMI increase (that is, we assume
that the increase in case-mix is not due
to improvements in documentation or
more complete coding of the medical
record during this period). Using the
average annual 2.75 percent observed
CMI increase as a baseline, we can
separate the CMI increase between FYs
2003 and 2004 into the real CMI
increase, which is based on the
treatment of more resource intensive
patients, and the apparent CMI increase,
which is due to improvements in
documentation and coding practices.
The calculated observed CMI increase
between FYs 2003 and 2004 was 6.75
percent. Assuming that the real CMI
increase observed (on average) from FY
2001 to FY 2003 remained relatively
constant into FY 2005, then the
difference of 4.0 percent (6.75 percent
minus 2.75 percent) represents the
apparent CMI increase due to
improvements in documentation and
coding. This is considerably higher than
the 0.34 percent behavioral offset
originally estimated by CMS actuaries,
which was used in the development of
the FY 2003 LTCH PPS standard Federal
rate (67 FR 56033). We note that the 4.0
percent apparent CMI increase is a
conservative estimate when compared
to the 5.35 percent apparent CMI
increase that would result if we applied
the information from past studies on
case-mix change. Based on past studies
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of IPPS case-mix change by the RAND
Corporation, (‘‘Has DRG Creep Crept
Up? Decomposing the Case-Mix Index
Change Between 1987 and 1988’’ by
G.M. Carter, J.P. Newhouse, and D.A.
Relles, R–4098–HCFA/ProPAC (1991)),
we have assumed that real case-mix
change for IPPS hospitals was a fairly
steady 1.0 to 1.4 percent per year. If we
apply this same assumption to LTCHs,
nearly 5.35 percent (6.75 percent ¥ 1.4
percent) of the change in case-mix
during the first year of the LTCH PPS is
apparent CMI and not real CMI.
We recognize that the LTCH PPS may
have increased incentives for LTCHs to
take patients with greater impairment,
lower function, or increased
comorbidities because the more
complicated the patient’s principle
diagnosis and accompanying
comorbidities, the higher the relative
weight for the LTC–DRG, and the higher
the resulting LTCH PPS payment. Under
TEFRA, LTCHs were paid on the basis
of Medicare reasonable costs limited by
a hospital-specific target amount per
discharge, which were based on baseyear cost per case. Thus, LTCHs may
have greater incentives to admit more
costly patients and therefore, we
expected to see an increase in the
observed CMI due to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS.
However, we believe a significant
portion of the 6.75 percent increase in
CMI between FY 2003 and FY 2004 is
due to changes in coding practices
rather than the treatment of more
resource intensive patients. In our
analysis of cost per discharge, we found
that while payments (revenue) per
discharge increased approximately 17
percent from FY 2002 to FY 2003 (the
first year of LTCH PPS), costs (expenses)
per discharge increased by only 8
percent for the same period. Thus
payments to LTCHs from FY 2002 to FY
2003 increased more than 2 times as
much as the increase of costs during the
same period. We didn’t observe a large
increase in cost per discharge, which we
would have expected to see if the
observed CMI was due to ‘‘real’’ CMI
change (treating sicker patients). We
would have expected to see a large
increase in costs per discharge if the
CMI was due to real CMI change
because we expected LTCHs to admit
more severely ill patients as described
previously which we thought would
have required more resources to treat
these patients. Furthermore, review by a
Medicare program safeguard contractor
working with the FI sampled LTCH
claims with specific diagnoses in one
LTCH and determined that the majority
of those patients were not ‘‘hospital-
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
level’’ patients. Rather, the level of care
needed by these patients was more
suitable for a Skilled Nursing Facility
(SNF) than a LTCH. The QIO reviewed
a sample of the claims that had been
determined not to be hospital-level
patients by the Medicare program
safeguard contractor and concurred with
its assessment of most of those cases.
Anecdotally, we have heard of other
investigations of LTCHs treating
patients that do not require hospitallevel care. This finding further supports
the data showing that cost per discharge
did not increase as rapidly as LTCHs’
CMI and that the increase in LTCHs’
CMI is primarily due to factors other
than real CMI.
In addition, an internal CMS analysis
shows high Medicare margins among
LTCHs since the implementation of the
LTCH PPS in FY 2003. Specifically, we
calculated ‘‘revenue-weighted’’
Medicare margins, which are the sum of
hospital inpatient Medicare revenue
(payments) minus the sum of hospital
inpatient Medicare expenses (costs)
divided by the sum of hospital inpatient
Medicare revenue (payments). This
margin calculation, also utilized by
MedPAC in its analyses, is used to
evaluate the overall financial status of
LTCHs. In an analysis of the latest
available LTCH cost reports, we found
that LTCH Medicare payments for FY
2003 (the first year of the LTCH PPS)
were 8.8 percent higher than LTCHs’
Medicare costs. Preliminary cost report
data for FY 2004 reveal an even higher
Medicare margin of 11.7 percent. For
the period prior to the implementation
of the LTCH PPS (that is, FY 1996
through FY 2002), we found that
Medicare margins ranged between a
minimum of ¥2.2 percent in FY 2002,
and a maximum of 2.9 percent in FY
1997.
We note that MedPAC is presently
engaged in an evaluation of payment
adequacy for LTCHs, which upon
completion, will be published in the
Commission’s 2006 Reports to the
Congress. At the Commission’s October
7, 2005 public meeting, the preliminary
findings were presented. The report
included the following:
• The number of LTCHs increased
rapidly since the implementation of the
LTCH PPS; the increase in the volume
of cases was even greater; and
beneficiaries’ access to care has also
increased;
• Medicare spending has increased
more rapidly than volume.
• LTCHs have access to capital and
are rapidly expanding into market areas
that had no LTCHs prior to the
establishment of the LTCH PPS for FY
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
2003, as well as in areas that already
had LTCHs.
• Medicare payments under the
LTCH PPS are ‘‘attractive’’ since despite
the fact that LTCHs could opt to be
phased-in to the fully Federal payments
over 5 years, with a decreasing
percentage of payments based on their
former TEFRA payments, since 2004, 93
percent of LTCHs have opted to be paid
100 percent under the Federal rate.
• In evaluating adequacy of
payments, it can generally be assumed
that if the payments are adequate, the
volume of patients will increase. This
was true under the LTCH PPS, where
cases increased 12 percent per year
between 2001 and 2004, while Medicare
spending increased 25 percent per year
for the same period.
• Medicare LTCH spending increased
28 percent from 2003 to 2004.
(The transcript of the discussion of
LTCH payment adequacy from the
October 7, 2005 MedPAC public
meeting can be found at the following
web address: https://www.medpac.gov/
public_meetings/transcripts/
1005_allcombined_transc.pdf (pages
256 through 298).)
Consistent with MedPAC’s most
recent research, our margins analysis
indicates that in spite of the estimated
real increase in case-mix (severity of
patients), payments to LTCHs under the
LTCH PPS are generally more than
adequate to cover the Medicare costs of
the inpatient hospital services provided
to LTCH patients. We believe this is
because the large observed increase in
LTCH case-mix was not accompanied by
a corresponding increase in Medicare
costs. This is consistent with our belief
expressed earlier that a significant part
of this observed increase in case-mix is
‘‘apparent’’ and not ‘‘real.’’ Therefore,
under the broad discretionary authority
conferred upon the Secretary in section
123(a) of the BBRA as amended by
section 307(b)(1) of the BIPA to make
appropriate adjustments, as explained
previously, we believe that it is fiscally
prudent and appropriate to propose to
revise § 412.523(c)(3)(iii) to specify that
the standard Federal rate for the LTCH
PPS rate year July 1, 2006 through June
30, 2007, would be the standard Federal
rate from the previous year be updated
by a factor of zero percent. A zero
percent update factor would reflect an
adjustment to the market basket update
to account for the increase in the
apparent case-mix in the prior period.
Based on our analysis of the observed
LTCH case-mix increase, we estimate
that 4 percent of the 6.75 percent
calculated observed LTCH CMI increase
is due to improvements in
documentation and coding and not due
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4669
to an increase in the severity of the
patients being treated at LTCHs. As
previously noted, the Federal payment
rate was offset by 0.34 percent to reflect
expected behavioral changes, including
changes in coding. The recent estimate
of apparent CMI increase (4 percent)
indicates that an additional 3.66 percent
adjustment (4 percent apparent CMI
increase minus 0.34 percent behavioral
offset) should be made to the Federal
payment rate to account for
improvements in coding. Accounting for
the most recent estimate of the RPL
market basket increase (3.6 percent) and
the additional adjustment for
improvements in coding (3.66 percent),
the resulting update is within rounding
error of zero percent. We are proposing
a zero percent update for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year, which would result in a
proposed LTCH PPS standard Federal
rate of $38,086.04 for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year. We believe that a zero
percent update for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year is appropriate to protect the
integrity of the Medicare Trust Funds by
ensuring that the LTCH PPS payment
rates better reflect the true costs of
treating LTCH patients. Furthermore,
based on the sizeable Medicare margins
among LTCHs, we believe that the
proposed standard Federal rate for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year would not
affect beneficiary access to LTCH
services since LTCHs would continue to
be paid adequately to reflect the cost of
resources needed to treat Medicare
beneficiaries.
As discussed in section IV.B.4. of this
preamble, the most recent estimate of
the proposed LTCH PPS market basket
is 3.6 percent for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year. If we were not proposing to
revise § 412.523(c)(3) to provide a zero
percent update to the standard Federal
rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year to
account for changes in coding that do
not reflect real changes in the severity
and cost of LTCH patients presented in
this proposed rule, under existing
§ 412.523(c)(3)(ii) the proposed update
would have been 3.6 percent.
We note that the proposed revision to
§ 412.525(c)(3) would only address an
update to the LTCH PPS Federal rate
through the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year.
We intend to propose future revisions to
§ 412.525(c)(3) to address future
proposed updates to the LTCH PPS
Federal rates in future rate years based
on an analysis of the most recent
available LTCH data that would be
presented in upcoming LTCH proposed
rules. As noted previously in this
proposed rule and in the August 30,
2002 final rule (67 FR 56097), we are
examining the potential for developing
and implementing an update framework
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4670
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
under the LTCH PPS. We believe an
update framework, used in combination
with the market basket, would enhance
the methodology for updating payments
by addressing factors beyond changes in
pure input prices (measured by the
market basket) such as case-mix,
intensity, and productivity. (As noted in
section IV.C.2 of this proposed rule, a
preliminary model of an update
framework that may be proposed at
some later date for future use under the
LTCH PPS is presented in Appendix A
of this proposed rule.) However, we are
not proposing a specific annual update
framework until we have collected
sufficient complete LTCH PPS data to
evaluate payments and costs under the
LTCH PPS.
In addition, currently as implemented
in § 412.523(d)(3), we have provided for
the possibility of making a one-time
prospective adjustment to the LTCH
PPS rates so that any significant
difference from actual payments and the
estimated payments for the first year of
the LTCH PPS is not perpetuated in the
prospective payment rates for future
years. As discussed in section IV.D.5. of
this proposed rule, we are not proposing
an adjustment to the LTCH PPS rates
under § 412.523(d)(3) in this proposed
rule; however, we intend to continue to
collect and interpret new data to
determine if an adjustment should be
proposed in the future. In addition, as
also discussed in section IV.D.5. of this
proposed rule, we are proposing to
postpone the deadline of the possible
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH PPS rates provided for in
§ 412.523(d)(3) to July 1, 2008 in order
to maximize the availability of data used
to conduct a comprehensive evaluation
of the LTCH PPS. However, we note that
the proposed zero percent update for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year may make this
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH PPS Federal rate unnecessary if
our comprehensive analysis of the
LTCH PPS determines that LTCH PPS
payments and the costs for LTCH
services become aligned as a result of
this proposed change. We solicit
comments on whether the proposed
zero percent for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year is appropriate or if an alternative
percentage reduction should be applied
to the standard Federal rate for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year.
4. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for
the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24180), we established a
standard Federal rate of $38,086.04 for
the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year that was
based on the best available data and
policies established in that final rule. In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
this proposed rule, we would revise
§ 412.523(c)(3) to establish a standard
Federal rate based on a zero percent
update as discussed in section IV. B. of
this proposed rule. Therefore, based on
the proposed zero percent update, the
proposed standard Federal rate for RY
2007 would be $38,086.04. As we stated
in the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule, the
standard Federal rate of $38,086.04 was
already adjusted for differences in casemix, wages, cost-of-living, and high cost
outlier payments. Therefore, we made
additional adjustments in the RY 2006
LTCH PPS standard Federal rate for
those factors (70 FR 24180). Similarly,
since the proposed standard Federal rate
for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year has
already been adjusted for differences in
case-mix, wages, cost-of-living, and
high-cost outlier payments, we would
not propose to make any additional
adjustments in the proposed standard
Federal rate for these factors.
D. Calculation of Proposed LTCH
Prospective Payments for the 2007
LTCH PPS Rate Year
The basic methodology for
determining prospective payment rates
for LTCH inpatient operating and
capital-related costs is set forth in
§ 412.515 through § 412.532. In
accordance with § 412.515, we assign
appropriate weighting factors to each
LTC–DRG to reflect the estimated
relative cost of hospital resources used
for discharges within that group as
compared to discharges classified
within other groups. The amount of the
prospective payment is based on the
standard Federal rate, established under
§ 412.523, and adjusted for the LTC–
DRG relative weights, differences in area
wage levels, cost-of-living in Alaska and
Hawaii, high-cost outliers, and other
special payment provisions (short-stay
outliers (SSO) under § 412.529 and
interrupted stays under § 412.531).
In accordance with § 412.533, during
the 5-year transition period, payment is
based on the applicable transition blend
percentage of the adjusted Federal rate
and the reasonable cost-based payment
rate unless the LTCH makes a one-time
election to receive payment based on
100 percent of the Federal rate. A LTCH
defined as ‘‘new’’ under § 412.23(e)(4) is
paid based on 100 percent of the Federal
rate with no blended transition
payments (§ 412.533(d)). As discussed
in the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR
56038), and in accordance with
§ 412.533(a), the applicable transition
blends are as shown in Table 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 5
Cost reporting
periods beginning on or after
October
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Federal rate
percentage
Reasonable
cost-based
payment
rate percentage
20
40
60
80
100
80
60
40
20
0
Accordingly, for cost reporting
periods beginning during FY 2005 (that
is, on or after October 1, 2004, and on
or before September 30, 2005), blended
payments under the transition
methodology are based on 40 percent of
the LTCH’s reasonable cost-based
payment rate and 60 percent of the
adjusted LTCH PPS Federal rate. For
cost reporting periods that begin during
FY 2006 (that is, on or after October 1,
2005 and on or before September 30,
2006), blended payments under the
transition methodology will be based on
20 percent of the LTCH’s reasonable
cost-based payment rate and 80 percent
of the adjusted LTCH PPS Federal rate.
For cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2006 (FY 2007),
Medicare payment to LTCHs will be
determined entirely (100 percent) under
the LTCH PPS Federal rate.
1. Proposed Adjustment for Area Wage
Levels
a. Background
Under the authority of section 123 of
the BBRA as amended by section 307(b)
of the BIPA, we established an
adjustment to the LTCH PPS Federal
rate to account for differences in LTCH
area wage levels at § 412.525(c). The
labor-related share of the LTCH PPS
Federal rate, currently estimated by the
excluded hospital with capital market
basket, is adjusted to account for
geographic differences in area wage
levels by applying the applicable LTCH
PPS wage index. The applicable LTCH
PPS wage index is computed using wage
data from inpatient acute care hospitals
without regard to reclassification under
sections 1886(d)(8) or 1886(d)(10) of the
Act. Furthermore, as we discussed in
the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final
rule (67 FR 56015), we established a 5year transition to the full wage
adjustment. The applicable wage index
phase-in percentages are based on the
start of a LTCH’s cost reporting period
as shown in Table 6.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6
Phase-in percentage
of the full wage index
October
October
October
October
October
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Cost reporting periods
beginning on or after
1/5th (20 percent).
2/5ths (40 percent).
3/5ths (60 percent).
4/5ths (80 percent).
5/5ths (100 percent).
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
........
........
........
........
........
For example, for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2004 and on or before September 30,
2005 (FY 2005), the applicable LTCH
wage index value is three-fifths of the
applicable full LTCH PPS wage index
value. Similarly, for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2005 and on or before September 30,
2006 (FY 2006), the applicable LTCH
wage index value will be four-fifths of
the applicable full LTCH PPS wage
index value. The wage index adjustment
will be completely phased-in beginning
with cost reporting periods beginning in
FY 2007, that is, for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2006, the applicable LTCH wage index
value will be the full (five-fifths) LTCH
PPS wage index value. As we
established in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule (67 FR 56018), the
applicable full LTCH PPS wage index
value is calculated from acute-care
hospital inpatient wage index data
without taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act.
In that same final rule (67 FR 56018),
we stated that we would continue to
reevaluate LTCH data as they become
available and would propose to adjust
the phase-in if subsequent data support
a change. As we discussed in the RY
2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24181), because the LTCH PPS was only
recently implemented (slightly over 2
years) and because of the time lag in
availability of cost report data, sufficient
new data have not been generated that
would enable us to conduct a
comprehensive reevaluation of the
appropriateness of adjusting the phasein. However, for this proposed rule, we
have reviewed the most recent data (FY
2002–FY 2004) available and did not
find any evidence to support a change
in the 5-year phase-in of the wage index.
Specifically, our statistical analysis still
does not show a significant relationship
between LTCHs’ costs and their
geographic location. Therefore, in this
proposed rule, we are not proposing a
change in the phase-in of the adjustment
for area wage levels under § 412.525(c).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
b. Geographic Classifications/Labor
Market Area Definitions
As discussed in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule, which
implemented the LTCH PPS (67 FR
56015 through 56019), in establishing
an adjustment for area wage levels
under § 412.525(c), the labor-related
portion of a LTCH’s Federal prospective
payment is adjusted by using an
appropriate wage index based on the
labor market area in which the LTCH is
located. In the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year
final rule (70 FR 24184 through 24185),
in § 412.525(c), we revised the labor
market area definitions used under the
LTCH PPS effective for discharges
occurring on or after July 1, 2005 based
on the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB’s) Core Based Statistical
Area (CBSA) designations based on
2000 Census data because we believe
that those new labor market area
definitions will ensure that the LTCH
PPS wage index adjustment most
appropriately accounts for and reflects
the relative hospital wage levels in the
geographic area of the hospital as
compared to the national average
hospital wage level. As set forth in
§ 412.525(c)(2), a LTCH’s wage index is
determined based on the location of the
LTCH in an urban or rural area as
defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through
(C). An urban area under the LTCH PPS
is defined as is defined at
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B). In general,
an urban area is defined as a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as
defined by the OMB. (In addition, a few
counties located outside of MSAs are
considered urban as specified at
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(B).) Under
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C), a rural area is
defined as any area outside of an urban
area. We note that these are the same
CBSA-based designations implemented
for acute care inpatient hospitals under
the IPPS at § 412.64(b) effective October
1, 2004 (69 FR 49026 through 49034).
For further discussion of the labor
market area (geographic classification)
definitions used under the LTCH PPS,
see the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year final
rule (70 FR 24182 through 24191).
c. Proposed Labor-Related Share
In the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS
final rule (67 FR 56016), we established
a labor-related share of 72.885 percent
based on the relative importance of the
labor-related share of operating costs
(wages and salaries, employee benefits,
professional fees, postal services, and all
other labor-intensive services) and
capital costs of the excluded hospital
with capital market basket based on FY
1992 data. In the June 6, 2003 final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4671
(68 FR 34142), in conjunction with our
revision and rebasing of the excluded
hospital with capital market basket from
a FY 1992 to a FY 1997 base year, we
discussed revising the labor-related
share based on the relative importance
of the labor-related share of operating
and capital costs of the excluded
hospital with capital market basket
based on FY 1997 data. However, in the
June 6, 2003 final rule (68 FR 34142),
while we adopted the revised and
rebased FY 1997-based LTCH PPS
market basket as the LTCH PPS update
factor for the 2004 LTCH PPS rate year,
we decided not to update the laborrelated share under the LTCH PPS
pending further analysis of the current
labor share methodology.
In LTCH PPS final rules subsequent to
the FY 2003 LTCH PPS final rule in
which we established the current laborrelated share (68 FR 34142, 69 FR 25685
through 25686 and 70 FR 24182), we
explained that the primary reason that
we did not update the LTCH PPS laborrelated share for the 2004, 2005 and
2006 LTCH PPS rate years was because
of data and methodological concerns,
which was the same reason for not
updating the labor-related share under
the IPPS for FY 2004 (68 FR 45467
through 45468) and FY 2005 (69 FR
49069), which are equally applicable to
the LTCH PPS. We indicated that we
would conduct further analysis to
determine the most appropriate
methodology and data for determining
the labor-related share. We also stated
that we would propose to update the
IPPS and excluded hospital laborrelated shares, if necessary, once our
research is complete.
In the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, the
labor-related share under the IPPS that
is ‘‘estimated by the Secretary from time
to time’’ as specified in section
1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act was revised and
rebased based on the FY 2002-based
IPPS hospital market basket for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2005 using our established
methodology of defining the laborrelated share as the national average
proportion of operating costs that are
attributable to wages and salaries, fringe
benefits, professional fees, contract
labor, and labor intensive services.
Therefore, the IPPS labor-related share
‘‘estimated by the Secretary from time to
time’’ was calculated by adding the
relative weights for these operating cost
categories. In that same final rule we
stated that we continue to believe, as we
stated in the past, that these operating
cost categories likely are related to, are
influenced by, or vary with the local
markets (70 FR 47392 through 47393).
(We note that section 403 of the MMA
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4672
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
amended sections 1886(d)(3)(E) and
1886(d)(9)(C)(iv) of the Act to provide
that the Secretary must employ 62
percent as the labor-related share under
the IPPS unless this employment
‘‘would result in lower payments than
would otherwise be made.’’) In that
same final rule, we also revised and
rebased the excluded hospital market
basket, which is used to update the
reasonable cost-based portion of LTCHs’
blended transition payments (70 FR
47399 through 47403).
As we stated previously, once our
research into the labor-related share
methodology was complete, we would
update the IPPS and excluded hospital
labor-related shares based on that
research and the best available data if
necessary. In this proposed rule, we are
proposing to update the LTCH PPS
labor-related share based on the
proposed RPL market basket as
discussed in section IV.D.1.c. of this
preamble. We are proposing to adopt the
RPL market basket under the LTCH PPS
because we believe that this market
basket is developed based on the best
available data that reflect the cost
structures of LTCHs. Specifically, we
are proposing to revise the LTCH PPS
labor-related share from 72.885 percent
(as established in the August 30, 2002
final rule (67 FR 56016) based on the FY
1997-based excluded hospital with
capital market basket) to 75.923 percent
based on the relative importance of the
labor-related share of operating costs
(wages and salaries, employee benefits,
professional fees, and all other laborintensive services) and capital costs of
the proposed RPL market basket based
on FY 2002 data, as discussed in greater
detail below.
Consistent with our historical
practice, the labor-related share is
determined by identifying the national
average proportion of operating costs
that are related to, influenced by, or
varies with the local labor market. Using
our current definition of labor-related,
the labor-related share is the sum of the
relative importance of wages and
salaries, fringe benefits, professional
fees, labor-intensive services, and a
portion of the capital share from an
appropriate market basket. We are
proposing to use the proposed FY 2002based RPL market basket costs to
determine the proposed labor-related
share for the LTCH PPS effective for
discharges occurring on or after July 1,
2006 as it is based on the most recent
available data. The proposed laborrelated share for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year would be the sum of the
relative importance of each labor-related
cost category, and would reflect the
different rates of price change for these
cost categories between the base year
(FY 2002) and the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. Based on the most recent available
data, the sum of the proposed relative
importance for 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
for operating costs (wages and salaries,
employee benefits, professional fees,
and labor-intensive services) would be
71.845, as shown in Table 7. The
portion of capital that is influenced by
the local labor market is estimated to be
46 percent, which is the same
percentage used in the 1997-based
excluded hospital with capital market
basket currently used under the LTCH
PPS. Since the relative importance for
capital would be 8.866 percent of the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
based on the latest available data, we are
proposing to multiply the estimated
portion of capital influenced by the
local labor market (46 percent) by the
relative importance for capital of the
proposed FY 2002-based RPL market
basket (8.866 percent) to determine the
proposed labor-related share of capital
for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year. The
result would be 4.078 percent (0.46 ×
8.866 percent), which we propose to
add to 71.845 percent for the operating
cost amount to determine the total
proposed labor-related share for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year. Thus, based
on the latest available data, we are
proposing to use a labor-related share of
75.923 percent under the LTCH PPS for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year. This
proposed labor-related share is
determined using the same methodology
as employed in calculating the current
LTCH labor-related share (67 FR 56016).
If more recent data become available
before the publication of the final rule
and if we revise the LTCH PPS laborrelated share based on the proposed FY
2002-based RPL market basket, we
propose that we would use that data to
determine the labor-related share for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year in the final
rule.
Table 7 shows the proposed 2007
LTCH PPS rate year relative importance
labor-related share using the proposed
2002-based RPL market basket and the
current relative importance labor-related
share using the FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket.
TABLE 7.—TOTAL LABOR-RELATED SHARE-RELATIVE IMPORTANCE FOR THE 2007 FOR THE PROPOSED RPL MARKET
BASKET AND THE EXCLUDED HOSPITAL WITH CAPITAL MARKET BASKET
FY 1997-based excluded hospital with capital market basket relative importance (percent currently used
under the LTCH PPS)
Wages and salaries .................................................................................................................
Employee benefits ...................................................................................................................
Professional fees .....................................................................................................................
Postal Services* .......................................................................................................................
All other labor-intensive services** ..........................................................................................
Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................
Labor-related share of capital costs ........................................................................................
52.761
14.008
2.903
........................................
2.173
71.845
4.078
50.381
11.525
2.059
0.244
5.219
69.428
3.457
Total ..................................................................................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Cost category
Proposed FY 2002based RPL market basket relative importance
(percent) for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year
75.923
72.885
* No longer considered labor related.
** Other labor intensive services includes landscaping services, services to buildings, detective and protective services, repair services, laundry
services, advertising, auto parking and repairs, physical fitness facilities, and other government enterprises.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
d. Proposed Wage Index Data
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24190 through 24191), we
established LTCH PPS wage index
values for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year
calculated from the same data
(generated in cost reporting periods
beginning during FY 2000) used to
compute the FY 2005 acute care
hospital inpatient wage index data
without taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act
because that was the best available data
at that time. The LTCH wage index
values applicable for discharges
occurring on or after July 1, 2005
through June 30, 2006 are shown in
Table 1 (for urban areas) and Table 2
(for rural areas) in the Addendum to the
RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule. Acute
care hospital inpatient wage index data
are also used to establish the wage index
adjustment used in the IRF PPS, HHA
PPS, and SNF PPS. As we discussed in
the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final
rule (67 FR 56019), since hospitals that
are excluded from the IPPS are not
required to provide wage-related
information on the Medicare cost report
and because we would need to establish
instructions for the collection of this
LTCH data in order to establish a
geographic reclassification adjustment
under the LTCH PPS, the wage
adjustment established under the LTCH
PPS is based on a LTCH’s actual
location without regard to the urban or
rural designation of any related or
affiliated provider.
In this proposed rule, under the broad
authority conferred upon the Secretary
by section 123 of the BBRA as amended
by section 307(b) of BIPA to determine
appropriate adjustments under the
LTCH PPS, we are proposing that, for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year, the same
data (generated in cost reporting periods
beginning during FY 2002) used to
compute the FY 2006 acute care
hospital inpatient wage index data
without taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act would
be used to determine the applicable
wage index values under the LTCH PPS
because these data (FY 2002) are the
most recent complete data. We are
proposing to continue to use IPPS wage
data as a proxy to determine the
proposed LTCH wage index values for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year because
both LTCHs and acute-care hospitals are
required to meet the same certification
criteria set forth in section 1861(e) of the
Act to participate as a hospital in the
Medicare program and they both
compete in the same labor markets, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
therefore experience similar wagerelated costs. These data are the same
FY 2002 acute care hospital inpatient
wage data that were used to compute
the FY 2006 wage indices currently
used under the IPPS, SNF PPS and HHA
PPS.
The proposed LTCH wage index
values that would be applicable for
discharges occurring on or after July 1,
2006 through June 30, 2007, are shown
in Table 1 (for urban areas) and Table
2 (for rural areas) in the Addendum to
this proposed rule.
As discussed above in section
IV.D.1.a. of this preamble, the
applicable wage index phase-in
percentages are based on the start of a
LTCH’s cost reporting period beginning
on or after October 1st of each year
during the 5-year transition period.
Thus, for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2004
and before October 1, 2005 (FY 2005),
the labor portion of the standard Federal
rate is adjusted by three-fifths of the
applicable LTCH wage index value. For
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2005 and before October
1, 2006 (FY 2006), the labor portion of
the standard Federal rate is adjusted by
four-fifths of the applicable LTCH wage
index value. Specifically, for a LTCH’s
cost reporting period beginning during
FY 2006, for discharges occurring on or
after July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007,
the applicable wage index value would
be four-fifths of the full FY 2006 acute
care hospital inpatient wage index data,
without taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act (shown
in Tables 1 and 2 in the Addendum to
this proposed rule).
Because the phase-in of the wage
index does not coincide with the LTCH
PPS rate year (July 1st through June
30th), most LTCHs will experience a
change in the wage index phase-in
percentages during the LTCH PPS rate
year. For example, during the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, for a LTCH with a
January 1st FY, the four-fifths wage
index will be applicable for the first 6
months of the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
(July 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006) and the full (five-fifths) wage
index will be applicable for the second
6 months of the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year (January 1, 2007 through June 30,
2007). We also note that some providers
will still be in the third year of the 5year phase-in of the LTCH wage index
(that is, those LTCHs who entered the 5year phase-in during their cost reporting
periods that began between July 1, 2003
and September 30, 2003). For the
remainder of those LTCHs’ FY 2005 cost
reporting periods that will coincide
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4673
with the first 3 months of RY 2007, the
applicable wage index value would be
three-fifths of the full FY 2006 acute
care hospital inpatient wage index data,
without taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act (as
shown in Tables 1 and 2 in the
Addendum to this proposed rule). Since
there are no longer any LTCHs in their
cost reporting period that began during
FYs 2003 and 2004 (the first and second
years of the 5-year wage index phasein), we are no longer showing the 1⁄5th
and 2⁄5ths wage index values in Tables
1 and 2 in the Addendum to this
proposed rule.
2. Proposed Adjustment for Cost-ofLiving in Alaska and Hawaii
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67
FR 56022), we established, under
§ 412.525(b), a cost-of-living adjustment
(COLA) for LTCHs located in Alaska
and Hawaii to account for the higher
costs incurred in those States. In the RY
2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24191), for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year, we established that we make a
COLA to payments for LTCHs located in
Alaska and Hawaii by multiplying the
standard Federal payment rate by the
appropriate factor listed in Table I. of
that same final rule.
Similarly, in this proposed rule,
under broad authority conferred upon
the Secretary by section 123 of the
BBRA as amended by section 307(b) of
BIPA to determine appropriate
adjustments under the LTCH PPS, for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year we are
proposing to make a COLA to payments
to LTCHs located in Alaska and Hawaii
by multiplying the proposed standard
Federal payment rate by the proposed
factors listed in Table 8 because these
are currently the most recent available
data. These proposed factors are
obtained from the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and are
currently used under the IPPS. In
addition, we propose that if OPM
releases revised COLA factors before
March 1, 2006, we would use them for
the development of the payments for the
2007 LTCH rate year and publish them
in the LTCH PPS final rule.
TABLE 8.—PROPOSED COST-OF-LIVING
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR ALASKA
AND HAWAII HOSPITALS FOR THE
2007 LTCH PPS RATE YEAR
Alaska:
All areas ......................................
Hawaii:
Honolulu County .........................
Hawaii County .............................
Kauai County ..............................
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
1.25
1.25
1.165
1.2325
4674
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
LTCH PPS for a case with unusually
high costs before the LTCH will receive
any additional payments. We calculate
the fixed-loss amount by estimating
aggregate payments with and without an
outlier policy. The fixed-loss amount
Maui County ................................
1.2375 will result in estimated total outlier
Kalawao County ..........................
1.2375 payments being projected to be equal to
8 percent of projected total LTCH PPS
payments. Currently, MedPAR claims
3. Proposed Adjustment for High-Cost
data and CCRs based on data from the
Outliers
most recent provider specific file (PSF)
a. Background
(or to the applicable Statewide average
Under the broad authority conferred
CCR if a LTCH’s CCR data are faulty or
upon the Secretary by section 123 of the unavailable) are used to establish a
BBRA as amended by section 307(b) of
fixed-loss threshold amount under the
BIPA, in the regulations at § 412.525(a),
LTCH PPS.
we established an adjustment for
b. Cost-to-Charge Ratios (CCRs)
additional payments for outlier cases
In determining outlier payments, we
that have extraordinarily high costs
calculate the estimated cost of the case
relative to the costs of most discharges.
by multiplying the LTCH’s overall CCR
Providing additional payments for
by the Medicare allowable charges for
outliers strongly improves the accuracy
the case.
of the LTCH PPS in determining
As we discussed in greater detail in
resource costs at the patient and
the June 9, 2003 IPPS high cost outlier
hospital level. These additional
final rule (68 FR 34506 through 34516),
payments reduce the financial losses
because the LTCH PPS high-cost outlier
that would otherwise be caused by
policy (§ 412.525) is modeled after the
treating patients who require more
IPPS outlier policy, we believed that it
costly care and, therefore, reduce the
and the short-stay outlier (SSO) policy
incentives to underserve these patients.
(§ 412.529) are susceptible to the same
We set the outlier threshold before the
payment vulnerabilities that became
beginning of the applicable rate year so
that total estimated outlier payments are evident under the IPPS and therefore,
merited revision. Thus, we revised the
projected to equal 8 percent of total
high-cost outlier policy at § 412.525(a)
estimated payments under the LTCH
and short-stay policy at § 412.529 in that
PPS. Outlier payments under the LTCH
same final rule for the determination of
PPS are determined consistent with the
LTCHs’ CCRs and the reconciliation of
IPPS outlier policy.
outlier payments.
Under § 412.525(a), we make outlier
Under the LTCH PPS, a single
payments for any discharges if the
prospective payment per discharge is
estimated cost of a case exceeds the
made for both inpatient operating and
adjusted LTCH PPS payment for the
LTC–DRG plus a fixed-loss amount. The capital-related costs, and therefore, we
fixed-loss amount is the amount used to compute a single ‘‘overall’’ or ‘‘total’’
CCR for LTCHs based on the sum of
limit the loss that a hospital will incur
their operating and capital costs (as
under the outlier policy for a case with
described in Chapter 3, section 150.24,
unusually high costs. This results in
of the Medicare Claims Processing
Medicare and the LTCH sharing
Manual (CMS Pub. 100–4) as compared
financial risk in the treatment of
extraordinarily costly cases. Under the
to total charges. Specifically, a LTCH’s
LTCH PPS high cost outlier policy, the
CCR is calculated by dividing a LTCH’s
LTCH’s loss is limited to the fixed-loss
total Medicare costs (that is, the sum of
amount and a fixed percentage of costs
its operating and capital inpatient
above the marginal cost factor. We
routine and ancillary costs) divided by
calculate the estimated cost of a case by its total Medicare charges (that is, the
multiplying the overall hospital cost-to- sum of its operating and capital
charge ratio (CCR) by the Medicare
inpatient routine and ancillary charges).
allowable covered charge. In accordance (Instructions regarding the changes
with § 412.525(a)(3), we pay outlier
established in the June 9, 2003 IPPS
cases 80 percent of the difference
high cost outlier final rule for both
between the estimated cost of the
LTCHs and IPPS hospitals can be found
patient case and the outlier threshold
in Transmittal A–03–058 (Change
(the sum of the adjusted Federal
Request 2785; July 3, 2003).)
As a result of the changes established
prospective payment for the LTC–DRG
in the June 9, 2003 IPPS high cost
and the fixed-loss amount).
Under the LTCH PPS, we determine a outlier final rule, as we discussed in
fixed-loss amount, that is, the maximum previous LTCH PPS final rules ((RY
loss that a LTCH can incur under the
2004, 68 FR 34144 through 34146); (RY
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 8.—PROPOSED COST-OF-LIVING
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR ALASKA
AND HAWAII HOSPITALS FOR THE
2007 LTCH PPS RATE YEAR—
Continued
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2005, 69 FR 25687 through 25690); and
(RY 2006, 70 FR 24192 through 24194)),
under our current policy a LTCH is
assigned the applicable Statewide
average CCR if, among other things, a
LTCH’s CCR is found to be in excess of
the applicable maximum CCR threshold
(that is, the combined IPPS operating
and capital CCR ceiling). As we
explained in that same final rule (68 FR
34507), CCRs above this threshold are
most likely due to faulty data reporting
or entry, and therefore, these CCRs
should not be used to identify and make
payments for outlier cases. Such data
are clearly errors and should not be
relied upon. Thus, under our
established policy, if a LTCH’s CCR is
above the applicable ceiling, the
applicable combined IPPS Statewide
average CCR is assigned to the LTCH
instead of the CCR computed from its
most recent (settled or tentatively
settled) cost report data.
As we explained in the RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR 24192), we
believe it is appropriate to use the
combined IPPS operating and capital
CCR ceiling and the applicable
combined IPPS Statewide average CCRs
in determining LTCHs’ CCRs because
LTCHs’ cost and charge structures are
similar to that of IPPS acute-care
hospitals. For instance, LTCHs are
certified as acute care hospitals, as set
forth in section 1861(e) of the Act to
participate as a hospital in the Medicare
program, and these hospitals, in general,
are paid as LTCHs only because their
Medicare ALOS is greater than 25 days
(see § 412.23(e)). Furthermore, as also
explained in that same final rule, prior
to qualifying as a LTCH under
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i), a hospital generally is
paid as an acute-care hospital under the
IPPS during the period in which it
demonstrates that it has an ALOS of
greater than 25 days. In addition, since
there are less than 400 LTCHs, which
are unevenly geographically distributed
throughout the United States, there may
not be sufficient LTCH CCR data to
determine an appropriate LTCH PPS
CCR ceiling using LTCH data.
As noted previously in this proposed
rule, under the LTCH PPS, there is a
single prospective payment per
discharge for both inpatient operating
and capital-related costs, and therefore,
we compute a single ‘‘overall’’ or ‘‘total’’
CCR for LTCHs based on the sum of
their Medicare operating and capital
costs and charges. However, under the
IPPS, Medicare per discharge payments
to acute-care hospitals for the costs of
inpatient operating services are made
under the ‘‘Operating IPPS’’ and per
discharge payments to acute-care
hospitals for inpatient capital-related
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
costs are made under the ‘‘Capital
IPPS.’’ Because separate payments are
made to acute-care hospitals under the
IPPS for operating and capital costs,
separate operating and capital CCRs are
calculated and used in determining
IPPS high cost outlier payments.
Accordingly, under the IPPS a separate
‘‘operating’’ CCR ceiling and a ‘‘capital’’
CCR ceiling are determined annually.
As we explained previously in this
proposed rule and as stated in annual
instructions (see Transmittal A–02–093
(Change Request 2288; September 27,
2002); Transmittal A–03–073 (Change
Request 2891; August 22, 2003);
Transmittal 309 (Change Request 3459;
October 1, 2004); and Transmittal 692
(Change Request 4046; September 30,
2005)), under our current policy, if a
LTCH’s CCR is above the applicable
‘‘combined’’ IPPS operating and capital
ceiling (that is, adding the separate IPPS
operating and capital CCR ceiling
together), the applicable Statewide
average CCR is assigned to the LTCH.
Because, LTCHs have a single ‘‘total’’
CCR (rather than separate operating and
capital CCRs), under the broad authority
of section 123 of the BBRA and section
307(b)(1) of BIPA, we are proposing to
revise § 412.525(a)(4) to specify that, for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, if, among other things, a
LTCH’s CCR is in excess of the LTCH
CCR ceiling (which would be calculated
as 3 standard deviations above the
corresponding national geometric mean
CCR), established and published
annually by CMS), the FI may use a
Statewide average CCR (also established
annually by CMS).
This proposed change is similar to our
existing policy (established in the June
9, 2003 IPPS high cost outlier final rule
as previously discussed in this proposed
rule). Under proposed revised
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C)(2), for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006,
we are proposing that we would
determine the single ‘‘total’’ CCR
ceiling, based on IPPS CCR data, by first
calculating the total (that is, operating
and capital) CCR for each hospital and
then determining the average total CCR
for all hospitals. The ceiling would then
be established at 3 standard deviations
from the mean total CCR rather than
determining the LTCH total CCR ceiling
by adding the separate IPPS operating
CCR and capital CCR ceilings as we do
under our current policy. Specifically,
under this proposed policy we would
use the same IPPS CCR data that we
currently use to annually determine the
separate IPPS operating CCR and capital
CCR ceilings (that we add together
under our current policy to determine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
the annual CCR ceiling for LTCHs) to
compute IPPS hospital-specific total
CCRs that would be used to determine
the single LTCH total CCR ceiling. We
believe that determining a LTCH CCR
ceiling based on IPPS total (operating
and capital) Medicare costs and charges
rather than adding the separate IPPS
CCR ceilings determined from operating
CCRs and capital CCRs, respectively,
would be more consistent with the
LTCH PPS single payment, which does
not differentiate payments between
operating and capital costs.
As explained previously in this
proposed rule, there is a single LTCH
PPS Federal rate rather than a separate
operating standardized amount and a
capital Federal rate, as there is under
the IPPS. (We note, as discussed in
greater detail below in this section, in
conjunction with this proposed change
in the calculation of the LTCH CCR
ceiling, we are also proposing a change
in our methodology for calculating the
applicable Statewide average CCRs
under the LTCH PPS to be based on
hospital-specific ‘‘total’’ CCRs.) Our
rationale for proposing to continue to
use IPPS data to determine the LTCH
CCR ceiling annually continues to be
the same as the one stated above. We
note that we are proposing that the
proposed refinement to our
methodology for determining the annual
CCR ceiling under the LTCH PPS at
proposed revised
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C)(2) would be
effective for discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2006 rather than July 1,
2006 because, we are proposing to
continue to use the same IPPS data used
to determine the individual IPPS
operating and capital CCR ceilings
established and published annually in
the IPPS proposed and final rules. Since
both the separate IPPS operating and
capital CCRs ceilings and the LTCH
‘‘total’’ CCR ceiling would be
determined using the same data, we
believe it would be administratively
expedient to continue to establish the
LTCH CCR ceiling to be effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1 of each year. (As stated previously,
this is consistent with our current
policy, where the LTCH CCR ceiling is
updated annually on October 1.)
Therefore, under this proposal, the
public should continue to consult the
annual IPPS proposed and final rules for
changes to the LTCH CCR ceiling that
would be effective for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006
(since, under this proposal, the current
LTCH CCR ceiling, established for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2005 in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4675
would remain in effect for discharges
occurring on or before September 30,
2006).
Also in the June 9, 2003 IPPS high
cost outlier final rule, we established
our existing policy that, for discharges
occurring on or after August 8, 2003,
that in addition to assigning the
applicable Statewide average CCR to a
LTCH whose CCR is above the ceiling,
the FI may use the applicable Statewide
average CCR for LTCHs for whom data
with which to calculate a CCR is not
available (for example, missing or faulty
data) or new LTCHs that have not yet
submitted their first Medicare cost
report (for this purpose, a new LTCH is
defined as an entity that has not
accepted assignment of an existing
hospital’s provider agreement in
accordance with § 489.18 of this
chapter). (We note that consistent with
our current policy, either CMS or the
hospital may request the use of a
different (higher or lower) CCR based on
substantial evidence that such a CCR
more accurately reflects the hospital’s
actual costs and charges. This applies to
new (as defined above) as well. For
instance, CMS may determine that the
applicable Statewide average CCR
should not be applied to hospitals that
convert from acute-care IPPS hospitals
to LTCHs (and receive a new LTCH
provider number). Rather, the cost and
charge data from the IPPS hospital’s cost
report (even if it is more or less than a
12-month cost reporting period) would
be used to determine the LTCH’s CCR.)
Thus, in addition to proposing to
revise our methodology for determining
the annual CCR ceiling under the LTCH
PPS for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, under the broad
authority of section 123 of the BBRA
and section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, we are
also proposing to revise § 412.525(a)(4),
for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, to codify in subpart O
of part 42 of the CFR the remaining
LTCH PPS high cost policy changes that
were established in the June 9, 2003
IPPS high cost outlier final rule (68 FR
34506 through 34513), including
proposed modifications and editorial
clarifications to those existing policies
established in that final rule, which are
discussed in greater detail below in this
section. We are proposing these
additional revisions to § 412.525(a)(4),
as discussed in greater detail below in
this section, because we believe that a
position such as this would more
precisely describe the application of
those policies as they relate to the
determination of LTCH CCRs because
these proposed changes would be
consistent with the proposed changes to
the calculation of the LTCH CCR ceiling
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4676
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
discussed above in this section.
Specifically, similar to our current
policy, we are proposing in
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C) to specify that the
FI may use a Statewide average CCR,
which would be established annually by
CMS, if it is unable to determine an
accurate CCR for a LTCH in one of the
following three circumstances: (1) New
LTCHs that have not yet submitted their
first Medicare cost report (for this
purpose, consistent with current policy,
a new LTCH would be defined as an
entity that has not accepted assignment
of an existing hospital’s provider
agreement in accordance with § 489.18
of this chapter); (2) LTCHs whose CCR
is in excess of the LTCH CCR ceiling
(that is, 3 standard deviations above the
corresponding national geometric mean
total CCR, as discussed in greater
previously in this proposed rule); and
(3) other LTCHs for whom data with
which to calculate a CCR is not
available (for example, missing or faulty
data). Also similar to our current
practice, under proposed
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C), for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006,
we are proposing that we would
annually establish Statewide average
‘‘total’’ CCRs (as explained below in this
section) for use under the LTCH PPS
based on IPPS data rather than assigning
the combined (operating and capital)
Statewide average CCRs (see Transmittal
692 (Change Request 4046; September
30, 2005)). Specifically, under this
proposed policy, we would use the
same IPPS CCR data that we currently
use to annually establish the separate
IPPS operating and capital Statewide
CCRs (that we add together under our
current policy to determine the
applicable ‘‘combined’’ Statewide
average CCR for LTCHs) to compute
Statewide average total CCRs by first
calculating the total (that is, operating
and capital) CCR for each hospital and
then determining the average total CCR
for all hospitals in each State rather than
adding together the separate applicable
IPPS operating and capital Statewide
average CCRs as we do under our
current policy. We are also proposing
that these Statewide average ‘‘total’’
(operating and capital) CCRs that would
be used under the LTCH PPS would
continue to be published annually in
the IPPS proposed and final rules, and
therefore, the public should continue to
consult the annual IPPS proposed and
final rules for changes to the applicable
Statewide average total CCRs that would
be effective for discharges occurring on
or after October 1, 2006 (since, under
this proposal, the current applicable
Statewide average operating and capital
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
CCRs, established for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2005,
would remain in effect for discharges
occurring on or before September 30,
2006). Our rationale for proposing to
establish Statewide average ‘‘total’’
CCRs (as described above in this
section) based on IPPS data under
proposed § 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C) is the
same as the one stated above for
proposing to use IPPS data to determine
a ‘‘total’’ LTCH CCR ceiling.
Similar to our current policy, we are
also proposing to specify under
proposed § 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(B), that for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, the CCR applied at the time a
claim is processed would be based on
either the most recent settled cost report
or the most recent tentative settled cost
report, whichever is from the latest cost
reporting period. Furthermore, we are
proposing under proposed
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(A) to state that CMS
may specify an alternative to the CCR
computed under proposed
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(B), that is the CCR
computed from the most recent settled
cost report or the most recent tentative
settled cost report, whichever is later, or
a hospital may also request that its FI
use a different (higher or lower) CCR
based on substantial evidence presented
by the hospital. These proposed
revisions to our policy for determining
a LTCH’s CCR for discharges occurring
on or after October 1, 2006 under
proposed revised § 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(A)
and (B) are similar to our existing policy
established in the June 9, 2003 IPPS
high cost outlier final rule (68 FR 34506
through 34513).
In conjunction with the proposed
revisions to § 412.525(a)(4) concerning
the determination of LTCHs’ CCRs
discussed above in this section, we are
also proposing to revise § 412.525(a)(4)
to codify in subpart O of part 42 of the
CFR the existing outlier reconciliation
provisions, including the proposed
editorial clarifications to those existing
policies, which are discussed in greater
detail below in section IV.D.3.d. of this
preamble. Furthermore, because CCRs
are also used in determining payments
under the existing SSO policy
(§ 412.529), as discussed in greater
detail in section VI.A.1. of this
preamble, we are also proposing to
revise § 412.529(c), for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006, to
make the same changes to the SSO
policy. In addition, we are also
proposing a technical correction to
existing § 412.525(a)(3) to change the
plural reference from cost-to-charge
‘‘ratios’’ to the singular reference costto-charge ‘‘ratio’’ because under the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
LTCH PPS a single (total) CCR is
computed for LTCHs.
c. Establishment of the Proposed FixedLoss Amount
When we implemented the LTCH
PPS, as discussed in the August 30,
2002 final rule (67 FR 56022 through
56026), under the broad authority of
section 123 of the BBRA as amended by
section 307(b) of BIPA, we established
a fixed-loss amount so that total
estimated outlier payments are
projected to equal 8 percent of total
estimated payments under the LTCH
PPS. To determine the fixed-loss
amount, we estimate outlier payments
and total LTCH PPS payments for each
case using claims data from the
MedPAR files. Specifically, to
determine the outlier payment for each
case, we estimate the cost of the case by
multiplying the Medicare covered
charges from the claim by the LTCH’s
hospital specific CCR. Under
§ 412.525(a)(3), if the estimated cost of
the case exceeds the outlier threshold
(the sum of the adjusted Federal
prospective payment for the LTC–DRG
and the fixed-loss amount), we pay an
outlier payment equal to 80 percent of
the difference between the estimated
cost of the case and the outlier threshold
(the sum of the adjusted Federal
prospective payment for the LTC–DRG
and the fixed-loss amount).
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24194), in calculating the fixedloss amount that would result in outlier
payments projected to be equal to 8
percent of total estimated payments for
the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year, we used
claims data from the December 2004
update of the FY 2004 MedPAR files
and CCRs from the December 2004
update of the PSF, as that was the best
available data at that time. As we
discussed in that same final rule (70 FR
24193 through 24194), we believe that
CCRs from the PSF were the best
available CCR data for determining
LTCHs’ LTCH PPS payments during the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year because they
were the most recently available CCRs
(at that time) actually used to make
LTCH PPS payments.
As we also discussed in the RY 2006
LTCH PPS rate year final rule (70 FR
24192 through 24193), we calculated a
single fixed-loss amount for the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year based on the
version 22.0 of the GROUPER, which
was the version in effect as of the
beginning of the LTCH PPS rate year
(that is, July 1, 2005 for the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year). In addition, we applied
the current outlier policy under
§ 412.525(a) in determining the fixedloss amount for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
year; that is, we assigned the applicable
Statewide average CCR only to LTCHs
whose CCRs exceeded the ceiling (and
not when they fell below the floor).
Accordingly, we used the FY 2005 IPPS
combined operating and capital CCR
ceiling of 1.409 (70 FR 24192). (Our
rationale for using the FY 2005
combined IPPS operating and capital
CCR ceiling for LTCHs stated in section
IV.D.3.b. of this preamble.) As noted in
that same final rule, in determining the
fixed-loss amount for the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year using the CCRs from the
PSF, there were no LTCHs with missing
CCRs or with CCRs in excess of the
current ceiling and, therefore, there was
no need for us to independently assign
the applicable Statewide average CCR to
any LTCHs in determining the fixed-loss
amount for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year
(as this may have already been done by
the FI in the PSF in accordance with the
established policy).
Accordingly, in 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year final rule (70 FR 24194), we
established a fixed-loss amount of
$10,501 for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year. Thus, we pay an outlier case 80
percent of the difference between the
estimated cost of the case and the
outlier threshold (the sum of the
adjusted Federal LTCH PPS payment for
the LTC–DRG and the fixed-loss amount
of $10,501).
In this proposed rule, for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, we used the June
2005 update of the FY 2004 MedPAR
claims data to determine a proposed
fixed-loss amount that would result in
outlier payments projected to be equal
to 8 percent of total estimated payments,
based on the policies described in this
proposed rule, because these data are
the most recent complete LTCH data
available. Furthermore, as noted
previously, we determined the proposed
fixed-loss amount based on the version
of the GROUPER that would be in effect
as of the beginning of the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year (July 1, 2006), that is,
Version 23.0 of the GROUPER (70 FR
47324).
We also used CCRs from the June
2005 update of the Provider Specific
File for determining the proposed fixedloss amount for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year as they are currently the most
recent complete available data. If more
recent CCR data are available, we
propose to use it for determining the
fixed-loss amount for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year in the final rule. As we
discussed previously in this proposed
rule, we are proposing a change to our
methodology for our annual
determination of the applicable LTCH
CCR ceiling and applicable Statewide
average CCRs that would be assigned in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
determining a LTCH’s CCR effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006. As noted above in this section,
under this proposal, the current LTCH
CCR ceiling and applicable Statewide
average CCRs, established for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2005,
would remain in effect for discharges
occurring on or before September 30,
2006. In determining the proposed
fixed-loss amount for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year, we are proposing to use
the current FY 2006 applicable IPPS
combined operating and capital CCR
ceiling of 1.423 and Statewide average
CCRs (as discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule (70 FR 47496) and established
in Transmittal 692 (September 30,
2005)) such that the current applicable
Statewide average CCR would be
assigned if, among other things, a
LTCH’s CCR exceeded the current
ceiling (1.423). Our reason for proposing
to use the existing LTCH CCR ceiling
and Statewide average CCRs to
determine the proposed RY 2007 fixedloss amount even though we are
proposing to change our methodology
for determining the CCR ceiling and
Statewide average CCRs effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, is because, based on our
analysis of the data used to determine
the FY 2006 LTCH CCR ceiling, we
believe that this methodology change
would result in a minor change in the
numerical value of the LTCH CCR
ceiling, and therefore, would have a
negligible effect on the LTCHs’ CCRs
used to determine the proposed fixedloss amount for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. Moreover, we note that in
determining the proposed fixed-loss
amount for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
using the CCRs from the PSF, there was
no need for us to independently assign
the applicable Statewide average CCR to
any LTCHs in determining the proposed
fixed-loss amount for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year (as this may have already
been done by the FI in the PSF in
accordance with our established policy).
(Currently, the applicable FY 2006 IPPS
Statewide averages can be found in
Tables 8A and 8B of the FY 2006 IPPS
final rule (70 FR 47672).)
Accordingly, based on the data and
policies described in this proposed rule,
we are proposing a fixed-loss amount of
$18,489 for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. Thus, we would pay an outlier
case 80 percent of the difference
between the estimated cost of the case
and the proposed outlier threshold (the
sum of the adjusted proposed Federal
LTCH payment for the LTC–DRG and
the proposed fixed-loss amount of
$18,489). We note that the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4677
fixed-loss amount for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year is significantly higher than
the current fixed-loss amount of
$10,501. This proposed change in the
fixed-loss amount would primarily be
due to the projected decrease in LTCH
PPS payments resulting from the
proposed change in the SSO policy
under § 412.529 (discussed in greater
detail in section V.A.1. of this preamble)
and the changes to the LTC–DRG
relative weights for FY 2006 (as
discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule
(70 FR 47355)). Because we are
projecting approximately an 11 percent
decrease in aggregate LTCH PPS
payments in the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year (as discussed in section XIII. of this
proposed rule), we believe that an
increase in the proposed fixed-loss
amount is appropriate and necessary to
maintain the requirement that estimated
outlier payments would equal 8 percent
of estimated total LTCH PPS payments,
as required under § 412.525(a).
Maintaining the fixed-loss amount at the
current level would result in high cost
outlier payments that significantly
exceed the current regulatory
requirement that estimated outlier
payments would be projected to equal 8
percent of estimated total LTCH PPS
payments. We note that in the August
30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56022 through
56024), based on our regression
analysis, we established the outlier
target at 8 percent of estimated total
LTCH PPS payments to allow us to
achieve a balance between the
‘‘conflicting considerations of the need
to protect hospitals with costly cases,
while maintaining incentives to
improve overall efficiency.’’ In that
same final rule (67 FR 56023), we also
explained that our regression analysis
showed that additional increments of
outlier payments over 8 percent (that is,
raising the outlier target to a larger
percentage than 8 percent) would
reduce financial risk, but by
successively smaller amounts. Since
outlier payments are included in budget
neutrality calculations, outlier payments
would be funded by prospectively
reducing the non-outlier PPS payment
rates by the proportion of projected
outlier payments to projected total PPS
payments in the absence of outlier
payments; the higher the outlier target,
the greater the (prospective) reduction
to the base payment rate in order to
maintain budget neutrality. As another
alternative to the proposed reduction to
the fixed-loss amount for RY 2007, we
are soliciting comments on whether we
should revisit the regression analysis
discussed above in this section that was
used to establish the existing 8 percent
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4678
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
outlier target, using the most recent
available data to evaluate whether the
current outlier target of 8 percent should
be adjusted, and therefore may result in
less of an increase in the fixed-loss
amount for RY 2007. After revisiting
this issue and an analysis of the most
recent complete available data, due to
the lag time in the availability of data,
we now believe the most appropriate
time to revisit a budget neutral policy
change in the outlier policy (among
other things), which would affect future
LTCH PPS payment rates, would be
after the conclusion of the 5-year
transition period when we expect to
have several years of data generated
after the implementation of the LTCH
PPS.
As an alternative to proposing to raise
the fixed-loss amount for FY 2007, we
also examined adjusting the marginal
cost factor (that is, the percentage that
Medicare will pay of the estimated cost
of a case that exceeds the sum of the
adjusted Federal prospective payment
for the LTC–DRG and the fixed-loss
amount for LTCH PPS outlier cases as
specified in § 412.525(a)(3)), as a means
of ensuring that estimated outlier
payments would be projected to equal 8
percent of estimated total LTCH PPS
payments. As we established in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56022
through 56026), under the LTCH PPS
high-cost outlier policy at
§ 412.525(a)(3), the marginal cost factor
is currently equal to 80 percent. A
marginal cost factor equal to 80 percent
means that for an outlier case we pay
the LTCH 80 percent of the difference
between the estimated cost of the case
and the outlier threshold (the sum of the
adjusted Federal rate for the LTC–DRG
PPS payment and the fixed-loss
amount).
In addition, as we discussed in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56023)
that implemented the LTCH PPS, the
marginal cost factor is designed to
ensure ‘‘a balance between the need to
protect LTCHs financially, while
encouraging them to treat expensive
patients and maintaining the incentives
of a prospective payment system to
improve the efficient delivery of care.’’
Decreasing the marginal cost factor from
the established 80 percent, while
maintaining the current fixed-loss
amount ($10,501), would decrease total
estimated outlier payments because we
would pay a smaller percentage of the
estimated costs that exceed the outlier
threshold (the sum of the adjusted
Federal rate for the LTC–DRG and the
fixed-loss amount). For example, if we
were to decrease the marginal cost factor
to 65 percent without raising the fixedloss amount, we would pay outlier cases
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
15 percent less (80 percent minus 65
percent) of the estimated costs that
exceed the outlier threshold (the sum of
the adjusted Federal rate for the LTC–
DRG and the fixed-loss amount).
While this alternative could ensure
that outlier payments are projected to
equal 8 percent of estimated total LTCH
PPS payments by reducing estimated
aggregate outlier payments, it may not
maintain the existing balance between
providing an incentive for LTCHs to
treat expensive patients and improving
the efficient delivery of care because a
policy such as this would reduce the
financial protection currently afforded
to LTCHs under the current high cost
outlier policy (with an 80 percent
marginal cost factor), which could result
in LTCHs’ inability to treat seriously ill
and costly patients. This is because we
believe it may be more financially
difficult for LTCHs to absorb a greater
share of the costs of a true high cost
outlier case (that is, a case with an
unusually high cost) than it would be to
have a higher fixed-loss amount.
Keeping the marginal cost factor at 80
percent while proposing to raise the
fixed-loss amount would afford more
financial protection to LTCHs than
proposing to lower the fixed-loss
amount and retain the current fixed loss
amount. Because a relatively higher
fixed-loss amount identifies fewer cases
as high cost outlier cases (since the
amount that the estimated cost of the
case must exceed before the case
qualifies as a high cost outlier case is
higher), such a proposed policy better
identifies LTCH patients that are truly
unusually costly cases, which is
consistent with our intent of the LTCH
high cost outlier policy as stated when
we implemented the LTCH PPS in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR
56025). As we discussed in that same
final rule (67 FR 56023 through 56024),
our analysis of payment-to-cost ratios
for outlier cases showed that a marginal
cost factor of 80 percent appropriately
addresses outlier cases that are
significantly more expensive than
nonoutlier cases, while simultaneously
maintaining the integrity of the LTCH
PPS.
Although proposing to raise the fixedloss amount from $10,501 to $18,489
(based on the policies presented in this
proposed rule) would increase the
amount of the loss that a LTCH must
incur under the LTCH PPS for a case
with unusually high costs before the
LTCH would receive any additional
Medicare payments, as we explained
previously in this proposed rule, we
believe the 80 percent marginal cost
factor continues to adequately maintain
the LTCHs’ share of the financial risk in
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
treating the most costly patients and
ensure the efficient delivery of services.
As we discussed in the August 30, 2002
final rule when we established the high
cost outlier policy, our analysis showed
that a marginal cost factor of 80 percent
appropriately addresses outlier cases
that are significantly more expensive
than nonoutlier cases. Accordingly, we
are not proposing to adjust the marginal
cost factor under the LTCH PPS highcost outlier policy; however, we are
soliciting comments on whether we
should revisit the regression analysis
that was used to establish the existing
80 percent marginal cost factor, using
the most recent available data to
evaluate whether the current marginal
cost factor of 8 percent in the current
high cost outlier policy should be
adjusted, and therefore may result in
less of an increase in the fixed-loss
amount for RY 2007.
Furthermore, we note that the
proposed fixed-loss amount of $18,489
is lower than the FY 2003 fixed-loss
amount of $24,450 (67 FR 56023) and
the 2004 LTCH PPS rate year fixed-loss
amount of $19,590 (68 FR 34144), and
only slightly higher than the 2005 LTCH
PPS rate year fixed-loss amount of
$17,864 (69 FR 25688), all of which
were in effect during the time period
that we are currently estimating positive
Medicare margins (as discussed in
greater detail in section IV.C.3 of this
preamble). Therefore, we believe the
proposed fixed-loss amount of $18,489
would appropriately identify unusually
costly LTCH cases while maintaining
the integrity of the LTCH PPS. Thus,
under the broad authority of section
123(a)(1) of the BBRA and section
307(b)(1) of BIPA, we are proposing to
establish a fixed-loss amount of $18,489
based on the best available LTCH data
and the policies presented in this
proposed rule because, we believe a
proposed increase in the fixed-loss
amount is appropriate and necessary to
maintain estimated outlier payments
equal to 8 percent of estimated total
LTCH PPS payments, as required under
§ 412.525(a).
d. Reconciliation of Outlier Payments
Upon Cost Report Settlement
In the June 9, 2003 high-cost outlier
final rule (68 FR 34508 through 34512),
we established a policy for LTCHs that
provided that effective for LTCH PPS
discharges occurring on or after August
8, 2003, any reconciliation of outlier
payments will be based upon the actual
CCR computed from the costs and
charges incurred in the period during
which the discharge occurs. In that
same final rule, we also established that,
for discharges occurring on or after
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
August 8, 2003, at the time of any
reconciliation, outlier payments may be
adjusted to account for the time value of
any underpayments or overpayments
based upon a widely available index to
be established in advance by the
Secretary and will be applied from the
midpoint of the cost reporting period to
the date of reconciliation. (We note that,
in that same final rule (68 FR 34513), we
also established similar changes to the
SSO policy under the LTCH PPS at
§ 412.529(c)(5)(ii).) These changes
regarding the reconciliation of outlier
payments under the LTCH PPS were
made in conjunction with the changes
regarding the determination of LTCHs’
CCRs that we established under
§ 412.525(a)(4) in the June 9, 2003 IPPS
high cost outlier final rule, as discussed
in greater detail in section IV.D.3.b. of
this preamble. (We note that the
instructions for implementing these
regulations under both the IPPS and the
LTCH PPS are discussed in further
detail in Program Memorandum
Transmittal A–03–058. Additional
information on the administration of the
reconciliation process under the IPPS is
provided in CMS Program Transmittal
707 (October 12, 2005; Change Request
3966). We note that irrespective of the
proposed changes to the high cost
outlier and SSO policies presented in
this proposed rule, we are currently
developing additional instructions on
the administration of the existing
reconciliation process under the LTCH
PPS that would be similar to the IPPS
reconciliation process.)
As discussed in section V.C.3.b. of
this preamble, we are proposing, for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, to codify into the LTCH PPS
section of the regulations (subpart O of
part 42 of the CFR) the provisions
governing the determination of LTCHs’
CCRs, including proposed modifications
and editorial clarifications to our
existing methodology for determining
the annual LTCH CCR ceiling and
applicable Statewide average CCRs
under the LTCH PPS. (We are also
proposing to make those same changes
under the SSO policy at § 412.529 as
discussed in section V.A.1. of this
preamble).
In this proposed rule, under the broad
authority of section 123 of the BBRA
and section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, we are
also proposing to revise § 412.525(a)(4),
for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, to codify in subpart O
of part 42 of the CFR the provisions
discussed above concerning the
reconciliation of LTCH PPS outlier
payments, including proposed editorial
clarifications discussed in greater detail
below in this section, that would more
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
precisely describe the application of
those policies. (We note that we are also
proposing to make the same changes
concerning the reconciliation of outlier
payments under (and the SSO
provisions at § 412.529(c)), as discussed
below in section V.A.1.a. of this
preamble.) We are proposing the
additional revisions to § 412.525(a)(4)
concerning the reconciliation of outlier
payments, which are discussed in
greater detail below in this section,
because these proposed changes would
be consistent with the proposed changes
to the calculation of the LTCH CCR
ceiling discussed above. Specifically, at
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(D), similar to our
current policy, we are proposing to
specify that for discharges occurring on
or after October 1, 2006, any
reconciliation of outlier payments
would be based on the CCR calculated
based on a ratio of costs to charges
computed from the relevant cost report
and charge data determined at the time
the cost report coinciding with the
discharge is settled. In addition, at
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(E), similar to our
current policy, we are proposing to
specify that for discharges occurring on
or after October 1, 2006, at the time of
any reconciliation, outlier payments
may be adjusted to account for the time
value of any underpayments or
overpayments. Also consistent with our
current policy, we are proposing that
such an adjustment would be based
upon a widely available index to be
established in advance by the Secretary
and would be applied from the
midpoint of the cost reporting period to
the date of reconciliation. We are
proposing to make these additional
revisions to § 412.525(a)(4) because we
believe that such proposed changes
would be more consistent with the
LTCH PPS single payment rate (as
discussed in greater detail previously),
and because we believe it would be
more appropriate and administratively
simpler to include all of the regulatory
provisions concerning the
determination of LTCH PPS outlier
payments applicable under the LTCH
PPS regulations in subpart O of part 42
of the CFR.
e. Application of Outlier Policy to
Short-Stay Outlier (SSO) Cases
As we discussed in the August 30,
2002 final rule (67 FR 56026), under
some rare circumstances, a LTCH
discharge could qualify as a SSO case
(as defined under § 412.529 and
discussed in section V.B.4. of this
preamble) and also as a high-cost outlier
case. In this scenario, a patient could be
hospitalized for less than five-sixths of
the geometric ALOS for the specific
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4679
LTC–DRG, and yet incur extraordinarily
high treatment costs. If the costs
exceeded the outlier threshold (that is,
the SSO payment plus the fixed-loss
amount), the discharge would be
eligible for payment as a high-cost
outlier. Thus, for a SSO case in the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year, the high-cost
outlier payment would be 80 percent of
the difference between the estimated
cost of the case and the proposed outlier
threshold (the sum of the proposed
fixed-loss amount of $18,489 and the
amount paid under the SSO policy).
(We note that in section V.A.1. of this
preamble, we are also proposing
changes to the SSO policy at § 412.529,
which are consistent with the proposed
revisions to § 412.525(a)(4) regarding
our policies on the determination of
LTCH CCRs and, the reconciliation of
outlier payments.)
4. Other Payment Adjustments
As indicated earlier, we have broad
authority under section 123(a)(1) of the
BBRA as amended by section 307(b) of
BIPA to determine appropriate
adjustments under the LTCH PPS,
including whether (and how) to provide
for adjustments to reflect variations in
the necessary costs of treatment among
LTCHs. Thus, in the August 30, 2002
final rule (67 FR 56014 through 56027),
we discussed our extensive data
analysis and rationale for not
implementing an adjustment for
geographic reclassification, rural
location, treating a disproportionate
share of low-income patients (DSH), or
indirect medical education (IME) costs.
In that same final rule, we stated that we
would collect data and reevaluate the
appropriateness of these adjustments in
the future once more LTCH data become
available after the LTCH PPS is
implemented.
Because the LTCH PPS has only been
implemented for slightly over 3 years
and there is a time lag in data
availability, sufficient new data has not
been generated that would enable us to
conduct a comprehensive reevaluation
of these payment adjustments. We now
believe that after the completion of the
5-year transition, sufficient new data
that will be generated while LTCHs are
subject to the LTCH PPS may be
available for a comprehensive
reevaluation of payment adjustments
such as geographic reclassification, rural
location, DSH, and IME. Nonetheless,
we are reviewing the limited data that
are available and find no evidence to
support additional proposed policy
changes. Therefore, in this proposed
rule, we are not proposing to make any
adjustments for geographic
reclassification, rural location, DSH, or
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4680
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
IME. However, we will continue to
collect and interpret new data as they
become available in the future to
determine if these data support
proposing any additional payment
adjustments. Specifically, as we discuss
in greater detail in section IV.D.6. of this
preamble, we have revisited the possible
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH prospective payment system rates
at § 412.523(d)(3), and after further
analysis and evaluation we now believe
that it is appropriate to wait for the
conclusion of the 5-year transition to
100 percent fully Federal payments
under the LTCH PPS, to maximize the
availability of data that are reflective of
LTCH behavior in response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS to be
used to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of the potential payment
adjustment policies (such as rural
location, DSH and IME) in conjunction
with our evaluation of the possibility of
making a one-time prospective
adjustment to the LTCH prospective
payment system rates provided for at
§ 412.523(d)(3).
5. Proposed Budget Neutrality Offset To
Account for the Transition Methodology
Under § 412.533, we implemented a
5-year transition, during which a LTCH
is paid an increasing percentage of the
LTCH PPS Federal prospective payment
and a decreasing percentage of its
payments based on the reasonable costbased payment methodology for each
discharge. Furthermore, we allow a
LTCH (other than those defined as
‘‘new’’ under § 412.23(e)(4) to elect to be
paid based on 100 percent of the
standard Federal rate in lieu of the
blended methodology.
The standard Federal rate was
determined as if all LTCHs will be paid
based on 100 percent of the standard
Federal rate. As stated earlier, we
provide for a 5-year transition period
that allows LTCHs to receive payments
based partially on the reasonable costbased methodology. In order to maintain
budget neutrality for FY 2003 as
required by section 123(a)(1) of the
BBRA during the 5-year transition
period, we reduce all LTCH Medicare
payments (whether a LTCH elects
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate or whether a LTCH is being
paid under the transition blend
methodology) to account for the cost of
the applicable transition period
methodology in a given LTCH PPS rate
year.
Specifically, we reduce all LTCH
Medicare payments during the 5-year
transition by a factor that is equal to 1
minus the ratio of the estimated TEFRA
reasonable cost-based payments that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
would be made if the LTCH PPS was not
implemented, to the projected total
Medicare program PPS payments (that
is, payments made under the transition
methodology and the option to elect
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate).
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24202), based on the best
available data at that time, we projected
that approximately 98 percent of LTCHs
will be paid based on 100 percent of the
standard Federal rate rather than receive
payment under the transition blend
methodology for the 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year. Using the same methodology
described in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56034), this projection,
which used updated data and inflation
factors, was based on our estimate that
either: (1) A LTCH has already elected
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate prior to the start of the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year (July 1, 2005); or (2)
a LTCH would receive higher payments
based on 100 percent of the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year standard Federal rate
compared to the payments it would
receive under the transition blend
methodology. Similarly, we projected
that the remaining 2 percent of LTCHs
will choose to be paid based on the
applicable transition blend methodology
(as set forth under § 412.533(a)) because
they would receive higher payments
than if they were paid based on 100
percent of the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year
standard Federal rate.
Also in the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final
rule (70 FR 24202), based on the best
available data at that time and policy
revisions described in that same rule,
we projected that the full effect of the
remaining 2 years of the transition
period (including the election option)
would result in a cost to the Medicare
program of approximately $1.675
million. Specifically, for the RY 2006
LTCH PPS, we estimated that the cost of
the transition would be approximately
$1 million. Because this amount is only
a small percentage of total LTCH PPS
payments for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year (estimated at over $3 billion), the
formula that we use to establish the
budget neutrality offset to account for
the additional costs of the transition
period resulted in a factor of zero
percent. Therefore, in that same final
rule, we established a 0.0 percent
reduction (a budget neutrality offset of
1.000) to all LTCH payments in the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year to account for the
$1 million estimated cost of the
transition period methodology
(including the option to elect payment
based on 100 percent of the Federal
rate). We also indicated that we would
use a budget neutrality offset for each of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the remaining years of the transition
period to account for the estimated costs
for the respective LTCH PPS rate years.
In that same final rule, we estimated
that there would be a 0.0 percent budget
neutrality offset to LTCH PPS payments
during the remaining years of the
transition period since, we estimated at
that time that the additional cost to the
Medicare program resulting from the
transition period methodology would be
so small that the budget neutrality factor
determined under our established
methodology would round to zero.
In this proposed rule, based on the
updated data using the same
methodology established in the August
30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56034), we are
projecting that approximately 97
percent of LTCHs would be paid based
on 100 percent of the proposed standard
Federal rate rather than receive payment
under the transition blend methodology
during the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year.
This projection, which used updated
data, is based on our estimate that
either: (1) A LTCH has already elected
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate prior to the beginning of the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year (July 1, 2006);
or (2) a LTCH would receive higher
payments based on 100 percent of the
proposed standard Federal rate
compared to the payments they would
receive under the transition blend
methodology. Similarly, we project that
the remaining 3 percent of LTCHs
would choose to be paid based on the
transition blend methodology at
§ 412.533 because those payments are
estimated to be higher than if they were
paid based on 100 percent of the
proposed standard Federal rate. The
applicable transition blend percentage is
applicable for a LTCH’s entire cost
reporting period beginning on or after
October 1 (unless the LTCH elects
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate). We note that this
projection is slightly lower than the
projection that 98 percent of LTCHs
would be paid based on 100 percent of
the proposed standard Federal rate
rather than receive payment under the
transition blend methodology during the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year discussed in
the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24202). The reason for this slight
decrease is due to how our established
methodology (described in this section)
determines which LTCHs would be
projected to receive payments based on
100 percent of the Federal rate in a
given rate year. Specifically, under our
established methodology, if a LTCH has
not already elected payment based on
100 percent of the Federal rate then we
evaluate whether a LTCH would receive
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
higher payments based on 100 percent
of the proposed standard Federal rate or
under the applicable transition blend
methodology based on the most recent
available data. Based on the best
available data at that time, we projected
that a few LTCHs that had not already
elected payment based on 100 percent
of the Federal rate would make such an
election for RY 2006 because we
projected that their payments based on
100 percent of the Federal rate would
exceed their payments under the
applicable transition blend. Therefore,
those LTCHs were counted in the
number of LTCHS that would be paid
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
in RY 2006. However, based on the most
recent available data used for this
proposed rule, those LTCHs have not
elected to receive payments based on
100 percent of the Federal rate and are
being paid under the applicable
transition blend methodology. Under
our methodology for determining the
percentage of LTCHs paid based on 100
percent of the federal rate, based on the
most recent available data, we are
projecting that for the RY 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year, the applicable transition
blend methodology payments to those
LTCHs would be greater than payment
based 100 percent of the Federal rate,
and therefore, those LTCHs would not
be included in the number of LTCHS
that we estimate would be paid based
on 100 percent of the Federal rate in RY
2007. Based on the policies presented in
this proposed rule, we are projecting a
decrease in their estimated payments
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
in RY 2007 payment as compared to
their estimated payments based on 100
percent of the Federal rate in RY 2006
primarily as a result of the proposed
changes to the SSO policy (see section
V.A.1. of this preamble) and the
proposed increase in the outlier fixedloss amount (see section IV.D.3.c. of this
preamble). Because we are projecting a
decrease in payments based on 100
percent of the Federal rate for these
LTCHs, the estimated RY 2007
payments based on the applicable
transition blend methodology are now
higher than their estimated RY 2007
payments based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate, we do not project that
these LTCH would elect payment based
on 100 percent of the Federal rate for RY
2007. Thus, the slight decrease in the
our projection in the number of LTCHs
that would be paid based on 100 percent
of the Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year is appropriate.
Based on the best available data and
the proposed policies described in this
proposed rule, we are projecting that in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
absence of a transition budget neutrality
offset, the full effect of the final full year
of the transition period (including the
election option) as compared to
payments as if all LTCHs would be paid
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
would result in a cost to the Medicare
program of approximately 2.8 million.
(As discussed in the RY 2006 final rule
(70 FR 24201), we are no longer
projecting a small cost for the 2008
LTCH PPS rate year (July 1, 2007
through June 30, 2008) even though
some LTCH’s will have a cost reporting
period for the 5th year of the transition
period which will be concluding in the
first 3 months of the 2008 LTCH PPS
rate year because based on the most
available data, we are projecting that the
vast majority of LTCHs would have
made the election to be paid based on
100 percent of the Federal rate rather
than the transition blend which would
result in a negligible cost to the
Medicare program.)
Accordingly, using the methodology
established in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule (67 FR 56034),
based on updated data and the policies
and rates presented in this proposed
rule, we are proposing a 0.1 percent
reduction (a budget neutrality offset of
0.999) to all LTCHs’ payments for
discharges occurring on or after July 1,
2006 and through June 30, 2007, to
account for the estimated cost of the
transition period methodology
(including the option to elect payment
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate)
of approximately $2.8 million for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year. We note that
this proposed offset for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year is slightly larger than the
0.0 percent reduction (a budget
neutrality offset of 1.000) established for
the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year (70 FR
24202). This is because we are now
projecting that a few less LTCHs would
elect payment based on 100 percent of
the Federal rate than we were projecting
when we determined the transition
period budget neutrality offset for the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year based on the
most recent available data.
6. One-Time Prospective Adjustment to
the Standard Federal Rate
As we discussed in the August 30,
2002 final rule (67 FR 56036), consistent
with the statutory requirement for
budget neutrality in section 123(a)(1) of
the BBRA, we intended that estimated
aggregate payments under the LTCH
PPS for FY 2003 equal the estimated
aggregate payments that would be made
if the LTCH PPS were not implemented.
Our methodology for estimating
payments for purposes of the budget
neutrality calculations uses the best
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4681
available data at the time and
necessarily reflects assumptions. As the
LTCH PPS progresses, we are
monitoring payment data and will
evaluate the ultimate accuracy of the
assumptions used in the budget
neutrality calculations (for example,
inflation factors, intensity of services
provided, or behavioral response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS)
described in the August 30, 2002 LTCH
PPS final rule (67 FR 56027 through
56037). To the extent these assumptions
significantly differ from actual
experience, the aggregate amount of
actual payments may turn out to be
significantly higher or lower than the
estimates on which the budget
neutrality calculations were based.
Section 123(a)(1) of the BBRA as
amended by section 307(b) of BIPA
provides broad authority to the
Secretary in developing the LTCH PPS,
including the authority for appropriate
adjustments. Under this broad authority,
as implemented in the existing
regulations at § 412.523(d)(3), we have
provided for the possibility of making a
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH PPS rates by October 1, 2006, so
that the effect of any significant
difference between actual payments and
estimated payments for the first year of
the LTCH PPS would not be perpetuated
in the LTCH PPS rates for future years.
(As discussed in greater detail below,
we are proposing to extend the deadline
for making this adjustment to July 1,
2008 to this proposed rule.
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final (70 FR
24203), based on the best available data
at that time, we estimated that total
Medicare program payments for LTCH
services over the next 5 LTCH PPS rate
years would be $3.32 billion for the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year; $3.38 billion
for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year; $3.48
billion for the 2008 LTCH PPS rate year;
$3.63 billion for the 2009 LTCH PPS
rate year; and $3.79 billion for the 2010
LTCH PPS rate year.
In this proposed rule, consistent with
the methodology established in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR
56036), based on the most recent
available data, we estimate that total
Medicare program payments for LTCH
services for the next 5 LTCH PPS rate
years would be as shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9
LTCH PPS rate year
2007
2008
2009
2010
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
27JAP2
Estimated
payments
($ in billions)
$5.27
5.44
5.64
5.88
4682
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—Continued
LTCH PPS rate year
Estimated
payments
($ in billions)
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
2011 ....................................
6.15
In accordance with the methodology
established in the August 30, 2002
LTCH PPS final rule (67 FR 56037),
these estimates are based on the most
recent available date, including the
projection that 97 percent of LTCHs
would elect to be paid based on 100
percent of the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
proposed standard Federal rate rather
than the applicable transition blend and
an estimated increase in the number of
discharges from LTCHs. (We note that
the 5-year spending estimates shown in
Table 9 are significantly higher than the
5-year spending estimates presented in
the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24203). This is primarily due to an
adjustment by our Office of the Actuary
(OACT) to account for the significant
increase in the expected number of
LTCH discharges based on the most
recent complete available LTCH
discharge data.) These estimates are also
based on our estimate of LTCH PPS rate
year payments to LTCHs using OACT’s
most recent estimate of the excluded
hospital with capital (currently used
under the LTCH PPS) market basket of
3.6 percent for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year, 3.5 percent for the 2008 LTCH PPS
rate year, 3.1 percent for the 2009 LTCH
PPS rate year, 2.6 percent for the 2010
LTCH PPS rate year, and 3.0 percent for
the 2011 LTCH PPS rate year. (We note
that, although we are proposing a zero
percent update to the LTCH PPS Federal
rate for RY 2007 (as discussed in section
IV.C.3. of this proposed rule) OACT
develops its spending projections based
on existing policy and therefore,
changes that have not yet been
implemented are not reflected in the
spending projections shown in this
section.) We also considered OACT’s
most recent projections of changes in
Medicare beneficiary enrollment that
there would be a change in Medicare
fee-for-service beneficiary enrollment of
¥2.3 percent in the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year, ¥1.0 percent in the 2008 LTCH
PPS rate year, 0.3 percent in the 2008
and 2009 LTCH PPS rate years and, 0.6
percent in the 2010 LTCH PPS rate year.
(We note that, based on the most recent
available data, OACT is projecting a
slight decrease in Medicare fee-forservice Part A enrollment for the 2007
and 2008 LTCH PPS rate years, in part,
because they are projecting an increase
in Medicare managed care enrollment as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
a result of the implementation of several
provisions of the MMA of 2003.)
As we discussed in the RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR 24204),
because the LTCH PPS was only
recently implemented, sufficient new
data has not been generated that would
enable us to conduct a comprehensive
reevaluation of our budget neutrality
calculations. Accordingly, we did not
make a one-time adjustment under
§ 412.523(d)(3). At this time, we still do
not have sufficient new data to enable
us to conduct a comprehensive
reevaluation of our budget neutrality
calculations. Therefore, in this proposed
rule, we are not proposing to make a
one-time adjustment under
§ 412.523(d)(3) so that the effect of any
significant difference between actual
payments and estimated payments for
the first year of the LTCH PPS is not
perpetuated in the PPS rates for future
years. However, as discussed in greater
detail below, we will continue to collect
and interpret new data as the data
become available in the future to
determine if this adjustment should be
proposed. Additionally, as discussed in
greater detail below, we believe that it
is appropriate to propose postponement
of the requirement established in
§ 412.523(d)(3) due to the time lag in the
availability of Medicare data upon
which this adjustment would be based.
Therefore, we propose to revise
§ 412.523(d)(3) by postponing the
October 1, 2006 deadline to July 1, 2008.
In the August 30, 2002 final rule
implementing the LTCH PPS (67 FR
55954), we set forth the implementing
regulations, based upon the broad
authority granted to the Secretary, under
section 123 of the BBRA as amended by
section 307(b) of the BIPA. Section
123(a)(1) of the BBRA, required that the
system ‘‘maintain budget neutrality’’ for
FY 2003, that is, that estimated
aggregate payments under the LTCH
prospective payment system would
equal the estimated aggregate payments
that would be made if the LTCH
prospective payment system would not
be implemented for FY 2003. The
methodology for determining the LTCH
PPS standard Federal rate for FY 2003
that would ‘‘maintain budget neutrality’’
is described in considerable detail in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56027
through 56037). As we discussed in that
same final rule, our methodology for
estimating payments for the purposes of
budget neutrality calculations used the
best available data and necessarily
reflects assumptions in estimating
aggregate payments that would be made
if the LTCH PPS was not implemented.
We also stated our intentions to monitor
LTCH PPS payment data to evaluate the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ultimate accuracy of the assumptions
used in the budget neutrality
calculations (for example, inflation
factors, intensity of services provided,
or behavioral response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS). To
the extent that those assumptions
significantly differ from actual
experience, the aggregate amount of
actual payments during FY 2003 may
turn out to be significantly higher or
lower than the estimates upon which
the budget neutrality calculations were
based. (67 FR 56036) In that same final
rule, the Secretary exercised his broad
authority in establishing the LTCH PPS
and provided for the possibility of a
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH prospective payment system rates
by October 1, 2006 at § 412.523(d)(3).
The purpose of that provision was to
prevent any significant difference
between actual payments and estimated
payments for the first year of the LTCH
prospective payment system, when we
established the budget neutral Federal
rate, as required by the statute
(discussed previously), from being
perpetuated in the prospective payment
system rates for future years.
When we implemented the LTCH
PPS, we established at § 412.533 a 5year transition to full payments based
on the LTCH PPS standard Federal rate.
In addition, during that 5-year period,
existing LTCHs (those that had their
first cost reporting period as an LTCH
prior to October 1, 2002), could elect for
either full payment under the adjusted
Federal rate payment determined under
§ 412.523, or be phased-in to the full
Federal rate payment over 5 years in
annual increments of 20 percent, with
the remainder of the payment amount
being determined under the former costbased reimbursement rules set forth in
the TEFRA system, (under part 413 of
the same subchapter). Thus, for LTCH
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2006, the fifth year of
the transition, payments to all LTCHs
will be based fully (100 percent) on the
LTCH PPS standard Federal rate.
In addition to developing a LTCH PPS
standard Federal rate that would
‘‘maintain budget neutrality’’ for FY
2003, under the LTCH PPS, Federal
prospective payments are adjusted to
account for various factors (as discussed
below). As noted previously in this
proposed rule, the Secretary was
granted considerable discretion in the
design of the payment system.
Specifically, under section 307(b) of the
BIPA, the Secretary shall ‘‘examine and
* * * may provide for appropriate
adjustments to the long-term hospital
payment system, including adjustments
to DRG weights, area wage adjustments,
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
geographic reclassification, outliers,
updates, and a disproportionate share
adjustment.’’ Thus, the Secretary was
also given tremendous discretionary
authority to determine which
adjustments to include in the LTCH
PPS. In developing the LTCH PPS, to
evaluate whether the accuracy of the
payment system would be enhanced by
the inclusion of particular payment
adjustments, and hence the
appropriateness of those payment
adjustments for the LTCH PPS, we
contracted with 3M Health Information
Systems to assist us with the analyses.
These analyses include, among other
techniques, the use of regression models
and payment simulations to determine
whether there was a correlation between
an LTCH’s cost per case and the
inclusion of particular payment
adjustments. We examined payment
variables applicable to the inpatient
acute-care hospital and IRF prospective
payment systems, including the local
wage variation (wage index),
disproportionate share patient
percentage (DSH), indirect medical
education (IME), variables that account
for location in a rural or large urban
area, and a cost of living adjustment
(COLA) for Alaska and Hawaii (67 FR
56015 through 56027). We concluded,
in that August 30, 2002 final rule, that
based on the best available LTCH data
and consistent with the broad legal
authority afforded to the Secretary, the
LTCH PPS would include payment
adjustments featured in other
prospective payment systems: payments
for high cost outliers (§ 412.525(a)); an
area wage adjustment which would be
phased-in over 5-years (§ 412.525(c));
and a COLA (§ 412.525(b)).
Additionally, we established several
adjustments specific to the LTCH PPS,
such as adjusted payments for short’stay
outliers (§ 412.529), interrupted stays
(§ 412.531), and on-site discharges and
readmittances (§ 412.532).
In each final rule for the LTCH PPS
subsequent to the implementation of the
LTCH PPS for FY 2003, as new data
from LTCHs generated under the LTCH
PPS has become available, we have
revisited our determinations regarding
the inclusion of specific payment
adjustments (68 FR 34140 through
34150, 69 FR 25684 through 25701, and
70 FR 24190 through 24198). Although
no additional payment adjustments
were added since the initial
implementation of the LTCH PPS in FY
2003, we stated that we would collect
data and reevaluate the appropriateness
of these adjustments in the future when
more LTCH PPS data becomes available
after the implementation of the LTCH
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PPS. After revisiting this issue and
conducting extensive data analysis, we
now believe that the current deadline of
October 1, 2006, for making the one
time adjustment to eliminate any
significant difference between the actual
payments and estimated payments for
the first year of the PPS is too short.
After the conclusion of the 5-year
transition period (that is, after RY 2007),
we now believe that sufficient new data
will be generated by the LTCH PPS for
a comprehensive reevaluation of these
payment adjustments, including
geographic reclassification, rural
location, DSH, and IME.
The final year of the 5-year transition
to full payments for all LTCHs based on
the adjusted Federal rate will begin for
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2006 (FY 2007) and end
with cost reporting periods beginning
before October 1, 2007 (FY 2008). After
the conclusion of the 5-year transition
period (October 1, 2007), we expect to
have between 3 and 4 years (FYs 2003
through 2006) of LTCH data generated
since the implementation of the LTCH
PPS. We note that there is a lag time
between the submission of claims data
and cost report data, and the availability
of that data in the MedPAR files and
HCRIS, respectively. Based on a
comprehensive analysis of that data, we
may then propose to revise some LTCH
PPS payment adjustments for future
years for the LTCH PPS.
Consistent with our intent to wait for
the conclusion of the 5-year transition to
100 percent fully Federal payments
under the LTCH PPS, to maximize the
availability of data used to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the
payment adjustment policies issued at
the inception of the LTCH PPS for FY
2003, we believe that it is appropriate to
propose postponement of the
requirement established by existing
§ 412.523(d)(3), described previously,
which allowed for the possibility of
making a one-time prospective
adjustment to the LTCH prospective
payment system rates from the current
date of October 1, 2006 to an adjustment
that would be effective on or before July
1, 2008. Currently, due to the time lag
in the availability of Medicare data, the
best available full year of LTCH claims
data are from FY 2004 and the most
complete full year of LTCH cost report
data are from FY 2003. We believe that
postponing the deadline of the possible
one-time prospective adjustment to the
LTCH PPS rates provided for in
§ 412.523(d)(3) to July 1, 2008 would
result in the availability of additional
data generated under the LTCH PPS and
therefore our decisions regarding a
possible adjustment would be based on
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4683
more complete and up-to-date data. This
data would be reflective of LTCH
behavior in response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS. In
addition, after further analysis, we
believe that after the end of the
transition may be the appropriate time
to implement this one-time prospective
adjustment, which was written to
ensure that the effect of any significant
difference between actual payments and
estimated payments for the first year of
the LTCH PPS would not be perpetuated
in the prospective payment rates for
future years. We note that we are
proposing a July 1, 2008 rather than an
October 1, 2007 date in keeping with the
established rate year cycle. Although the
LTCH PPS Federal rate was initially
established with an October 1 through
September 30th rate cycle, currently the
LTCH PPS Federal rate is updated on a
July 1 through June 30 rate year cycle
(68 FR 34125 through 34128).
The final year of the 5-year phase-in
of the LTCH PPS will begin for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2006, during which
payments will be 100 percent of the
adjusted Federal rate for all LTCHs.
Since the inception of the LTCH PPS,
we have noted that we fully intend to
review our payment adjustments when
more LTCH PPS data become available
after the implementation of the LTCH
PPS because at that point we would
have a sufficient amount of data with
which to evaluate the impact of existing
policy and to make informed decisions
for the future of the payment system.
After further consideration explained
previously, we believe that after the end
of the 5-year transition period it would
be the appropriate time for both our
planned reevaluation of the LTCH PPS
payment adjustments as well as the
possible ‘‘one-time adjustment of the
payment rates’’ at § 412.525(d)(3).
Therefore, we are proposing to revise
§ 412.523(d)(3) to change the deadline
for the establishment of the possible
one-time prospective adjustment from
October 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 and to
synchronize these interrelated data
analyses for purposes of determining
future proposed payment policies under
the LTCH PPS.
In section IV.C.3. of this proposed
rule, where we discuss the proposed
zero percent update factor to the
standard Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year, we describe two aspects
of our data monitoring activities, both of
which impact continuing annual policy
updates and determinations for the
LTCH PPS which are the basis of our
annual rule-making activities and
Federal Register publications.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4684
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
For the on-going implementation of
the payment system, which entails
determining annual system updates for
the LTCH PPS, we engage in data
monitoring and analysis of patient and
facility level data. The most recent
claims and cost data are used for this
rate-setting purpose. From the outset of
the LTCH PPS, we established a
monitoring component to the system
directed by our Office of Research,
Development, and Information (ORDI)
with additional data analysis provided
by 3M Health Information Systems. The
purposes of this protocol, as described
in section X. of this proposed rule was
to evaluate the impact of the LTCH PPS
on the LTCH universe and to provide
on-going data analysis that would
enable CMS to determine the
effectiveness of various policies and to
alert CMS to issues which could require
further regulation. Frequently, reviews
and analyses of the data utilized for the
annual updates have suggested
directions for future research, which
have resulted in policy proposals. We
have revised and formulated several
significant policies since the outset of
the LTCH PPS based on the data
analyses, including the 3-day or fewer
interruption of stay policy at § 412.531
(69 FR 25690 through 25700), the LTCH
HwH and LTCH satellite payment
adjustment at § 412.534 (69 FR 49191
through 49214), the proposed revisions
to the SSO policy at § 412.529 in section
V.A.1. of this proposed rule, and the
proposed zero percent update to the
standard Federal rate, as described in
section IV.C.3. of this proposed rule.
In the previous discussion, we have
noted that we intend to reevaluate the
LTCH PPS at the end of the 5-year
transition to full Federal payments,
based upon a comprehensive analysis of
data generated since the start of the
payment system for cost reporting
periods beginning during FY 2003, in
order to determine whether further
payment adjustments are warranted. We
have also proposed to revise
§ 412.523(d)(3) to postpone the
establishment of the possible one-time
prospective adjustment from October 1,
2006 to July 1, 2008.
Evaluating the appropriateness of this
adjustment will entail a thorough
review of the actual Medicare costs
incurred by LTCHs during the first year
of the LTCH PPS, that is, for LTCH cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2002 during which we were
statutorily required to maintain budget
neutrality as specified in section 123 of
the BBRA. When we established the FY
2003 standard Federal rate, in order to
meet this requirement, we used the most
recent LTCH cost data available at that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
time, and trended that data forward to
estimate what Medicare would have
paid to LTCHS under the TEFRA
payment system if the PPS were not
implemented (67 FR 56033). (The
methodology for determining the LTCH
PPS standard Federal rate for FY 2003
that would ‘‘maintain budget neutrality’’
is described in considerable detail in the
August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56027
through 56037).)
As we discussed in that same final
rule, our methodology for estimating
payments for the purposes of budget
neutrality calculations, utilized the best
available data and necessarily reflected
assumptions in estimating aggregate
payments that would have been made
had the LTCH PPS not been
implemented. We also stated our
intentions to monitor LTCH PPS data to
evaluate the ultimate accuracy of the
assumptions used in the budget
neutrality calculations (for example,
inflation factors, intensity of services
provided, or behavioral response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS). To
the extent that those assumptions
significantly differed from actual
experience, the aggregate amount of
actual payments during FY 2003 could
result as significantly higher or lower
than the estimates upon which the
budget neutrality calculations were
based (67 FR 56036).
At the outset of the LTCH PPS, we
provided for the possibility of a onetime prospective adjustment at
§ 412.523(d)(3). Among other things, we
wanted the opportunity to adjust the
standard Federal payment rate once
accurate data was available that
reflected the actual cost-based payments
that would have been made under the
Medicare program during FY 2003 if the
LTCH PPS had not been implemented,
rather than perpetuate any error in the
Federal rate in future years.
We are proposing to postpone the
adjustment until July 1, 2008 because by
that time, given the lag time typically
involved in the entire cost report
settlement procedure, we will be able to
utilize the most accurate data reflecting
the actual costs incurred by LTCHs for
cost reporting periods beginning during
FY 2003. It is important to note that
there are many LTCHs with cost
reporting periods from September 1
through August 30 which first became
subject to the LTCH PPS on September
1, 2003. Given the lag time required for
typical cost report settlement involving
submission, desk review, and in some
cases an audit, which can take
approximately 2 additional years to
complete (and we expect to audit a
number of LTCH cost reports for the
purpose of this analysis), we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
believe that the October 1, 2006
deadline established § 412.523(d)(3) is
reasonable or realistic. In fact, we
believe that for cost reports for
providers on August 2004 fiscal year
ending date, we would be in possession
of the most reliable cost report data
indicating the actual costs of the
Medicare program of the LTCH PPS
during the year in which we established
the Federal payment rate by July 2007
and any proposed correction, if
finalized could then be implemented on
July 1, 2008.
Therefore, we believe that postponing
the deadline for this possible one-time
prospective adjustment until July 1,
2008 would allow us to have the best
available data from the first year of the
LTCH PPS upon which to base an
adjustment such as this.
Specifically, we wish to emphasize
the distinction between the sufficiency
of the data utilized for the annual data
analysis that resulted in our proposed
zero percent update for RY 2007 and the
proposed postponement of the possible
one-time prospective adjustment to the
standard Federal rate, at proposed
§ 412.523(d)(3). We believe that the
proposed annual adjustment of zero
percent is based on the best data from
FY 2004, including case-mix data which
is derived from the MedPAR files, and
data analysis coordinated by ORDI,
assisted by 3M Health Information
Services. The case-mix data used to
make this adjustment is current and
accurate and is not dependent upon the
procedures of the cost report settlement.
However, the data review that we
believe necessary for the comprehensive
analysis of the accuracy of the Federal
payment rate under § 412.523(d)(3),
which would be applied prospectively
(and therefore has the potential to affect
all future LTCH PPS Federal rates), is
dependent on Medicare data that will
only be available by July, 2007. We
believe that only through a thorough
analysis of the most comprehensive and
accurate data from the first year of the
implementation of the LTCH PPS for FY
2003 (including settled and fully
audited cost reports) will we be able to
reliably determine whether the one-time
prospective adjustment to the standard
Federal rate, which if issued will have
an impact on all future payments under
the LTCH PPS, should be proposed.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
V. Other Proposed Policy Changes for
the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
A. Proposed Adjustments for Special
Cases
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1. Adjustment for SSO Cases
a. Proposed Changes to the Method for
Determining the Payment Amount for
SSO Cases
In the August 30, 2002 rule for the
LTCH PPS, under § 412.529, we
established a special payment policy for
SSO cases, that is LTCH PPS cases with
a LOS of less than or equal to five-sixths
of the geometric ALOS for each LTC–
DRG. When we established the SSO
policy, we explained that ‘‘[a] short-stay
outlier case may occur when a
beneficiary receives less than the full
course of treatment at the LTCH before
being discharged. These patients may be
discharged to another site of care or they
may be discharged and not readmitted
because they no longer require
treatment. Furthermore, patients may
expire early in their LTCH stay’’ (67 FR
55995). Also in the August 30, 2002
final rule, we stated that when we first
described the policy, in the March 27,
2002 proposed rule, ‘‘* * * we based
the proposed policy on the belief that
many of these patients could have been
treated more appropriately in an acute
hospital subject to the acute care
hospital inpatient prospective payment
system’’ (67 FR 55995). Therefore, under
the LTCH PPS, we implemented a
special payment adjustment for SSO
cases. Under the existing SSO policy at
§ 412.529, for LTCH PPS discharges
with a LOS of up to and including fivesixths the geometric ALOS for the LTC–
DRG, in general, we adjust the per
discharge payment under the LTCH PPS
by the lesser of 120 percent of the
estimated cost of the case, 120 percent
of the LTC–DRG specific per diem
amount multiplied by the LOS of that
discharge, or the full LTC–DRG
payment.
As noted previously, generally LTCHs
are defined by statute as having an
ALOS of greater than 25 days. We stated
that we believe that the SSO payment
adjustment results in more appropriate
payments, since these cases most likely
would not receive a full course of a
LTCH-level of treatment in such a short
period of time and a full LTC–DRG
payment may not always be appropriate.
Payment-to-cost ratios simulated for
LTCHs, for the cases described above,
indicated that if LTCHs received a full
LTC–DRG payment for those cases, they
were significantly ‘‘overpaid’’ for the
resources they have actually expended.
In establishing the SSO policy we also
believe that providing a reduced
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
payment for SSO cases would
discourage hospitals from admitting
patients for whom they were unable to
provide complete treatment in order to
maximize payment. We also believed
that the policy did not severely penalize
providers that, in good faith, had
admitted a patient and provided some
services before realizing that the
beneficiary could receive more
appropriate treatment at another site of
care. As we explained in the FY 2003
LTCH PPS final rule, establishing a SSO
payment for these types of cases
addressed the incentives inherent in a
discharge-based prospective payment
system for LTCHs for treating patients
with a short LOS (67 FR 55995 through
56000).
When we established the SSO
adjustment at the outset of the LTCH
PPS, we noted in the August 30, 2002
final rule that the regression analyses
and simulations based on prior years’
LTCH claims data generated under the
former reasonable cost-based (TEFRA)
based system, upon which we based
many of our policy determinations
regarding the design of the LTCH PPS
for FY 2003, indicated that nearly half
of LTCH cases would be paid on an
adjusted per discharge amount based on
the SSO payment policy established at
existing § 412.529 once the LTCH PPS
was implemented. However, we did
believe that ‘‘* * * this data analysis
does not necessarily predict the future
behavior of LTCHs operating under a
prospective payment system. The data
used in the analysis are a product or
reflection of the practice patterns of
hospitals that operate under the
mechanisms of the TEFRA payment
system, which are different from the
principles of a prospective payment
system. However, these are the best data
available upon which we can simulate
LTCH behavior under the new LTCH
prospective payment system. We believe
that once the LTCH prospective
payment system is implemented, the
practice patterns of LTCHs will change.
We anticipate that hospitals will alter
their admission, treatment, and
discharge patterns. Thus, we fully
expect that an increasing majority of
cases will be reimbursed on an
unadjusted per discharge basis during
the transition from reasonable costbased reimbursement to prospective
payments.’’ (67 FR 55999)
As we noted in the August 30, 2003
final rule, ‘‘* * * [B]ased on our
experience in implementing other
Medicare prospective payment systems,
we fully expect that as new data are
received, we may revisit policy
decisions described in this final rule.
Furthermore, our Office of Research,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4685
Development, and Information [ORDI]
will be tracking the impact of the
prospective payments on LTCHs, other
hospitals that treat long-term care
patients, and other post-acute care
providers, which will enable us to
determine whether additional policy
changes are warranted’’ (67 FR 55999).
A change in the SSO policy was
published in the RY 2004 LTCH PPS
final rule (68 FR 34148), following a
thorough reexamination of the impact of
the SSO policy on subclause (II) LTCHs,
authorized by section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II) of the Act which we
implemented at § 412.23(e)(2)(ii). At
that time, we revised certain aspects of
the SSO policy in order to meet the
specific needs of this type of LTCH.
This provision provided an exception to
the general definition of an LTCH set
forth in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of
the Act, implemented at
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i), specifying that to
qualify as a LTCH, a hospital must have
first been excluded as a LTCH in
calendar year (CY) 1986, have an
average inpatient LOS of greater than 20
days, and demonstrate that 80 percent
or more of its annual Medicare inpatient
discharges in the 12-month cost
reporting period ending in FY 1997
have a principal diagnosis that reflects
a finding of neoplastic disease (62 FR
46016 and 46026). In the RY 2004 final
rule, we particularly noted that the
Congress recognized the existence and
importance of a distinct category of
LTCHs that might not otherwise warrant
exclusion from the acute care inpatient
PPS under subclause (I) but which
nonetheless fulfilled a unique and vital
role in serving a particular subset of
Medicare patients. Consistent with
existing policies that differentiated
subclause (II) LTCHs from other LTCHs,
we determined that it was reasonable for
us to consider whether or not a policy
that was designed for LTCHs designated
under subclause (I) could reasonably
and equitably be applied to a subclause
(II) LTCH without some measure of
adjustment. Therefore, in the RY 2004
LTCH PPS final rule, we provided an
additional adjustment to the SSO policy
for subclause (II) LTCHs. Specifically, in
the RY 2004 LTCH PPS final rule (68 FR
34147 through 34148), we made a
temporary adjustment to the applicable
percentages used in the SSO payment
formula at § 412.529(c) (applied to the
cost of the SSO or the per diem LTCH
DRG payment) used to calculate
Medicare payments under the SSO
policy. Specifically, at existing
§ 412.529(c)(4) for LTCHs designated
under section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II) of the
Act and § 412.23(e)(2)(ii), we
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4686
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
established a temporary adjustment that
will sunset upon their first cost
reporting period beginning on or after
October 1, 2006. Under existing policy,
for SSOs from a subclause (I) LTCH,
Medicare payment is the least of the
following: 120 percent of the LTC–DRG
per diem amount multiplied by the LOS
of the discharge; 120 percent of the cost
of the case; or the full LTC–DRG. Under
this temporary § 412.529(c)(4)
adjustment, we substitute the following
percentages for the 120 percent figure
used in the SSO payment formula at
§ 412.529(c) for subclause (I) hospitals.
Therefore, for discharges from a
subclause (II) LTCHs, occurring on or
after July 1, 2003, for cost reporting
periods beginning during the first year
of the 5-year LTCH PPS transition
period, the SSO percentage is 195
percent. For discharges occurring in the
cost reporting periods beginning during
the second year of the transition period,
the applicable SSO percentage is 193
percent; for discharges occurring in cost
reporting periods beginning during the
third year of the transition period, the
applicable percentage is 165 percent; for
discharges occurring in the cost
reporting period beginning during the
fourth year of the transition, the
percentage is 136 percent; and for
discharges occurring in cost reporting
periods beginning during the fifth year
of the 5-year transition, (and for
discharges occurring in all future cost
reporting periods), the SSO percentage
for ‘‘subclause (II)’’ LTCHs, would be
120 percent, that is, the same as it
currently is for all other LTCHs under
the LTCH PPS.
As we continue to monitor the SSO
policy, an analysis of LTCH claims data
from the FY 2004 MedPAR files (using
version 23 of the GROUPER), reveals
that approximately 37 percent of LTCH
discharges continue to be paid under
the provisions of the existing SSO
policy at § 412.529. As noted
previously, at the outset of the LTCH
PPS, the data upon which we based our
system indicated that 48.4 percent of
patients admitted to LTCHs fell into the
category of SSOs, a percentage that we
believed to be inappropriately high,
given that the category of LTCH was
established to care for Medicare
beneficiaries requiring long-term
hospital-level care. We believe our
existing policy accounts for the fact that
an LTCH in good faith could admit a
patient and provide some services
before realizing that the beneficiary
would receive more appropriate
treatment at another site of care. But in
establishing the SSO policy, which
provided a reduced payment for cases
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
with a LOS that is up to and including
five-sixths of the geometric ALOS for
the LTC–DRG, it was our intent to not
encourage hospitals to admit patients
for whom a long-term hospital stay was
not medically necessary and therefore,
for whom the LTCH would not be
providing complete treatment. We were
concerned that these inappropriate
admissions could be made in order to
maximize payment (67 FR 55995). As
noted previously, when this policy was
established, at the start of the LTCH PPS
for cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2002, nearly one-half
(48.4 percent) of all LTCH cases would
have been paid as SSOs. However, we
believed that the percentage of shortstay outliers would drop significantly
from 48.4 percent once the LTCH PPS
was implemented. We believe that the
37 percent of LTCH discharges (that is,
more than one-third of all LTCH
patients) that the FY 2004 MedPAR
identified as SSO cases continues to be
an inappropriate number of patients
being treated in LTCHs who most likely
do not require the full measure of
resources available in a hospital that has
been established to treat patients
requiring long-stay hospital-level care.
Generally, if these patients required the
type of care associated with LTCHs, the
patients would most likely be in the
LTCH for the duration of the LOS
associated with the particular LTC–DRG
to which the case is assigned. Therefore,
we are concerned that the existing SSO
payment adjustment at § 412.529, which
generally will pay a per discharge
amount based upon the least of 120
percent of the specific LTC–DRG per
diem amount (multiplied by the LOS);
120 percent of the estimated costs of the
case; or the full LTC–DRG payment as
specified in existing § 412.529(c)(1),
may unintentionally provide a financial
incentive for LTCHs to admit patients
not requiring the level of care available
in that setting.
In the August 30, 2002 final rule,
when first we presented our rationale
for establishing the SSO policy, we
noted that since LTCHs are defined by
statute as generally having an ALOS
greater than 25 days, we had proposed
payment adjustments to make
appropriate payment for cases that may
not necessarily require the type of
services intended to be provided at a
LTCH or may have been transferred
from an acute hospital prematurely’’ (67
FR 55999). We continue to have these
concerns, and we believe that our data
indicate that after more than 3 years of
the LTCH PPS, a policy reexamination
is both necessary and appropriate, when
more than one-third of LTCH PPS
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
patients are paid under the SSO
provision. In order to address these
concerns, we are proposing two specific
changes to the existing SSO payment
methodology under § 412.529. Under
existing policy, in general, Medicare
will pay for a SSO case at the least of
the following: 120 percent of the
estimated costs of the case, 120 percent
of the per diem LTCH PPS payment
amount for the specific LTC–DRG
multiplied by the LOS of the discharge,
or the full LTCH PPS payment for the
LTC–DRG. We believe that the current
payment adjustment for SSO cases
appears to be providing a financial
incentive to inappropriately admit
short-stay patients to LTCHs as
evidenced by the high percentage of
SSO cases. Consistent with the
Secretary’s broad authority ‘‘to provide
for appropriate adjustments to the longterm hospital payment system * * * ’’
established under section 123 of the
BBRA as amended by section 307(b)(1)
of BIPA, we are proposing to reduce the
current adjustment at existing
§ 412.529(c)(1)(ii) which is based on 120
percent of the costs of the case to 100
percent of the costs of the case for
discharges occurring on or after July 1,
2006 at proposed § 412.529(c)(2)(ii). We
believe that by reducing the Medicare
payment to the LTCH for a specific SSO
case so that it would be equal to but not
exceed the estimated costs incurred for
that case, we may be removing what we
believe could be a financial incentive
that the current policy has established
to treat short stay cases in LTCHs. We
are not proposing to change the
payment option of 120 percent of the
per diem for a specific LTC–DRG
multiplied by the LOS for that case
because of the specific calculations
upon which we based this aspect of the
SSO policy adjustment. As described in
detail in the FY 2003 final rule LTCH
PPS, when we first established the SSO
policy, we found that five-sixths of the
geometric ALOS would be the SSO
threshold where the full LTC–DRG
payment would be made at 120 percent.
That is, by adjusting the per discharge
payment by paying at 120 percent of the
per diem DRG payment, once a stay
reaches five-sixths of the geometric
ALOS for the LTC–DRG, the full DRG
payment will have been made. We
continue to believe that this specific
methodology, described above in this
section, which results in a gradual
increase in payment as the LOS
increases without producing a payment
‘‘cliff’’ at any one point, provides a
reasonable payment option under the
SSO policy. (67 FR 55997, August 30,
2002)
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
We believe it is inappropriate that
more than one-third of Medicare
patients treated in the special category
of hospitals that was established by the
Congress, under section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the Act to address
the treatment of patients requiring
extended hospital-level care are actually
short-stay patients, as defined in
§ 412.529(a), and do not receive such
extended hospital-level care. Therefore,
we are proposing reduce the current
adjustment at existing § 412.529(c)(1)(ii)
from 120 percent of the costs of the case
to 100 percent of the costs of the case
for discharges occurring on or after July
1, 2006, for LTCHs described in
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i) resulting in a LTCH PPS
Medicare payment equivalent to but not
exceeding the estimated costs of the
case. We believe that the proposed
revision to the SSO payment
methodology further discourages
inappropriate admissions of these
patients to LTCHs because we would be
removing the financial incentive to
admit cases that do not typically belong
in LTCHs but would be more
appropriately treated in another setting
(for example, an inpatient acute care
hospital).
Further, since the vast majority of
LTCH patients are admitted directly
from IPPS acute care hospitals, a fact
verified by our patient data files
(National Claims History Files), a recent
MedPAC Report (June 2003, p. 79), and
by research done by the Urban Institute
at the outset of the LTCH PPS and RTI,
we believe that the admission of shortstay patients at LTCHs may indicate
premature and even inappropriate
discharges from the referring acute care
hospitals. For example, if an acute care
hospital patient required additional
inpatient services, it would usually be
most appropriate for the acute care
hospital to continue to treat the patient
rather than discharging and admitting
the patient to an LTCH for a short-stay
episode.
We believe that in order to remove
what may be an inappropriate financial
incentive for a LTCH to admit a shortstay case, as well as, to discourage
LTCHs from behaving like acute care
hospitals by having a significant number
of cases with lengths of stay
commensurate with acute care hospitals
and also to discourage LTCHs from
admitting patients that could be
premature discharges from acute care
hospitals, we are proposing in
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv) to add a fourth
payment method to the three
alternatives under § 412.529(c) for SSO
cases. Specifically, we are proposing to
revise § 412.529 to provide that for
discharges from LTCHs described in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i) occurring on or after
July 1, 2006, payment for a SSO case
would be the least of the following: 120
percent of the per diem amount for a
specific LTC–DRG multiplied by the
LOS of the discharge; 100 percent of the
estimated costs of the case (which we
are proposing in this proposed rule as
a change from the existing 120 percent
of estimated costs); the full LTCH PPS
payment for the LTC–DRG; or a LTCH
PPS payment comparable to the
payment that would otherwise be paid
under the IPPS.
We believe that this proposed
additional component to the SSO
payment formula is particularly
appropriate because it reflects our
concern that generally, LTCHs that
admit SSO patients with lengths of stay
more typical of an acute care hospital
may be, in fact, behaving like acute care
hospitals. Therefore, we are proposing
to include an alternative payment
method under the LTCH PPS SSO
adjustment that could result in an LTCH
PPS payment to the LTCH for a SSO
stay that would be comparable to what
Medicare would pay to an acute care
hospital for the same case. Furthermore,
since over 80 percent of all LTCH
patients (FY 2003 MedPAR) are
admitted from acute care hospitals to an
LTCH, of which many become a SSO, an
acute care hospital’s discharge of a
patient who is still in need of acutelevel care may indicate a premature and
inappropriate discharge from the acute
care hospital, an inappropriate
admission to the LTCH, and result in a
second, unnecessary Medicare payment
to the LTCH. We originally established
a similar payment adjustment under the
LTCH PPS at § 412.534 for LTCH HwHs
and LTCH satellites for which greater
than 25 percent of its patients were
admitted from a host hospital (69 FR
49191 through 49214). Under that
policy, unless the patient reached high
cost outlier status at the acute care
hospital prior to discharge, Medicare
payments to the LTCH HwH or satellite
for those cases in excess of the threshold
were based upon the lesser of a payment
under the LTCH PPS or an LTCH PPS
amount equivalent to what would
otherwise have been paid under the
IPPS. This payment adjustment
reflected our belief that if patientshifting between a host hospital and its
co-located LTCH exceeded a specific
threshold, the onsite LTCH was
functioning like a de facto unit of the
acute care hospital, a configuration not
permitted by section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the
Act, which authorizes rehabilitation and
psychiatric units but not LTCH units.
We reasoned that if the patient was in
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4687
effect, being treated in a ‘‘unit’’ of the
acute care hospital, it was reasonable to
issue a payment methodology that took
this into account. For LTCH HwH or
satellite discharges in excess of the 25
percent (or appropriate percentage)
threshold, therefore, as specified in
§ 412.534, Medicare will make a
payment based upon the lesser of the
LTCH PPS payment otherwise payable
under subpart O and an amount under
this subpart that is equivalent to an
amount that would be paid under the
IPPS.
We believe that adapting the
underlying premise of the payment
adjustment at § 412.534 to a new
payment adjustment method under the
SSO policy is particularly appropriate,
since we are concerned (and our data
seems to confirm) that LTCHs may be
admitting patients that should otherwise
be treated in acute care hospitals, as
evidenced by lengths of stay more in
keeping with an acute care hospital stay
than the considerably longer stays
characteristic of LTCHs. We believe this
additional proposed payment method,
under the LTCH PPS for SSO patients
under which, following the procedure
set forth under § 412.529, the LTCH
could receive a Medicare payment
comparable to that which would
otherwise be paid under the IPPS, is an
appropriate response to the fact that an
LTCH treating such patients may, in
fact, be functioning like an acute care
hospital.
We are also very concerned that acute
care hospitals may be shifting their
patients to LTCHs, resulting in a high
incidence of SSOs. This pattern may
indicate a premature discharge from the
acute care hospital (where less than a
full course of treatment was delivered)
and an unnecessary admission to the
LTCH. Despite the fact that the payment
adjustment at § 412.534, based on the 25
percent (or applicable percentage)
threshold, focused on inappropriate
patient movement between co-located
providers (69 FR 49191 through 49214),
we do not believe that co-location is a
prerequisite to inappropriate patientshifting between an acute care hospital
and an LTCH. As we discuss in section
V.B. of this proposed rule, with the
explosive growth in the numbers of freestanding LTCHs since 2004, many of
which receive patients from a single
acute care hospital, we are monitoring
patient shifting that is occurring with
growing regularity. (This issue is
discussed in depth in section X. of this
proposed rule.)
We believe that it is essential to guard
the Medicare Trust Fund against
admission and discharge practices that
could result in more than one payment
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4688
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
for what was essentially one episode of
patient care and, as we noted above in
this section, we are concerned that there
may be a correlation between the fact
that one-third of LTCH discharges are
SSO cases and what, in some cases, may
be inappropriate admissions of patients
who are prematurely discharged from
acute care hospitals. We would also
note that from the outset of the LTCH
PPS, in our FY 2003 final rule for the
LTCH PPS, we stated that ‘‘many of
these [SSO] patients could have been
treated more appropriately in an acute
care hospital subject to the acute care
hospital inpatient prospective payment
system’’ (67 FR 55995). Therefore, we
are proposing a fourth alternative in the
SSO payment formula at § 412.529 that
is similar to the existing payment
adjustment at § 412.534, discussed in
section V.B. of this proposed rule.
In the discussion that follows, for the
sake of clarity, we use phrases such as
‘‘IPPS DRG relative weights,’’ and the
‘‘IPPS labor-related share,’’ in describing
features of the IPPS that we would use
in calculating LTCH PPS payments
under this proposed new alternative
adjustment. We want to emphasize,
however, that such a payment is not an
IPPS payment but rather, a payment
under the LTCH PPS that is generally
derived from the IPPS payment
methodology. Therefore, for Medicare
payments for SSO cases under the LTCH
PPS as specified in proposed
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv), we are proposing
that ‘‘an amount under subpart O that is
comparable to an amount that otherwise
would be paid under the IPPS’’ would
be calculated based on the sum of the
applicable operating and capital IPPS
rates in effect at the time of the
discharge from the LTCH as established
in the applicable IPPS final rule
published annually in the Federal
Register. This is necessary since, under
the IPPS, there are separate Medicare
rates for operating (subpart D of part
412) and capital (subpart M of part 412)
costs to acute care hospitals; while,
under the LTCH PPS, there is a single
payment for the operating and capital
costs of the inpatient hospital services
provided to LTCH Medicare patients.
We are also proposing that ‘‘an amount
under subpart O that is comparable to
an amount that otherwise would be paid
under the IPPS’’ would be calculated
including the applicable differences in
resource use (that is, IPPS DRG relative
weights), differences in area wage levels
(that is, wage index), a cost-of-living
adjustment for hospitals located in
Alaska and Hawaii, the treatment of a
disproportionate share of low income
patients (DSH), if applicable, and an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
adjustment for indirect medical
education (IME), if applicable. (We
would emphasize that under this
proposed policy, Medicare payments,
payable under subpart O, would be
‘‘comparable’’ to what would otherwise
be paid under the IPPS, rather than
‘‘equal’’ to an IPPS payment because, as
we explain, there are specific features of
the IPPS that do not directly translate
into the LTCH PPS, so would be no way
to establish or evaluate whether the
LTCH payments are ‘‘equal’’ to an
amount that would be paid under the
IPPS. In proposing to use the word
‘‘comparable,’’ to describe this payment
alternative to the existing SSO policy,
we intend to make clear that such
payments would be calculated by
applying IPPS principles to achieve a
close approximation of payments that
would be made under the IPPS,
recognizing the fact that not all
components of the IPPS can be carried
out precisely in the LTCH PPS context.
Specifically, under this proposed
policy, for payments under the LTCH
PPS, we would calculate an amount
payable under subpart O comparable to
what would otherwise be paid under the
IPPS for the costs of inpatient operating
services which would be based on the
standardized amount determined under
§ 412.64(c), adjusted by the applicable
DRG weighting factors at § 412.60 as set
forth at § 412.64(g). This amount would
be further adjusted for different area
wage levels using the applicable IPPS
labor-related share based on the CBSA
where the LTCH is physically located
set forth at § 412.525(c) and the IPPS
wage index for non-reclassified
hospitals as shown in Tables 4A and 4B
in the annual IPPS final rule. (In the RY
2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24200), we discuss the inapplicability of
geographic reclassification procedures
for LTCHs.) For LTCHs located in
Alaska and Hawaii, we propose that this
amount would also be adjusted by the
applicable proposed COLA factor used
under the IPPS published annually in
the IPPS final rule. (We note currently
that the same COLA factors are used
under both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS.)
We are additionally proposing that
this proposed revised payment
adjustment alternative (an amount
comparable to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS for the costs of
inpatient operating services) would also
include a DSH adjustment (see
§ 412.106), if applicable, for discharges
governed by § 412.529.
Under this proposed revision to the
LTCH PPS SSO payment adjustment at
proposed § 412.529(c)(2)(iv), we are
proposing that in the case of a LTCH
that is a teaching hospital, we would
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determine the IME payment for the
LTCH by imputing a limit on the
number of full-time equivalent (FTE)
residents that may be counted for IME
(IME cap) based on the LTCH’s direct
GME cap (which would already have
been established for an LTCH which
had residency programs as set forth at
§ 413.79(c)(2)), thus calculating an IME
payment for this LTCH that is in accord
with the IPPS payment formula set forth
at § 412.105. We are adapting this
methodology from the payment
adjustment established for LTCH HwHs
and LTCH satellites under § 412.534
where the applicable payment
alternative is described as an amount
‘‘equivalent’’ to what would otherwise
be paid under the IPPS. The use of a
proxy for the IME cap is necessary
because it would not be appropriate to
apply the IPPS IME rules literally in the
context of this LTCH PPS payment
adjustment. Under the IPPS, IME
payment regulations at § 412.105, limits
were established on the number of FTE
residents a hospital is permitted to
count for IME payments based on the
hospital’s 1996 cost report. This IME
FTE resident cap under the IPPS would
not translate appropriately to an LTCH
since an LTCH would not have reported
any FTE residents for IME on its 1996
cost report. Therefore, we believe the
use of the LTCH’s direct GME cap for
the purpose of calculating the payment
adjustment alternative under proposed
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv) is reasonable since it
is based on the best available data on
residency programs at LTCHs (which
could be computed from direct GME
data for LTCHs that had residency
programs). Using an imputed GME cap
would enable us to factor an adjustment
for residency programs into a Medicare
payment under the LTCH PPS for those
SSO cases where the least of the
payment alternatives results in an
amount under the LTCH PPS
comparable to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS. Both a DSH
adjustment and an IME adjustment, as
necessary, could be computed from data
already collected on the LTCH’s cost
report.
Under this proposed LTCH PPS
payment adjustment, an amount payable
under subpart O comparable to what
would otherwise be paid under the IPPS
would also include payment for the
costs of inpatient capital-related costs
based on the capital Federal rate at
§ 412.308(c), which would be adjusted
by the applicable IPPS DRG weighting
factors at § 412.60 as set forth at
§ 412.312(b). This amount would be
further adjusted by the applicable
geographic adjustment factors set forth
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
at § 412.316, including wage index,
(based on the CBSA where a LTCH is
physically located and derived from the
IPPS wage index for non-reclassified
hospitals as shown in tables 4A and 4B
of the annual IPPS final rule) large
urban location, if applicable, and the
IPPS COLA factor used under the IPPS
for LTCHs located in Alaska and
Hawaii. (The same COLA factors are
used under both the IPPS and the LTCH
PPS.).
For LTCH discharges governed by the
proposed revision of the SSO policy
under the LTCH PPS, an amount
comparable to what would be paid
under the IPPS for the inpatient capitalrelated costs would also include a DSH
adjustment (§ 412.320), if applicable and
an IME adjustment (§ 412.322), if
applicable. (As with IPPS payment for
operating costs, a DSH or an IME
adjustment for the purposes of this
proposed policy could be computed
from data already collected on the
LTCH’s cost report, as necessary.)
Under this proposed policy, an
amount payable under subpart O
comparable to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS would equal the
sum of the amount comparable to what
would otherwise be paid under the IPPS
for the costs of inpatient operating
services and the amount comparable to
what would be paid under the IPPS for
inpatient capital-related costs (as
described previously). We note that we
are proposing that ‘‘a LTCH PPS
payment amount comparable to what
would be paid under the IPPS’’ would
not include additional payments for
extraordinarily high cost cases under
the IPPS outlier policy (§ 412.80(a))
since, under existing LTCH PPS policy,
a SSO case that meets the criteria for a
LTCH PPS high cost outlier payment at
§ 412.525(a)(1) (that is, if the estimated
costs of the case exceed the adjusted
LTC–DRG payment plus a fixed loss
amount) would be receive an additional
payment under the LTCH PPS high cost
outlier policy at § 412.525(a) (67 FR
56026, August 30, 2002). For purposes
of high cost outliers under the SSO
policy, we use a fixed loss amount
calculated under § 412.252(a) and not a
fixed loss amount based on § 412.80(a).
We propose to use the term
‘‘comparable’’ in the fourth payment
alternative so that the public would
realize that this payment alternative is
not exactly the same as the one that is
similarly worded in § 412.534(c)(2),
(d)(1), and (e)(1), discussed in section
V.B. of this proposed rule.
Therefore, as noted previously in this
proposed rule, we are proposing to add
an additional method to the existing
payment alternatives (that is, the least of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
120 percent of the per diem LTC–DRG
multiplied by the number of inpatient
days as specified in § 412.529(c)(2)(i),
120 percent of the costs of the case as
specified in § 412.529(c)(2)(ii), or the
full LTC–DRG payment as specified in
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iii)). Specifically, we are
proposing in § 412.529(c)(2)(iv) that
Medicare would pay an amount
comparable to the amount that would
have been paid under the IPPS for a
particular case if that amount is lower
than the existing 3 payment alternatives.
Medicare would pay the LTCH 80
percent of the costs of the case that
exceed the sum of the applicable option
and the fixed loss amount determined
under § 412.525(a). In addition, we are
proposing a change to § 412.529(c)(2)(ii)
that decreases the 120 percent of the
costs to 100 percent of costs.
Under existing LTCH PPS SSO policy
at § 412.529(c), the payment is
ultimately based on the least of: 120
percent of the LTC–DRG specific per
diem amount multiplied by the LOS of
the discharge; 120 percent of the cost of
the case; or the full LTC–DRG. A high
cost outlier payment could be made for
a SSO stay if the total costs of the case
exceed the least of these three options,
plus the appropriate fixed-loss amount
under § 412.525. In this proposed rule,
for reasons described previously, we
have proposed to lower the 120 percent
of costs to 100 percent, and we have
also proposed a fourth alternative
method for this formula: An LTCH PPS
payment comparable to what would
otherwise have been paid under the
IPPS. We would emphasize that under
this proposed policy we are not
proposing to change the basic payment
determinations in the existing SSO
payment policy for high cost outliers.
Therefore, as noted previously in this
proposed rule, if the costs of the case
exceeded the payment resulting from
this formula plus the LTCH PPS fixed
loss amount, Medicare payment to the
LTCH for this case, would include high
cost outlier payment set forth at
§ 412.525.
Accordingly, even with the proposed
additional alternative to the SSO
payment policy at proposed
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv), high cost outlier
payments for a SSO discharge would
continue to be paid under the existing
SSO policy established at the start of the
LTCH PPS (for cost reporting periods
beginning during FY 2003) where high
cost outlier payments, based upon the
use of the LTCH PPS fixed loss amount,
were governed by § 412.525.
We note that the approach taken
under § 412.534 for high cost outliers is
different than the approach that has
been taken for more than the last 3 years
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4689
with short-stay outliers that are also
high cost outliers (67 FR 56026, 68 FR
34145, 69 FR 25689, 70 FR 24197).
Specifically, since the beginning of the
LTCH PPS, a SSO that is also a high cost
outlier has utilized the fixed loss
amount calculated under § 412.525.
Accordingly, we are not aware of any
reason at this time to change this policy,
regardless of the fact that we are now
proposing to add a fourth alternative
payment method under the SSO policy
(that is, a payment under subpart O that
is comparable to an amount otherwise
payable under § 412.1(a)). Furthermore,
we believe that it is beneficial from an
administrative efficiency perspective to
maintain our current policy for a SSO
that also hits high cost outlier status.
We have provided that under the
LTCH HwH and satellite payment
adjustment at § 412.534, payment for
discharges will be ‘‘the lesser of the
amount otherwise payable under this
subpart [subpart O] or the amount that
is otherwise payable under this subpart
that is equivalent to the amount that
would be otherwise payable under
§ 412.1(a) [the IPPS].’’ We acknowledge
that under this policy, if payment is
based on the latter and the case is a high
cost outlier, § 412.80 will govern the
LTCH PPS payment. Therefore, if the
estimated coast of the case exceeds the
DRG payment plus the fixed loss
amount under § 412.80(a), the LTCH
would receive an additional payment
based on the high cost outlier policy
under the IPPS. If payment is based on
an amount otherwise payable under
Subpart O, and the case is a high cost
outlier, § 412.525 will govern. If the
estimated cost of the case exceeds the
adjusted LTCH–DRG payment plus a
fixed loss amount under § 412.525(a),
the LTCH would receive an additional
payment based on the LTCH PPS high
cost outlier policy. We believe that
proposing the additional alternative in
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv) to the payment
options under the SSO policy, which, if
applicable, could result in a high cost
outlier payment determined under
§ 412.525, is consistent with our
existing SSO high cost outlier policy
and the proposed policy would
maintain that consistency. However, we
are specifically asking for comments on
whether we should use a fixed loss
amount derived from the IPPS high cost
outlier policy at § 412.80(a), where the
least of the four options in the rate is
comparable to the IPPS rate in the event
that a SSO case also qualifies for a high
cost outlier payment under the LTCH
PPS.
We established special provisions for
the SSO policy for subclause (II) LTCHs
in the RY 2004 LTCH PPS final rule (68
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4690
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
FR 34147). We are proposing to exempt
subclause (II) LTCHs from the proposed
additional revisions to the SSO policy
discussed previously until the 5th year
of the phase-in for such an LTCH of the
LTCH PPS (that is, for discharges
occurring during cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2006).
This proposed approach is consistent
with our existing policy as it applies to
subclause (II) LTCHs in that these
LTCHs do not become subject to the
specific SSO percentages established for
subclause (I) LTCHs until cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2006. Therefore, since the percentages
applied under the SSO policy for
subclause II LTCHs do not go to 120
percent until the fifth year of the
transition, the proposed reduction from
120 percent of the estimated costs of the
case to 100 percent of the estimated
costs would not apply to a subclause (II)
LTCH until that time, nor would the
proposed additional alternative, of an
amount payable under Subpart O
comparable to the amount that would
otherwise be paid under the IPPS, apply
to discharges from a subclause (II) LTCH
until such an LTCH’s cost reporting
period beginning on or after October 1,
2006. Therefore, under our proposed
policy, we are proposing that SSO
discharges at a subclause (II) LTCH that
had a cost reporting period beginning on
January 1, for example, would be subject
to all of the four payment alternatives
(including the proposed reduction to
100 percent of costs and the proposed
addition of option of ‘‘a payment
comparable to what would otherwise
have been paid under the IPPS’’) for
discharges occurring on or after the start
of its 5th year of the transition on
January 1, 2007.
Our proposal to exempt subclause (II)
LTCHs from the proposed revisions to
the SSO policy at § 412.529(c)(2) until
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2006 is consistent with
our understanding of Congressional
intent in establishing this special
category of LTCHs in section 4417(b) of
the BBA, which states that 80 percent of
the annual Medicare inpatient
discharges, in such a subclause (II)
LTCH, in the 12-month reporting period
ending in Federal FY 1997 would have
had principal diagnosis that reflects a
finding of neoplastic disease. The
Congress, in enacting subclause II,
provided an exception to the general
definition of LTCHs under subclause I.
In the RY 2004 LTCH PPS final rule (68
FR 34148), we evaluated the SSO policy
for subclause II LTCHs, and we noted
that the unique Congressional mandate
set forth in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
of the Act circumscribes such a LTCHs’
admission policies to the extent that it
is being identified as a LTCH in order
to provide a particular type of service
(for which the ALOS is greater than 20
days) to a particular population (at least
80 percent have a principal diagnosis of
neoplastic disease). We stated that we
believed that a LTCH in this category
might not be able to readily address the
type of patients and the costs it incurs
for those patients as would LTCHs
described under subclause I. We
believed that it is necessary to adjust the
short stay policy for subclause (II)
LTCHs during the 5-year transition
period, so that a LTCH of this type
could continue to serve its community,
as intended by the Congress (68 FR
34148).
We continue to believe that hospitals
fitting this description fulfill a unique
and vital service for certain Medicare
beneficiaries. We further believe, as we
discussed in significant detail in the RY
2004 final rule, that it was necessary to
temporarily adjust the short stay policy
for subclause (II) LTCHs during the 5year transition period, so that an LTCH
of this type could continue to serve its
community as they adjust their
behavior. We also stated in the FY 2004
final rule that we expected that during
this 5-year period, the subclause (II)
LTCHs will make every attempt to adopt
the type of efficiency enhancing policies
that generally result from the
implementation of prospective payment
systems in other health care settings (69
FR 34148). Therefore, we are proposing
that hospitals that qualify as subclause
(II) LTCHs would become subject to the
new proposed payment options for SSO
discharges, when a subclause (II) LTCH
would also become fully subject to the
general SSO policy at § 412.529, which
would be for discharges occurring in the
cost reporting period beginning on or
after October 1, 2006.
b. Proposed Changes to the
Determination of Cost-to-Charge Ratios
(CCRs) and Reconciliation of SSO Cases
In the June 9, 2003 IPPS outlier final
rule (68 FR 34507), we revised the shortstay policy at § 412.529 (and the highcost outlier policy at § 412.525(a))
because, as we discussed above in this
section, we believed that the SSO (and
high cost outlier) policy are susceptible
to the same payment vulnerabilities that
became evident under the IPPS, and
therefore, merited revision. Therefore,
in the regulations under existing
§ 412.529(c)(5)(ii) and (iii), we
established a policy for the
determination of LTCH CCRs and the
reconciliation of SSO payments, for
discharges occurring on or after August
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8, 2003 (§ 412.529(c)(5)(ii)) and October
1, 2003 (§ 412.529(c)(5)(iii)),
respectively. (As noted above in this
section, in that same final rule, we
established the same changes to the
high-cost outlier policy at existing
§ 412.525(a)(4)(ii) and (iii).)
As we discuss in section IV.D.3.b. of
this preamble, we are proposing to
revise the existing regulations at
§ 412.525(a)(4) to codify in subpart O of
part 42 of the CFR the provisions
governing the determination of LTCHs’
CCRs, including proposed modifications
and editorial clarifications to our
existing methodology for determining
the annual LTCH CCR ceiling and
applicable Statewide average CCRs
under the LTCH PPS, and the provisions
governing the reconciliation of high cost
outlier payments. We are proposing
these changes, as we discuss in greater
detail below in this section, because we
believe that such proposed changes
would be more consistent with the
LTCH PPS single payment rate, and
because we believe it would be more
appropriate and administratively
simpler to include the regulatory
provisions that pertain only to LTCHs
for the determination of LTCH PPS
outlier payments applicable under the
LTCH PPS regulations in subpart O of
part 42 of the CFR (as opposed to
subpart A). Since CCRs are also used in
determining SSO payments under
§ 412.529, we are proposing, under the
broad authority of section 123 of the
BBRA and section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, to
revise § 412.529(c) consistent with the
proposed changes to § 412.525(a)(4)
discussed in section IV.D.3. of this
preamble.
Specifically, we are proposing that in
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C)(2) would specify,
that for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, if, among other things,
a LTCH’s CCR is in excess of the LTCH
CCR ceiling (which would be calculated
as 3 standard deviations above the
corresponding national geometric mean
CCR (established and published
annually by CMS)), the FI may use a
Statewide average CCR (also established
annually by CMS). (We note that,
similar to our current policy, we are also
proposing under proposed
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C) that the FI may use
a Statewide average CCR in two other
circumstances, which are discussed in
greater detail below in this section.)
This proposed change is similar to our
existing policy (established in the June
9, 2003 IPPS high cost outlier final rule
(68 FR 34494)) and the proposed change
to the LTCH PPS high cost outlier policy
discussed previously in this proposed
rule. Under proposed
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C)(2), for discharges
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
occurring on or after October 1, 2006,
we are proposing that we would
determine the single ‘‘total’’ CCR ceiling
(as we proposed under the high cost
outlier policy at proposed
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C)(2), as explained in
section IV.D.3.b. of this preamble) by
first calculating the total (that is,
operating and capital) CCR for each
hospital and then determining the
average total CCR for all hospitals. The
total LTCH CCR ceiling would then be
established at 3 standard deviations
from that average total CCR rather than
determining the LTCH CCR ceiling by
adding together the separate IPPS
operating CCR ceiling and IPPS capital
CCR ceiling as we do under our current
policy. (We note, as discussed in greater
detail below in this section, in
conjunction with this proposed change
in the calculation of the LTCH CCR
ceiling, we are also proposing a change
in our methodology for calculating the
applicable Statewide average CCRs
under the LTCH PPS to be based on
‘‘total’’ hospital-specific CCRs.)
Specifically, we are proposing under the
SSO policy at § 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C), to
use the same IPPS CCR data that we
currently use to annually determine the
separate IPPS operating CCR and capital
CCR ceilings (that we add together
under our current policy to determine
the annual CCR ceiling for LTCHs) to
compute the single LTCH ‘‘total’’ CCR
ceiling based on IPPS hospital-specific
total (operating and capital) Medicare
costs and charges, as explained above in
this section. In addition, under this
proposal, the total CCR ceiling would
continue to be published annually in
the IPPS proposed and final rules, and
therefore, the public should continue to
consult the annual IPPS proposed and
final rules for changes to the applicable
LTCH PPS Statewide average total CCRs
that would be effective for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006
(since, under this proposal the current
applicable combined Statewide average
CCRs, established for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2005 in
the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, would
remain in effect for discharges occurring
on or before September 30, 2006.) The
rationale for this proposed change to the
SSO policy at proposed
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C) mirrors the
rationale provided for the proposed
changes to the high cost outlier policy
at proposed § 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C)
discussed in section IV.D.3.b. of this
preamble.
Also consistent with the proposed
changes to § 412.525(a)(4)(iv), under the
broad authority of section 123 of the
BBRA and section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
are also proposing at
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(A) through (C), for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, to codify in subpart O of part
42 of the CFR the remaining LTCH PPS
SSO policy changes concerning the
determination of LTCHs’ CCRs that were
established in the June 9, 2003 IPPS
high cost outlier final rule (68 FR 34506
through 34513), including proposed
modifications and editorial
clarifications to those existing policies
established in that final rule in order to
more precisely describe the application
of those policies as they relate LTCHs.
Specifically, similar to our current
policy and consistent with the proposed
changes to the high cost outlier policy
at § 412.525(a)(4) discussed previously
in this proposed rule, we are proposing
in § 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C) to specify that
the FI may use a Statewide average CCR,
which would be established annually by
CMS, if it is unable to determine an
accurate CCR for a LTCH in one of the
following three circumstances: (1) New
LTCHs that have not yet submitted their
first Medicare cost report (for this
purpose, consistent with current policy,
a new LTCH would be defined as an
entity that has not accepted assignment
of an existing hospital’s provider
agreement in accordance with § 489.18
of this chapter); (2) LTCHs whose CCR
is in excess of the LTCH CCR ceiling
(that is, 3 standard deviations above the
corresponding national geometric mean
total CCR); and (3) other LTCHs for
whom data with which to calculate a
CCR is not available (for example,
missing or faulty data). (As we noted in
section IV.D.3.b. of this preamble and
consistent with our current regulations,
either CMS or the hospital may request
the use of a different (higher or lower)
CCR based on substantial evidence that
such a CCR more accurately reflects the
hospital’s actual costs and charges. This
applies to new (as defined above) as
well. For instance, CMS may determine
that the applicable Statewide average
CCR should not be applied to hospitals
that convert from acute-care IPPS
hospitals to LTCHs (and receive a new
LTCH provider number). Rather, the
cost and charge data from the IPPS
hospital’s cost report (even if it is more
or less than a 12-month cost reporting
period) would be used to determine the
LTCH’s CCR.)
Also similar to our current practice
and consistent with the proposed
change to the high cost outlier policy
discussed previously in this proposed
rule, under § 412.525(c)(4)(iv)(C), for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006, we are proposing that we would
annually establish Statewide average
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4691
‘‘total’’ CCRs for use under the LTCH
PPS based on IPPS data by first
calculating the total (that is, operating
and capital) CCR for each hospital and
then determining the average total CCR
for all hospitals in each State rather than
assigning the combined (operating and
capital) Statewide average CCRs, as we
do under our current policy.
Specifically, in proposing to compute
Statewide average total CCRs, we would
use the same IPPS CCR data that we
currently use to annually establish the
separate IPPS operating Statewide
average CCRs and capital Statewide
CCRs (that we add together under our
current policy to determine the
applicable ‘‘combined’’ Statewide
average CCR for LTCHs) to compute
Statewide average total CCRs as
explained above in this section. In
addition, under this proposal, the
Statewide average total CCRs would
continue to be published annually in
the IPPS proposed and final rules and
therefore, the public should continue to
consult the annual IPPS proposed and
final rules for changes to the applicable
LTCH PPS Statewide average total CCRs
that would be effective for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006
(since, under this proposal, the current
applicable combined Statewide average
CCRs, established for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2005 in
the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, would
remain in effect for discharges occurring
on or before September 30, 2006).
Our rationale for this proposed
change to the SSO policy at proposed
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(C) mirrors the
rationale provided for the proposed
changes to the high cost outlier policy
at proposed § 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(C)
discussed in greater detail in section
IV.D.3.b. of this preamble.
In addition, we are proposing under
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(B), similar to our
current policy and consistent with the
proposed change to the high cost outlier
policy discussed above, for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2006,
that the CCR applied at the time a claim
is processed would be based on either
the most recent settled cost report or the
most recent tentative settled cost report,
whichever is from the latest cost
reporting period. Furthermore, we are
proposing under § 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(A)
that CMS may specify an alternative to
the CCR computed from the most recent
settled cost report or the most recent
tentative settled cost report, whichever
is later, or a hospital may also request
that its FI use a different (higher or
lower) CCR based on substantial
evidence presented by the hospital. As
noted previously in this proposed rule,
these proposed revisions to our policy
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4692
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
for determining a LTCH’s CCR for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2006 under proposed revised
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(A) and (B) are similar
to our existing policy established in the
June 9, 2003 IPPS high cost outlier final
rule (68 FR 34506 through 34513) and
consistent with the proposed changes to
the high cost outlier policy previously
discussed in this proposed rule.
Furthermore, similar to our current
policy and consistent with the proposed
change to the high cost outlier policy
discussed previously in this proposed
rule , under the broad authority under
section 123 of the BBRA as amended by
section 307(b) of BIPA, we are also
proposing in under § 412.529(c)(4)(iv),
for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, to codify in the LTCH
PPS regulations (subpart O of part 42 of
the CFR) the outlier reconciliation
provisions that were established in the
June 9, 2003 IPPS high cost outlier final
rule (68 FR 34506 through 34513)
including proposed editorial
clarifications to those provisions (which
are the same as the proposed changes to
the high cost outlier policy discussed
above in section IV.D.3.d. of the
preamble of this proposed rule).
Specifically, under
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(D), similar to our
current policy and consistent with the
proposed change to the high cost outlier
policy, we are proposing to specify that,
for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, any reconciliation of
outlier payments would be based on the
CCR calculated based on a ratio of costs
to charges computed from the relevant
cost report and charge data determined
at the time the cost report coinciding
with the discharge is settled. In
addition, at proposed
§ 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(E), similar to our
current policy and consistent with the
proposed change to the high cost outlier
policy, we are proposing to specify that,
for discharges occurring on or after
October 1, 2006, at the time of any
reconciliation, outlier payments may be
adjusted to account for the time value of
any underpayments or overpayments.
This adjustment would be based upon a
widely available index that would be
established in advance by the Secretary
and would be applied from the
midpoint of the cost reporting period to
the date of reconciliation. Our rationale
for these proposed changes to the SSO
policy at proposed § 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(D)
and (E) mirrors the rationale provided
for the proposed changes to the high
cost outlier policy at proposed
§ 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(D) and (E), discussed
in greater detail in section IV.D.3.d. of
this preamble.
2. The 3-Day or Less Interruption of Stay
In the RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule,
we revised the definition of an
‘‘interruption of a stay’’ at § 412.531(a)
by establishing two distinct categories,
‘‘[a] 3-day or less interruption of stay’’
and ‘‘[a] greater than 3-day interruption
of stay’’ at § 412.531(a)(2). The payment
features of the ‘‘greater than 3-day’’
policy itself apply beginning with day 4
once the ‘‘3-day or less’’ policy no
longer applies.
The 3-day or less interruption of stay
policy is defined at § 412.531(a)(1) as ‘‘a
stay at a LTCH during which a Medicare
inpatient is discharged from the LTCH
to an acute care hospital, IRF, SNF, or
the patient’s home and readmitted to the
same LTCH within 3 days of the
discharge from the LTCH. The 3-day or
less period begins with the date of
discharge from the LTCH and ends not
later than midnight of the third day.’’ As
discussed in detail in the RY 2005
LTCH PPS final rule (69 FR 25691
through 25700), there are several
components to the payment for the 3day or less interruption of stay.
First, subject to
§ 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and
(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2), only one LTC–DRG
payment will be made to the LTCH for
the patient who is discharged from the
LTCH to an acute care hospital, IRF,
SNF, or patient’s home and readmitted
to the same LTCH within 3 days.
Secondly, under
§ 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2), any off-site
tests or medical treatment, either
inpatient or outpatient, provided at an
acute care hospital or an IRF, or care at
a SNF and that are not otherwise
excluded under § 412.509(a), must be
provided by the LTCH ‘‘under
arrangements’’ if the patient is
readmitted to the LTCH within 3 days.
We established a time-limited specific
exception to the ‘‘under arrangements’’
requirement during the RY 2005 LTCH
PPS, at § 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1), in the
event that the treatment was grouped to
a surgical DRG under the IPPS at an
acute care hospital (69 FR 25696
through 25700).
We also stated that in addition to
having sufficient data to decide upon
continuing the exception, we will
evaluate whether additional refinements
to the overall 3-day or less interruption
of stay policy were warranted (69 FR
25697). In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final
rule, we extended the surgical-DRG
exception to the 3-day or less
interruption of stay policy because, as
we stated, ‘‘[t]he 3-day interruption of
stay policy was first implemented on
July 1, 2004, and, therefore, we do not
yet have sufficient data to accomplish
the above evaluations * * * ’’ We
continued, ‘‘we will be analyzing claims
data over the next year to determine
whether the surgical DRG exception to
the ‘under arrangements’ feature of the
3-day or less interrupted stay policy is
actively accomplishing our goal of
reducing unnecessary Medicare
payments and to deter inappropriate
Medicare payments while not
compromising beneficiary access to
medically necessary services. We
believe that we will have sufficient data
to evaluate continuation of the
exception and also whether additional
refinements to the overall 3-day or less
interruption of stay policy are
warranted’’ (70 FR 24206).
We also specified that we were
particularly interested in analyzing data
from LTCHs to determine whether there
was a significant increase in
interruptions of 4 days since the
establishment of the policy. To the
extent interruption of stay had increased
to at least 4 days (one day past the 3day threshold that would prevent the 3day or less policy from being triggered),
we believed that this behavior could
indicate inappropriate efforts to sidestep the provisions of our 3-day or less
interruption of stay policy.
As part of our on-going monitoring
program (as discussed in Section X. of
this proposed rule), ORDI analyzed
claims from the MedPAR files for LTCH
discharges from July 1, 2004 through
June 30, 2005 and performed the data
analysis necessary for evaluating the
impact of the surgical DRG exception to
the 3-day or less interruption of stay
policy. As shown in Table 10, the data
revealed the following for RY 2005
LTCH PPS.
TABLE 10
Total LTCH discharges ........................................................................................................................................................
Total covered charges .........................................................................................................................................................
Average covered charge .....................................................................................................................................................
Total cases assigned an IPPS Surgical DRG .....................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
120,895
$8,694,137,026.00
$71,855.00
459
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
4693
TABLE 10—Continued
Average covered charge for:
Non-surgical DRGs .......................................................................................................................................................
Surgical DRGs ..............................................................................................................................................................
Total covered charges for surgical stays were ...................................................................................................................
The 459 cases that were governed by
the surgical DRG exception represented
0.003 percent of total LTCH discharges
and the total covered charges for those
surgical DRGs, $10,294,925, represented
0.1 percent of covered charges to LTCHs
for RY 2005. Furthermore, the data
revealed that the median value of the
covered charges for the surgical DRGs at
the acute care hospitals were $14,900. In
addition, for FY 2004, 57 percent of the
covered charges were below $21,720
and 90 percent were below $33,679.
These data do not convince us that a
continuation of the surgical DRG
exception to the 3 day or less
interruption of stay policy is warranted.
We believe that the numbers cited above
support the following conclusions:
• The surgical cases that fell within
this exception are present in only a
small fraction of LTCH hospitalizations
and that therefore, they were neither
numerous nor would they be
significantly costly for LTCHs to cover
under arrangements;
• The surgical DRGs for which
Medicare claims were submitted by the
acute care hospital appear to support, in
large part, our original hypothesis (that
if a LTCH patient was discharged to an
acute care hospital for only 1, 2, or 3
days, followed by a readmission to the
LTCH, there could be reason to believe
that the treatment delivered, even if it
was grouped to a surgical DRG, was not
a major procedure because of the
relatively short LOS, and, therefore,
should have been provided ‘‘under
arrangements.’’) A reasonable and
systematic examination of a subset of
the above noted 459 surgical DRGs
additionally revealed the following:
• Of 47 cases governed by the
exception and for which Medicare made
an additional surgical DRG payment to
the acute care hospital, in over half of
these cases, the entire stay in the LTCH
was also grouped to a surgical LTC–
DRG. In 10 of these cases, the IPPS DRG
and the LTC–DRG were the same. This
indicates that at least in these 10 cases,
the LTCH claim included the procedure
that was delivered at the acute care
hospital (for which Medicare issued an
additional payment to the IPPS) and is
strongly suggestive of poor
documentation in the medical record,
poor coding, or gaming. Since LTCHs
typically do not perform significant
$18,103.00
$22,429
$10,294,925
surgical procedures, three examples of
additional irregularities are as follows:
—LTC–DRG 468, ‘‘extensive OR
procedures unrelated to principal
diagnosis,’’ with DRG 478, ‘‘other
vascular procedures w/cc’’ at the
acute care hospital;
—LTC–DRG 148, small and large bowel
procedures w/cc at the LTCH and
DRG 442 ‘‘other OR procedures with
injuries w/cc’’ at the acute care
hospital.
—LTC–DRG 76, other respiratory system
OR procedures with CC at the LTCH
and DRG 415, O.R. procedure for
infectious and parasitic diseases at the
acute care hospital.
• The specific surgical DRGs into
which the acute care treatments were
grouped appear to arise directly from
the principle diagnoses at the LTCH, a
concern that we originally stated in the
January 30, 2004 proposed rule for the
LTCH PPS when we described the
‘‘under arrangements’’ feature of the
proposed 3-day or less interruption of
stay policy (69 FR 4771).
Table 11 shows examples drawn from
the above cited subset of claims for July
1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.
TABLE 11
LTC–DRG
DRGs
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
182 (Esophagitis gastroenteritis, and miscellaneous other digestive disorders >17 w/cc.
271 Skin ulcers .........................................................................................
348 Prostatitis ...........................................................................................
87 Pulmonary edema and respiratory failure ...........................................
418 Post-operative and post traumatic infections ....................................
144 Other circulatory system diagnosis w/cc ...........................................
The basic premise of a PPS recognizes
that Medicare pays hospitals an amount
per discharge based on the average costs
of delivering care for that diagnosis
(which is assigned a DRG), and some
cases require more hospital resources to
be expended, where others, require less.
Therefore, in some cases, Medicare
payments will be lower than the
hospital’s costs but in other cases, the
payments will exceed the costs. In the
January 30, 2004 LTCH PPS proposed
rule, we stated that surgical treatment
that is directly related to the principle
diagnosis at the LTCH and which only
required 3 days or less of care at the
acute care hospital, should be provided
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
17 Other digestive system operating room procedures.
270 Other skin, subcutaneous tissue and breast procedures w/cc.
336 Trans-urethral prostatectomy.
55 Miscellaneous ENT, mouth, or throat procedures.
415 Operating room procedure for infectious or parasitic diseases.
120 Other circulatory system operating room procedures.
by the LTCH either directly or ‘‘under
arrangements’’ since Medicare payment
to the LTCH for this particular case was
‘‘payment in full’’ as specified in
§ 412.509(b) (69 FR 4771). It has been
standard Medicare PPS policy for over
two decades that the LTCH
hospitalization, the surgical treatment
arising from this hospitalization, and
the post-operative stay at the LTCH are
to be viewed as one episode of care and
therefore, the LTC–DRG payment would
be adequate compensation for the entire
episode. (In fact, when LTCHs were
paid under the reasonable-cost based
TEFRA payment policy—subject to
hospital-specific ceilings or ‘target
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amounts’—prior to the FY 2003
implementation of the LTCH PPS, the
‘‘under arrangements’’ policy, enabled
LTCHs to include the costs of these offsite treatments on Medicare claims,
thereby resulting in higher TEFRA target
amounts.) However, when we restated
the ‘‘under arrangements’’ policy for the
3-day or less interruption of stay, and
proposed its codification in the RY 2005
proposed rule for the LTCH PPS, in
response to comments received on the
January 30, 2004 proposed rule, we did
agree to establish a 1-year exception to
the ‘‘under arrangements’’ feature of the
3-day or less interruption of stay policy
for cases that grouped to a surgical DRG
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4694
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
during an intervening acute care
hospitalization. We subsequently
extended this exception for an
additional year in order to gather
sufficient data with which to determine
the value of retaining this exception to
the general policy.
Therefore, based on the above data
analysis and under the broad
discretionary authority granted by
section 123 of the BBRA as amended by
section 307(b) of the BIPA for the
Secretary for the development and
implementation of the LTCH PPS,
(including the ability to make
appropriate adjustments), we are
proposing not to renew the surgicalDRG exception to interrupted stay of 3
days or less policy for LTCH PPS RY
2007. Under § 412.531, with the
proposed sunsetting of this exception
for LTCH PPS RY 2007, treatment at an
acute care hospital that was grouped to
a surgical DRG would be considered
part of the LTCH stay and paid for by
the LTCH ‘‘under arrangements.’’ (see
§ 412.509(c)). Our analytic sample of
LTCH cases that included a 3 day or less
interruption of stay that was governed
by the surgical DRG-exception, indicates
that at least one-half of the LTCH claims
themselves included surgical care,
despite the patient’s discharge to the
acute care hospital for treatment that
was grouped to a surgical DRG and for
which a separate claim was submitted to
Medicare by the acute care hospital.
Since typically, LTCHs do not perform
significant surgical procedures, upon
analyzing the data, CMS coders have
suggested that some of the LTCH claims
may inappropriately be including the
surgical procedure performed during the
prior acute care stay, complications
from which led to the LTCH admission.
Alternatively, if LTCHs are presently
coding for the surgical procedures that
are being delivered in the acute care
hospital during a 3-day or less
interruption of stay, in many of these
cases they should be paying for this
treatment ‘‘under arrangements.’’
Furthermore, in the cases where both
the same DRG is reported by both the
LTCH and the acute care hospital
treating the patient during the 3 day or
less interruption, Medicare may be
paying twice for the same treatment. In
any event, the above scenarios are
indicative of poor documentation in the
medical record, poor coding, or gaming
of the Medicare system.
Therefore, we are proposing to
discontinue this policy because we do
not believe that the surgical exception to
the 3-day or less interruption of stay
policy is ‘‘* * * actively accomplishing
our goal of reducing unnecessary
Medicare payments and * * *
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
deter[ing] unnecessary inappropriate
Medicare payments while not
compromising beneficiary access to
medically necessary services’’ (70 FR
24206).
However, there were cases among
those that we reviewed, that may have
been accurately coded, and that actually
represented a LTCH patient whose
LTCH treatment was interrupted by a
surgery which entailed a 3-day or less
inpatient stay at an acute care hospital
for a problem unrelated to the on-going
treatment at the LTCH. Once the
proposed sunsetting of the surgical DRG
exception goes into effect, an LTCH will
be responsible for paying for surgical
cases performed at an acute care
hospital ‘‘under arrangements’’ but at
that point, will also be able to include
that surgical procedure on the claim that
will be submitted to Medicare for the
entire stay. Our coders tell us that the
presence of a significant surgical
procedure on the claim may impact the
LTC–DRG to which a case is assigned by
the GROUPER software used by the FI
in determining the amount that
Medicare will pay for that case.
However, there may be situations where
this does not occur and inclusion of the
surgical procedure does not result in
grouping the case to a higher-weighted
LTC–DRG (and thus increase the
Medicare payment). In these cases, we
would emphasize, that, since, as noted
previously, the ‘‘under arrangements’’
policy was a feature of the previous
TEFRA payment policy, prior to the FY
2003 implementation of the LTCH PPS,
and costs of off-site surgeries were
typically included in LTCH claims, so
that to the extent providers included
those costs on their claims, that these
costs were included in the
establishment of the LTCH PPS base
rate, which section 123(a)(1) of the
BBRA required to be budget neutral for
FY 2003, to what Medicare would pay
had the PPS not been implemented.
We would further note that we do not
believe that the numbers of cases
nationwide that would fall within the
surgical DRG exception would represent
a significant financial burden for LTCHs
to absorb over a cost-reporting period,
given the nature of the LTCH PPS.
We also believe, that the LTCH PPS
high cost outlier policy at § 412.525(a)
will provide somewhat of a financial
cushion for the LTCH in those very few
cases where a LTCH patient whose
hospitalization at the LTCH was
interrupted for 3 days or less for a very
costly surgical treatment at an acute care
hospital, in the same way that it
presently does if costs for a costly nonsurgical inpatient or outpatient
treatment during a 3 day or less
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
interrupted stay at an acute care
hospital, an IRF, or for care at a SNF,
result in high cost outlier status for that
case at the LTCH. Accordingly, we are
not proposing to extend this exception
because we believe that our analysis of
the data from the MedPAR files from
LTCH discharges occurring from July 1,
2004 through June 30, 2005 indicates
that the exception does not appear to
have an overall beneficial effect on the
program nor would its absence have a
strong negative impact on LTCHs.
Our further examination of the subset
of the data indicates that the exception
may be fostering confusion,
perpetuating poor coding, and even
encouraging gaming by creating a
distinction within the well-established
Medicare ‘‘under arrangements’’ policy
between surgical and non-surgical
procedures and treatments delivered
during an episode of hospital-level care.
Moreover, we have discovered many
LTCHs are including the surgical
procedures performed at the acute care
hospital during the interruption, in their
claims and therefore the LTCH
hospitalizations are being grouped to
surgical DRGs while claims for what
appear to be the same surgeries are also
being submitted by acute care hospitals.
Use of the same surgical DRG in both
the LTCH’s claim for the case and the
acute care hospital’s claims for the
surgery in some of these cases indicates
that Medicare may be paying twice for
the exact same operation, a situation
directly contravened by sections
1862(a)(14) and 1861(w)(1) of the Act,
§ 411.15, § 412.509 and one that may
involve fraud and abuse issues.
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24206), we also expressed
concerns about the whether our data
would reveal an increase in the numbers
of interruptions of 4 days indicating an
effort by certain LTCHs to side-step the
‘‘under arrangements’’ provisions of our
3-day or less interruption of stay policy.
Our data revealed that there were 1,076
4-day stays at acute care hospitals
following a LTCH hospitalization during
the 2005 rate year, of which 528 (just
under half) returned for further
treatment to the LTCH following the 4day interruption. If the interruption in
an LTCH patient’s stay exceeds 3 days,
under existing policy at
§ 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(B)and § 412.531(c),
payment would be governed by the
greater than 3-day or interruption of stay
policy at § 412.531(b) and Medicare
would generate a separate payment to
an intervening provider where the
patient received treatment or care, thus
discharging the LTCH from
responsibility to pay for the acute care
services ‘‘under arrangements.’’
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Furthermore, an interruption in a LTCH
stay in excess of 3 days, where the
patient returns home but still receives
outpatient treatment prior to returning
to the LTCH, would result not only in
separate Medicare payments for the
outpatient care but would also in an
additional discharge payment to the
LTCH since the greater than 3-day
interruption of stay policy only applies
to intervening acute care hospital, IRF,
or SNF stays. We will be evaluating data
from RY 2004 and RY 2005 on Medicare
payments for services or care delivered
during LTCH interruptions of stay of 4
days that would otherwise have been
governed by the ‘‘under arrangements’’
feature of the 3-day or less interruption
of stay policy at § 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)
to determine whether an additional day
is being arbitrarily added to the
interruption prior to readmittance to the
LTCH for purposes of thwarting the goal
of the policy. We believe it may be
appropriate in the future to propose a
revision to the 3-day interruption
provision and to establish a 4-day
threshold.
B. Special Payment Provisions for LTCH
Hospitals Within Hospitals and LTCH
Satellites
In the IPPS final rule for FY 2005,
when we established the special
payment provisions at § 412.534 for
LTCHs that were HwHs or were
satellites of LTCHs, we were seeking, in
part, to address the on-going
proliferation of LTCHs that were HwHs
or satellites. (OSCAR files report that
there were 105 LTCHs in 1993, of which
10 were HwHs. In October 2005, there
are 373 LTCHs, many of which are
HwHs.) We were particularly concerned
with patient shifting between the host
hospitals and the LTCH HwH or satellite
for financial rather than for medical
reasons (69 FR 49191) and with the
resulting inappropriate increased cost to
the Medicare system.
In that PPS final rule, we quoted the
FY 1995 IPPS final rule where we first
discussed the concern that LTCH HwHs
were, in effect, operating as step-down
units of acute care hospitals. We
explained that this was inconsistent
with the statutory framework and that
such a configuration could lead to two
Medicare bills being submitted and paid
(one from the acute care hospital and
the other from the LTCH) for what was
essentially one episode of care. (69 FR
49191, 59 FR 45389) When we
established the separateness and control
criteria for LTCH HwHs at § 412.22(e) in
the FY 1995 IPPS final rule, our main
objective was to protect the integrity of
the IPPS by ensuring that those costly,
long-stay patients who could reasonably
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
continue treatment in that setting would
not be unnecessarily discharged to an
onsite LTCH, a behavior that would
skew and undermine the Medicare IPPS
DRG system. We explained that the
Federal standardized payment amount
for the IPPS was based on the average
cost of an acute care patient across all
acute care hospitals. This assumes that,
on average, both high-cost and low-cost
patients are treated at a hospital.
Although Medicare might pay a hospital
less than was expended for a particular
case, over a period of time, the hospital
would also receive more than was
expended for other cases. However, an
acute care hospital that consistently
discharges higher cost patients to a postacute care setting for the purpose of
lowering its costs undercuts the
foundation of the IPPS DRG system,
which is based on averages. In this
circumstance, the hospital
inappropriately would have incurred
lower costs under the IPPS because the
course of acute treatment was not
completed and the hospital did not
incur those additional costs for the
remainder of the patient’s stay at the
IPPS acute care hospital. Once that
patient is discharged from the IPPS
acute care hospital to the LTCH, the
patient, still under active treatment for
an acute illness, will be admitted to a
LTCH, thereby generating a second
admission and Medicare payment that
would not have taken place but for the
fact of co-location (59 FR 45389).
As explained previously, there was
and continues to be concern that the
LTCH HwH/host configuration could
result in patient admission, treatment,
and discharge patterns that are guided
more by attempts to maximize Medicare
payments than by patient welfare. In
order to establish clear division between
a host hospital and an on-site LTCH
where the linking of an IPPS hospital
and a LTCH could lead to two Medicare
payments for what was essentially one
episode of patient care, we issued
‘‘separateness and control’’ regulations
in that FY 1995 IPPS Final Rule at
(former) § 412.23(e), for LTCHs that
were seeking to co-locate with acute
care hospitals as HwHs (59 FR 45390).
In the ensuing decade, we revisited the
issue of HwHs several times (for
example, 60 FR 45836, 62 FR 46012, 67
FR 56010, 68 FR 45462), during which
we clarified and amplified the
separateness and control requirements.
In the FY 1998 IPPS final rule, we
extended the application of these rules
beyond LTCHs to include other classes
of facilities that might seek exclusion
from the IPPS as HwHs, such as IRFs
(although the vast majority of HwHs
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4695
have continued to be LTCHs) (62 FR
46014). Additionally, although our
original regulations for HwHs focused
solely on the relationship between a
LTCH HwH and an acute care host, and
this is still, by far, the most common
configuration, nothing in the regulations
precludes other types of hospitals, for
example, an IRFs from establishing
HwHs (69 FR 49198).
In addition, in the FY 1998 final rule,
we established a ‘‘grandfathering’’
provision for HwHs in existence prior to
September 30, 1995 at § 412.22(f), and
in the FY 2004 IPPS final rule, we
clarified and codified the requirements
for ‘‘grandfathered’’ HwHs (68 FR
45463). We believed at that time that
these rules were sufficient solutions to
our concerns about LTCH HwHs
functioning as long-stay units of acute
care hosts.
Therefore, prior to FY 2005, a HwH
was required to meet the separateness
and control criteria set forth at
§ 412.22(e). In order to be excluded from
the IPPS, the HwH had to have a
separate governing body, a separate
chief medical officer, a separate medical
staff, and a separate chief executive
officer. Regarding the performance of
basic hospital functions (former
§ 412.22(e)(5)), the hospital had to meet
at least one of the following criteria: (1)
The hospital performs the basic
functions through the use of employees
or under contracts or other agreements
with entities other than the hospital
occupying space in the same building or
on the same campus, or a third entity
that controls both hospitals; (2) for the
same period of at least 6 months
immediately preceding the first cost
reporting period for which exclusion is
sought, the cost of the services that the
hospital obtained under contracts or
other agreements with the hospital
occupying space in the same building or
on the same campus, or with a third
entity that controls both hospitals, is no
more than 15 percent of the hospital’s
total inpatient operating costs, as
defined in § 412.2(c) (that is, inpatient
operating costs include operating costs
for routine services, such as costs of
room, board, and routine nursing
services; operating costs for ancillary
services such as laboratory or radiology;
special care unit operating costs;
malpractice insurance costs related to
serving inpatients; and preadmission
services); or (3) for the same period of
at least 6 months immediately preceding
the first cost reporting period for which
exclusion is sought, the hospital had an
inpatient population of whom at least
75 percent were referred to the hospital
from a source other than another
hospital occupying space in the same
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4696
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
building or on the same campus or with
a third entity that controls both
hospitals.
It was our experience that the vast
majority of HwHs elected to meet the
second of the three criteria at
§ 412.22(e)(5), that is, the cost of the
services that the hospital obtained from
the co-located hospital or with a third
entity that controls both hospitals could
be no more than 15 percent of its total
inpatient operating costs.
As detailed in the FY 2005 proposed
rule and final rule for the IPPS (69 FR
28323 through 28327, 69 FR 49191
through 49214), with the noted
explosive growth in the number of
LTCHs, (and with LTCH HwHs, in
particular) and concomitant costs to the
Medicare program, we reevaluated the
effectiveness of existing policies
regarding HwHs insofar as whether they
sufficiently protected the Medicare
program from the problems that we
envisioned in the FY 1995 IPPS final
rule and subsequent rules. We also
questioned the effectiveness of the
‘‘separateness and control’’
requirements alone because entities
have used complex arrangements among
corporate affiliates, and obtained
services from those affiliates, thereby
impairing or diluting the separateness of
the corporate entity. While technically
remaining within the parameters of the
rule, these arrangements were
intermingling corporate interests so that
the corporate distinctness has been lost.
In accordance with notice and
comment rule-making and following
serious consideration of the public
comments that we received on our
proposed policy revisions for LTCH
HwHs, regulatory changes were
finalized for HwH separateness and
control policies at § 412.22(e) and a new
payment adjustment at § 412.534 was
established for LTCH HwHs and
satellites of LTCHs in our FY 2005 IPPS
final rule (69 FR 49191 through 49214).
Specifically, for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2004,
for LTCHs we eliminated the 15 percent
test under then existing
§ 412.22(e)(5)(ii), the performance of
basic hospital functions test under
former § 412.22(e)(5)(i) and the 75
percent of admissions from other than
the host criteria at former
§ 412.22(e)(5)(iii) for LTCH HwHs. If a
LTCH demonstrated compliance with
the medical and administrative
separateness, and control policies at
§ 412.22(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) under
our finalized policy, it satisfied the
LTCH HwH requirements. We
additionally established a payment
adjustment for LTCH HwHs (and also
for satellites of LTCHs) at § 412.534,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
which we believed addressed our ongoing concerns regarding the
relationship between LTCH discharges
who were admitted from the host
hospital. We included LTCH satellites
in this payment adjustment because we
believe that that the co-location of a host
hospital and a LTCH satellite may result
in the same incentives for inappropriate
patient movement as exist for hosts and
LTCH HwHs.
The payment adjustment at § 412.534,
Special payment provisions for longterm care hospitals within hospitals and
satellites of LTCHs, mandated that if a
LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite’s
discharges that were admitted from its
host hospital exceed 25 percent (or the
applicable percentage) of its total
Medicare discharges for the LTCH HwH
or LTCH satellite’s cost reporting
period, an adjusted payment would be
made. The adjustment would be the
lesser of the otherwise payable amount
under the LTCH PPS or the LTCH PPS
amount that was equivalent to what
Medicare would otherwise pay under
the IPPS. In determining whether a
hospital exceeded the 25 percent
criterion, patients transferred from the
host hospital that have already qualified
for outlier payments at the host would
not count as part of the host’s 25 percent
(or the applicable percentage) and
therefore, the payment would not be
subject to the adjustment. Those
patients would be eligible for otherwise
unadjusted payment under the LTCH
PPS. Discharged Medicare patients that
were admitted from the host before the
LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite crosses
the 25 percent threshold would be paid
an otherwise unadjusted payment under
the LTCH PPS.
We also finalized additional
adjustments to the 25 percent policy for
specific circumstances. For LTCH HwHs
or LTCH satellites located in a rural
area, instead of the 25 percent criterion,
the payment adjustment would be
imposed if the majority (that is, more
than 50 percent) of the Medicare
patients discharged from the LTCH
HwH or LTCH satellite were admitted
from the host. That is, for those LTCH
HwH or satellite Medicare discharges in
excess of the 50 percent threshold, the
payment adjustment would be applied
unless those cases had reached high cost
outlier status at the host hospital prior
to discharge, in which case, they would
not be counted towards the 50 percent
threshold. In addition, in determining
the percentage of Medicare patients
discharged from the LTCH HwH or
LTCH satellite that were admitted from
the rural host, any patients that had
been Medicare outliers at the host and
then discharged to the LTCH HwH or
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
LTCH satellite would be considered as
if they were admitted to the LTCH from
a non-host hospital. For urban single or
MSA dominant hospitals, we would
allow the LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite
to discharge Medicare patients that were
admitted from the host up to the host’s
percentage of total Medicare discharges
for like hospitals in the MSA. We would
apply a floor of 25 percent and a ceiling
of 50 percent to this variation. In
addition, in determining the percentage
of discharged Medicare patients that
were admitted to the LTCH HwH or
LTCH satellite from the urban single or
MSA dominant host hospital, any
patients that had been Medicare outliers
at the host and then transferred to the
LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite would be
considered as if they were admitted to
the LTCH from a non-host hospital.
We also provided a 4-year transition
for existing LTCH HwHs or LTCH
satellites for the purpose of providing a
reasonable period during which the host
and the LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite
would be able to adapt to the
requirements of the new policy. Also
included in this transition policy were
LTCHs-under-formation that satisfied
the following two-prong requirement:
(1) The hospital was paid under the
provisions of subpart O of part 412 on
October 1, 2005, and (2) whose
qualifying period under § 412.23(e)
began on or before October 1, 2004. For
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2004 through September
30, 2005, these hospitals were to be
grandfathered, with the first year as a
‘‘hold harmless’.
However, we required that even for
grandfathered facilities, in the first cost
reporting period, the hold harmless
year, the percentage of Medicare
discharges admitted from the host
hospital to the LTCH HwH or LTCH
satellite could not exceed the percentage
of discharges admitted from the host
hospital to the LTCH in its FY 2004 cost
reporting period. Therefore, while we
grandfathered existing LTCH HwHs and
allowing for a 4-year transition,
beginning on or after October 1, 2004
and before October 1, 2005 (FY 2005),
those hospitals could not increase the
percentage of discharges admitted from
the host in excess of the percentage that
they had admitted in FY 2004.
After the first grandfathered cost
reporting period, these LTCH HwHs and
LTCH satellites were required to meet a
percentage transition over the 3 years
beginning in FY 2006. For the second
year (cost reporting periods beginning
on or after October 1, 2005 but before
October 1, 2006), the applicable
percentage of discharges admitted from
the host with no payment adjustment
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
would be the lesser of the percentage of
their discharges admitted from their
host for their FY 2004 cost reporting
period or 75 percent. For the third year
(cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2006 but before October
1, 2007), the applicable percentage of
discharges admitted from the host with
no payment adjustment would be the
lesser of the percentage of their
discharges admitted from their host for
their FY 2004 cost reporting period or
50 percent, and finally 25 percent (or
other applicable percentage) beginning
with the third year (cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2008).
These finalized payment policies and
the concerns that they address echo
concerns first expressed in the FY 1995
final rule for the IPPS, when we began
to regulate new entities that we named
‘‘hospitals within hospitals.’’ As noted
elsewhere in this preamble, the reason
that we proposed the changes in the
criteria for LTCH HwH qualification at
§ 412.22(e) in the FY 2005 IPPS
proposed rule (69 FR 28323 through
28327) was the nexus between these
concerns and the recent explosive
growth in the numbers of LTCH HwHs.
Furthermore, as detailed in the FY 2005
IPPS final rule, (69 FR 49201), these
regulations were grounded in a
thorough review of the available data as
well as exhaustive policy evaluations.
The present 25 percent policy is being
implemented in a location-specific
manner, which means that the
computation of the percentage of LTCH
HwH or LTCH satellite discharges
admitted from a host is based solely on
the admissions from the physically colocated host and not from other
campuses or remote locations which
may share a common Medicare Provider
number with the host.
However as a result of our monitoring
efforts to date (see section X. of the
preamble to this proposed rule), we
have become increasingly aware that the
intent of our existing policy is being
thwarted by creative patient-shifting in
some communities where there is more
than one LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite.
We have come to understand, based
upon specific inquiries from LTCHs and
their attorneys or agents, and also from
questions posed by our fiscal
intermediaries (FIs), that some host
hospitals within the same community
are arranging to cross-refer to another’s
co-located LTCH (HwH or satellite).
This behavior circumvents the intent of
the payment adjustment which was to
hinder the de facto establishment of a
LTCH unit of a host hospital, which is
precluded by law, and to discourage
inappropriate patient-shifting between a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
host and a LTCH HwH or satellite. This
practice undermines the basic premise
of the IPPS DRG classification system
and generates inappropriate Medicare
payments. Another attempt to
circumvent the present regulation at
§ 412.534 is a situation wherein a
patient at a LTCH (that is co-located
with a host as a HwH or satellite) admits
a patient from the host, provides
treatment, then transports the patient to
another location of that LTCH (a freestanding hospital or another HwH or
satellite not co-located with the host
hospital) for special treatment after
which the patient is discharged from
that other location. Since the payment
adjustment is being implemented in a
location-specific basis, we believe that
this ‘‘transporting’’ of the patient to
another site is an attempt to side-step
the location-specific feature of the
existing payment adjustment. We have
considerable concern about attempts to
game Medicare by circumventing the
intent of the 25 percent (or applicable
percentage) patient threshold payment
adjustment at § 412.534.
In addition, as a result of
implementing the payment adjustment
at § 412.534 for patients exceeding the
25 percent (or applicable percentage)
threshold for LTCH HwHs and satellites
of LTCHs, the most recent growth in the
LTCH universe is occurring with the
development of free-standing LTCHs.
Many of these facilities receive patients
from one referring hospital and as is the
case with host/HwH or satellite
configurations, we are concerned about
these non-co-located LTCHs may, in
fact, be functioning like a long-stay unit
of those referring hospitals.
As we first stated in the FY 1995 IPPS
final rule, ‘‘we agree that the extent to
which a facility accepts patients from
outside sources can be an important
indicator of its function as a separate
facility, not merely a unit of another
hospital. In general, a facility’s
functional separateness should be
reflected in its ability to attract patients
from sources other than the hospital that
it serves. For example, if a facility
receives all (or nearly all) of its
admissions independently (that is, from
outside sources), it can reasonably be
assumed to be functioning separately
from the host hospital (59 FR 45391).’’
In establishing the concept of
‘‘functional separateness’’ in the above
quote from the FY 1995 IPPS final rule,
we were identifying a broader
phenomenon than just the relationship
between a host acute care hospital and
a LTCH HwH or satellite of a LTCH. As
noted below, this concern has been
communicated to us from a variety of
sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4697
MedPAC’s comments on the proposed
payment adjustment for LTCH HwHs in
the FY 2005 IPPS proposed rule focused
directly on this issue and expressed
concern that the 25 percent patient
threshold policy would have a
significant impact and could possibly
lead to an inequitable situation for colocated LTCHs as compared to
freestanding LTCHs. Among its
concerns were the following: that
freestanding LTCHs also have strong
relationships with acute care hospitals,
and that where on average LTCH HwHs
receive 61 percent of their patients from
their hosts, freestanding LTCHs receive
42 percent from their primary referring
hospital; that a 25 percent rule that only
applies to LTCH HwHs and not to
freestanding LTCHs and may therefore
be inequitable; and furthermore, this
approach may be circumvented by an
increase in the number of freestanding
LTCHs instead of a LTCH HwH (69 FR
49211).
We received comments on the FY
2005 IPPS proposed rule (69 FR 28196)
challenging a proposed policy to
preclude common ownership of a host
and a HwH (which we did not finalize).
Two other commenters noted that the
financial incentive to accept
inappropriate patients from an acute
care hospital can exist when the acute
care hospital and the LTCH are
commonly owned or when there is
common governance, a situation that
can exist even without co-location, that
is, a freestanding LTCH, exempt from
the requirements of § 412.22(e) could be
owned and governed by the hospital
from which it receives the majority of its
referrals (69 FR 49202).
In discussion with a LTCH trade
association, we were informed of a
study that it commissioned from the
Lewin Group that included a percentage
breakdown of patients referred to freestanding (for example, non-co-located)
LTCHs (and other post-acute providers)
from ‘‘single-source acute hospitals.’’
According to the association, the data
indicated ‘‘* * * that it is common
practice for LTCHs * * * to admit
patients from a single-source acute care
hospital’’ and that 71.2 percent of freestanding LTCHs admit more than 25
percent of their patients from a single
source acute-care hospital.
We are also anecdotally aware of the
existence of frequent ‘‘arrangements’’ in
many communities between Medicare
acute and post-acute hospital-level
providers that may not have any ties of
ownership or governance relating to
patient shifting that are based on mutual
financial advantage rather than on
significant medical benefits for a
patient.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4698
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
In our response to the MedPAC
comment, we stated that ‘‘[w]hile we
also understand the reservations
expressed in the comments, we want to
emphasize that * * * we are
establishing these revised payment
policies in this final notice for LTCH
HwHs or satellites and not freestanding
LTCHs because of the considerable
growth in the number of LTCH HwH
and because, ever since we first became
aware of the existence of LTCH HwHs
in 1994, we have been mindful of the
strong resemblance that they bore to
LTCH units of acute care hospitals, a
configuration precluded by statute (69
FR 49211).’’
Notwithstanding this response and
the finalized payment adjustment at
§ 412.534 which focused solely on
LTCH HwHs and satellites of LTCHs, we
took considerable note of these
comments and the specific information
that they included. Since the October 1,
2004 implementation of the payment
adjustment for LTCH HwHs and
satellites of LTCHs at § 412.534, through
our LTCH PPS monitoring initiative (see
Section X.), we have become aware that
the growth in the LTCH universe is now
occurring through the development of
free-standing LTCHs. As of October
2005, there were 376 LTCHs in our
OSCAR database, of which 201 are
reported as freestanding (for example,
not co-located with another Medicare
hospital-level provider) and 175 of
which are HwHs. But since October 1,
2004, of the 25 new LTCHs established,
22 are free-standing. We have been
informed directly that at least one
particular LTCH chain that formerly
specialized in the establishment of
HwHs and satellites is now
concentrating on the development of
free-standing LTCHs. Reviews of public
documents posted at the corporate Web
site and analysis of the expected
consequences of the policy at other
investor-oriented sites describe a focus
on building free-standing LTCHs which
we believe may imply a response to the
payment adjustment for co-located
LTCHs established under § 412.534.
We believe that this information
indicates that the concerns that we
expressed about the explosive growth in
the number of LTCHs has shifted
because of the implementation of the
payment adjustment at § 412.534 from
the development of co-located LTCHs as
HwHs or satellites of LTCHs to the
establishment of free-standing LTCHs.
We further conducted our own data
analysis of sole-source (for example, one
hospital referring to one LTCH)
relationships between acute care
hospitals and non-co-located LTCHs.
The FY 2004 and FY 2005 MedPAR files
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
indicate 63.7 percent of the 201 freestanding LTCHs have at least 25 percent
of their Medicare discharges admitted
from a sole acute care hospital; for 23.9
percent of the freestanding LTCHs, the
percentage is 50 percent or more; and
for 6.5 percent, 75 percent or more of
their Medicare discharges are admitted
from a sole acute care hospital.
We therefore believe that the danger
of LTCHs functioning as ‘‘units’’
appears to be occurring not only in
LTCH HwHs and LTCH satellites but
also with free-standing LTCHs and that
in many cases, these non-co-located
LTCHs and their sole referral source
may be functioning in ways that appear
to have erased the line of ‘‘functional
separateness’’ between these LTCHs and
their referring acute care hospitals. We
are concerned about these situations
and in this context, we continue to
believe that ‘‘* * * the extent to which
a facility accepts patients from outside
sources can be an important indicator of
its function as a separate facility, not
merely a unit of another hospital (59 FR
45391).’’
We believe that our analysis of the
available data and our awareness of
growth patterns and behavioral changes
in the LTCH industry corroborate the
concerns expressed in correspondence
and comments, but particularly in
MedPAC’s comments on our proposed
payment adjustment for co-located
LTCHs in the FY 2004 IPPS final rule
(69 FR 49211). In addition, the spiked
increase in the number of free-standing
LTCHs and their admission patterns
appear to confirm MedPAC’s concerns
that the industry may be circumventing
the intent of the payment adjustment
policy at § 412.534 aimed at combating
LTCHs functioning as ‘‘units’’ by
creating free-standing LTCHs instead of
LTCHs co-located as HwHs or satellites.
As we note previously in this
proposed rule, we are keenly aware of
the explosive growth in the number of
free-standing LTCHs. Specifically, we
are continuing to analyze patient claims
data for acute care patients who are
admitted to free-standing LTCHs for
discharge and LOS information in order
to evaluate whether Medicare is paying
twice for what would essentially be one
episode of care. We are considering
appropriate adjustments to address this
issue.
Furthermore, we want to emphasize
that we are closely monitoring patient
shifting activities between host
hospitals and LTCH HwHs or LTCH
satellites, paying particular attention to
evidence of inappropriate crossreferrals. We believe that a pattern of
this behavior by hospitals would
indicate an attempt to side-step the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements of § 412.534 and could
warrant an investigation by HHS’s
Office of the Investigator General.
Under § 412.534 for LTCH cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2004, we published the
existing payment adjustment detailed
above, for LTCH HwHs and LTCH
satellites that focused on the percentage
of Medicare patients being shifted from
host hospitals to co-located LTCHs.
Under this provision, we specified that
if greater than 25 percent (or the
appropriate percentage) of a LTCH
HwH’s or LTCH satellite’s discharges
during any cost reporting year were
admitted from a host hospital, a
payment adjustment would be applied
to those discharges that exceeded the
applicable threshold percentage (unless
those patients had reached high-cost
outlier status at the host hospital as
specified in § 412.534(c)). (For LTCHs
that qualified under § 412.534(f), we
established a 4-year transition to the full
payment adjustment.) Specifically, this
payment adjustment provides that
Medicare will pay the lesser of the
amount otherwise payable under the
LTCH PPS or an LTCH PPS payment
amount equivalent to what would be
paid under the IPPS for discharges in
excess of the threshold amount.
It has come to our attention that the
phrase ‘‘an amount equivalent to the
amount that would otherwise be
determined under the rules at subpart
A, § 412.1(a)’’, that is, the IPPS, in
existing § 412.534(c)(2), (d)(1), and (e)(1)
and our specific interpretation of its
implementation may not be entirely
apparent. Therefore, we are clarifying
that, as explained below in this section,
the use of the term ‘‘equivalent’’ does
not necessarily mean precisely equal.
We are also proposing to codify the
formula that we currently use to give
effect to this phrase in existing
§ 412.534, described in this proposed
rule, for purposes of administrative
clarity.
To clarify the meaning of the term
‘‘equivalent,’’ we want to emphasize
that we chose that word rather than
‘‘equal’’ when referring to the amount
payable under this subpart (the amount
that is equivalent to the ‘‘* * * amount
that would be otherwise determined
under the rules at subpart A, § 412.1(a)).
The term ‘‘equivalent’’ was used in this
regulation because, although it was and
continues to be our intent to include a
payment adjustment under the LTCH
PPS that closely replicates what an IPPS
payment would have been for the same
episode of care, several features of the
IPPS cannot be translated directly into
the LTCH PPS. Therefore, we believed
that the term ‘‘equivalent’’ would
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
support the ultimate goals of the policy
adjustment, while also allowing for a
reasonable and equitable
implementation. For example, under the
IPPS, payments for IME are limited
based on the hospital’s IME cap. The
hospital’s IME cap is determined based
on the number of IME FTE residents
counted by the hospital for purposes of
IME on its 1996 cost report. In the case
of a LTCH, since it necessarily would
not have reported any FTE residents for
IME on its 1996 cost report, it would not
be appropriate to apply the IPPS IME
rules literally in the context of this
LTCH PPS payment adjustment.
We are clarifying that we chose to use
the term ‘‘equivalent’’ in § 412.534(c)(2),
(d)(1), and (e)(1) because we believe this
language accurately reflects our intent to
apply IPPS payment principles to
develop a payment that approximates
for LTCHs the payment for a particular
case that would have been made under
the IPPS. For example, in the case of a
LTCH that is a teaching hospital, if a
particular LTCH discharge is governed
by the 25 percent payment policy
adjustment set forth at § 412.534, we
would determine the IME payment
under the LTCH PPS by imputing an
IME cap based on the LTCH’s direct
GME cap (which would have been
determined for an LTCH that has
residency programs as set forth at
§ 413.79(c)(2)) and using that imputed
IME cap to calculate an IME payment
for this LTCH. We believe this
methodology is reasonable since it is
based on the best available data on
residency programs at LTCHs. Using an
imputed IME cap could enable us to
factor an adjustment for indirect costs of
residency programs into a Medicare
payment under the payment adjustment
at § 412.534 for those cases in excess of
the 25 percent (or applicable
percentage) threshold where the
Medicare payment would be based on
an amount under the LTCH PPS
equivalent to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS.
As explained previously, we are
proposing to codify the formula we use
to give affect to the phrase ‘‘an amount
under subpart O that is equivalent to
what otherwise would be paid under the
IPPS.’’ The existing regulations at
§ 412.534(c)(2), (d)(1), and (e)(1)
establish the applicable payment
adjustment for LTCH HwHs and
satellites not subject to the transition
established under § 412.534(f) for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2004 and for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
2007 for those LTCH HwHs and LTCH
satellites that will be transitioning to the
full adjustment. Under those provisions,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Medicare will pay for discharges from a
LTCH HwH or LTCH satellite that were
admitted from their host hospital in
excess of the 25 percent (or applicable
percentage) threshold based upon the
lesser of the amount otherwise payable
under [the LTCH PPS] or the amount
payable under this subpart that is
equivalent to the amount that would
otherwise be payable under [the IPPS].
The paragraphs below detail the specific
payment features of the IPPS that we
use and are proposing to codify in
regulation for administrative efficiency
in order to allow Medicare to generate
a fair and equitable ‘‘equivalent’’ IPPS
payment under the LTCH PPS for those
LTCH discharges governed by the
payment adjustment at § 412.534.
In the discussion that follows, we use
phrases such as ‘‘IPPS DRG relative
weights,’’ the ‘‘IPPS high cost outlier’’
and the ‘‘IPPS fixed loss amount’’ in
describing features of the IPPS that we
use in calculating LTCH payments for
LTCH HwHs and LTCH satellites.
However, we want to emphasize that
such a payment is not an IPPS payment
but rather, a payment under the LTCH
PPS that is generally derived from the
IPPS payment methodology.
Specifically, under § 412.534, we are
proposing to codify the formula that we
use to give affect to the phrase, an
amount payable under this subpart that
is equivalent to what would be paid
under the [IPPS]. This formula provides
that an amount under subpart O that is
equivalent to what would otherwise
have been paid under the IPPS, would
be calculated based on the sum of the
applicable operating and capital IPPS
rates in effect at the time of the
discharge from the LTCH as established
in the applicable IPPS final rule
published annually in the Federal
Register (since there is a single rate
under the LTCH PPS to pay for the
operating and capital costs of the
inpatient hospitals services provided to
LTCH Medicare patients) and applicable
IPPS payment system adjustments for
differences in resource use (that is, IPPS
DRG relative weights); differences in
area wage levels (that is, the IPPS wage
index); cost-of-living adjustment, if
applicable; the treatment of a
disproportionate share of low income
patients (DSH), if applicable; and
indirect medical education (IME), if
applicable. If the amount payable by
Medicare for a specific discharge was
the amount under subpart O that is
equivalent to what would be otherwise
payable under the IPPS and the case
also qualified as an IPPS high cost
outlier under this payment adjustment
formula, payment would be based on
the IPPS high cost outlier policy at
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4699
§ 412.80(a) because the resulting
payment would then be more equivalent
to what would have been payable under
the IPPS. (Similarly, if under this
payment adjustment, the lesser amount
resulted in an ‘‘otherwise payable
amount under the LTCH PPS,’’ and the
stay qualified as a high-cost outlier,
Medicare would generate a high cost
outlier payment governed by the LTCH
PPS high cost outlier policy at
§ 412.525(a).)
Under this formula, we are proposing
to codify in regulations, an amount
payable under this subpart that is
equivalent to what would otherwise be
paid under the IPPS for the costs of
inpatient operating services would be
based on the standardized amount
determined under § 412.64(c), adjusted
by the applicable IPPS DRG weighting
factors as specified in § 412.64(g). This
amount would be further adjusted for
area wage levels using the applicable
IPPS labor-related share based on the
CBSA where the LTCH is physically
located set forth at § 412.525(c) and the
IPPS wage index for non-reclassified
hospitals as shown in Tables 4A and 4B
in the annual IPPS final rule. (In the RY
2005 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR 24200)
we discuss the inapplicability of
geographic reclassification procedures
for LTCHs.) For LTCHs located in
Alaska and Hawaii, this amount would
also be adjusted by the applicable COLA
factors used under the IPPS.
Furthermore, for LTCH discharges
governed by this payment adjustment,
an amount payable under subpart O that
is equivalent to what would otherwise
be paid under the IPPS for the costs of
inpatient operating services would also
include, where applicable, a DSH
adjustment (§ 412.106) and where
applicable, an IME adjustment (as
discussed at § 413.79(c)(2)).
Additionally, to arrive at an LTCH
PPS payment amount equivalent to
what would otherwise be payable under
the IPPS, a LTCH would also be paid
under the LTCH PPS for the costs of
inpatient capital-related costs, using the
capital Federal rate determined under
§ 412.308(c), adjusted by the applicable
IPPS DRG weighting factors at § 412.60.
This amount would be further adjusted
by the applicable geographic adjustment
factors set forth at § 412.316, including
local cost variation (based on the IPPS
wage index for non-reclassified
hospitals in Tables 4A and 4B of the
annual IPPS final rule), large urban
location and COLA, if applicable, based
on the IPPS geographic classifications
published annually in the IPPS final
rule.
For discharges governed by this
payment adjustment under the LTCH
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4700
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PPS, an amount payable under subpart
O that is equivalent to an amount that
would otherwise be paid under the IPPS
for the inpatient capital-related costs
would also include a DSH adjustment
(§ 412.320), if applicable and an
equivalent IME adjustment, (§ 412.322)
if applicable.
A LTCH PPS payment amount
equivalent to what would be paid under
the IPPS would be determined based on
the sum of the amount equivalent to
what would be paid under the IPPS
inpatient operating services and the
amount equivalent to what would be
paid under the IPPS for inpatient
capital-related costs. This is necessary
since under the IPPS, there are separate
Medicare rates for operating (subpart D
of part 412) and capital (subpart M of
part 412) costs to acute care hospitals
while under the LTCH PPS, there is a
single payment rate for the operating
and capital costs of the inpatient
hospitals services provided to LTCH
Medicare patients.
We note that in section V.A.1. of this
proposed rule, we have proposed an
additional component to the SSO
payment adjustment at proposed
§ 412.529(c)(2)(iv) that is based on an
amount ‘‘comparable’’ to what would
otherwise be paid under the IPPS rather
than an amount ‘‘equivalent’’ under the
existing payment adjustment at
§ 412.534. Although the proposed new
payment adjustment option under the
SSO policy was adapted from the
existing LTCH HwH and LTCH satellite
payment adjustment at § 412.534, it also
preserves a distinction in the existing
SSO policy established at the start of the
LTCH PPS for FY 2003: The use of the
LTCH PPS fixed loss amount should a
SSO case also qualify for high cost
outlier payments after the SSO payment
amount is determined. In contrast, as
noted previously, under the payment
adjustment for LTCH HwHs and LTCH
satellites at § 412.534, if the amount
payable by Medicare for a specific
discharge was the amount under subpart
O that is equivalent to what would be
otherwise payable under the IPPS and
the case also qualified as a high cost
outlier, the outlier payment for this case
under the LTCH PPS would be based on
the IPPS high cost outlier policy at
§ 412.80(a) because the resulting
payment would then be more equivalent
to what would have been payable under
the IPPS. Similarly, if under this
payment adjustment, the lesser amount
resulted in an ‘‘otherwise payable
amount under the LTCH PPS,’’ and the
stay qualified as a high-cost outlier,
Medicare would generate a high cost
outlier payment governed by the LTCH
PPS fixed loss amount calculated under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
§ 412.525(a). If the estimated cost of the
case exceeds the adjusted LTC–DRG
plus a fixed loss amount under
§ 412.525(a), the LTCH would receive an
additional payment based on the LTCH
PPS high cost outlier policy.
Therefore, although there are
significant similarities between the two
payment adjustments, as detailed in
section V.A.1 of this proposed rule,
there is a distinction between them
regarding the computation of any
applicable high cost outlier payments.
Under the LTCH HwH and satellite
payment adjustment at § 412.534,
payment for discharges governed by the
policy, will be ‘‘the lesser of the amount
otherwise payable under this subpart
[subpart O] or the amount that is
otherwise payable under this subpart
that is equivalent to the amount that
would be otherwise payable under
§ 412.1(a) [the IPPS].’’ From an
implementation standpoint, Medicare
would generate an applicable payment
to the LTCH for this discharge (which
could include a high cost outlier
payment) but this payment would be
subject to reconciliation at the end of
the LTCH’s cost reporting period when
it would be determined whether or not
the particular discharge was subject to
the payment adjustment at § 412.534,
that is, whether the discharge exceeded
the 25 percent (or applicable
percentage) threshold. If this is the case,
and the calculation of the lesser of the
amounts for a specific discharge
resulted in Medicare paying an amount
under the LTCH PPS that was
equivalent to what would otherwise
have been paid under the IPPS, and that
payment included a high cost outlier
payment, this LTCH PPS payment
would be governed by the regulations at
§ 412.80(a), based on the IPPS high cost
outlier policy. If the lesser of the two
amounts is the otherwise payable
amount under the LTCH PPS (which
could be the case if the stay was a SSO,
under § 412.529) the original LTCH PPS
Medicare payment which included the
high cost outlier payment under
§ 412.525 will be finalized by the FI.
In contrast, under the existing LTCH
PPS SSO policy at § 412.529(c), high
cost outlier payments could be made for
a SSO stay, regardless of whether the
payment is ultimately based on: 120
percent of the LTC–DRG specific per
diem amount multiplied by the LOS of
the discharge; 120 percent of the cost of
the case; or the full LTC–DRG, if the
total costs of the case exceed the least
of these three options, plus the
appropriate fixed-loss amount under
§ 412.525. In this proposed rule, for
reasons described in section V.A.1, we
have proposed to lower the 120 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of costs to 100 percent, and we have
also proposed the above noted
additional alternative to this formula:
An LTCH PPS payment comparable to
what would otherwise have been paid
under the IPPS. We have not proposed
to change the existing SSO payment
policy for high cost outliers, even
though we are proposing this new
alternative, and therefore, if the costs of
the case exceeded the payment resulting
from this formula by the fixed loss
amount under the LTCH PPS, Medicare
payment to the LTCH for this case,
would include high cost outlier
payment set forth at § 412.525.
Therefore, although there are
significant similarities between the
payment adjustment at existing
§ 412.534, under which Medicare pays
an amount equivalent to what would
otherwise have been paid under the
IPPS (which we are proposing to clarify
and codify at § 412.534(f)(1)), and the
proposed additional payment
alternative under the SSO adjustment at
proposed § 412.529(c)(2)(iv), under
which Medicare would pay an amount
comparable to what would otherwise
have been paid under the IPPS, we wish
to emphasize the distinctions in
applicable high cost outlier payments
under these two payment adjustments.
Consequently, we are clarifying the
term ‘‘equivalent’’ at § 412.534(c)(2),
(d)(1), and (e)(1) in our payment
adjustment and proposing to codify the
formula we use to give affect to these
existing regulations.
In § 412.534, we established special
payment provisions for long-term care
hospitals within hospitals and satellites
of LTCHs. (69 FR 49206) At
subparagraph (d), we set forth a further
payment adjustment for LTCHs that
were co-located as HwHs or as satellites
of LTCHs with rural hospitals and we
cited the definition of rural at
§ 412.62(f). This cite was incorrect since
beginning in FY 2005, we adopted
OMB’s revised standards for defining
MSAs (69 FR 49026) and therefore, the
definition of rural that we intended to
cite in § 412.534(d) was
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C). We are therefore
proposing to correct § 412.534(d) to
correctly cite the revised definition of
rural at § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C).
VI. Computing the Proposed Adjusted
Federal Prospective Payments for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
In accordance with § 412.525 and as
discussed in section IV.C. of this
proposed rule, the standard Federal rate
is adjusted to account for differences in
area wages by multiplying the laborrelated share of the standard Federal
rate by the appropriate LTCH PPS wage
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4701
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
index (as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of the
Addendum to this proposed rule). The
standard Federal rate is also adjusted to
account for the higher costs of hospitals
in Alaska and Hawaii by multiplying
the nonlabor-related share of the
standard Federal rate by the appropriate
cost-of-living factor (shown in Table 7
in section IV.D.1.c. of this preamble). In
the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24180), we established a standard
Federal rate of $38,086.04 for the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year. In this proposed
rule, based on the best available data
and the proposed policies described in
this proposed rule, we are proposing
that the standard Federal rate for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year remain
$38,086.04 as discussed in section IV.B.
of this preamble. We illustrate the
methodology used to adjust the
proposed Federal prospective payments
for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year in the
following examples:
Example: During the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year, a Medicare patient is in a
LTCH located in Chicago, Illinois (CBSA
16974). This LTCH is in the fourth year
of the wage index phase-in, thus, the
proposed four-fifths wage index values
are applicable. The proposed four-fifths
wage index value for CBSA 16974 is
1.0632 (see Table 1 in the Addendum to
this proposed rule). The Medicare
patient is classified into LTC–DRG 9
(Spinal Disorders and Injuries), which
has a relative weight of 0.9720 (see
Table 3 of the Addendum to this
proposed rule).
To calculate the LTCH’s total
proposed adjusted Federal prospective
payment for this Medicare patient, we
compute the proposed wage-adjusted
Federal prospective payment amount by
multiplying the proposed unadjusted
standard Federal rate ($38,086.04) by
the proposed labor-related share (75.923
percent) and the proposed wage index
value (1.0632). This proposed wageadjusted amount is then added to the
nonlabor-related portion of the
proposed unadjusted standard Federal
rate (24.077 percent; adjusted for cost of
living, if applicable) to determine the
adjusted Federal rate, which is then
multiplied by the LTC–DRG relative
weight (0.9720) to calculate the total
proposed adjusted Federal prospective
payment for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year ($38,795.95). Finally, as discussed
in section IV.C.5. of this preamble, for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year, we
proposed a 0.0 percent reduction (a
budget neutrality offset of 1.000) to the
total proposed adjusted Federal
prospective payment to account for the
costs of the transition methodology.
The following illustrates the
components of the calculations in the
example in Table 12.
TABLE 12
$38,086.04
× 0.75923
Proposed Labor-Related Portion of the Federal Rate ........................................................................................................................
Proposed 4⁄5ths Wage Index (CBSA 16974) .......................................................................................................................................
= $28,916.06
× 1.0632
Proposed Wage-Adjusted Labor Share of Federal Rate ....................................................................................................................
Proposed Nonlabor-Related Portion of the Federal Rate ($38,086.04 × 0.24077) ............................................................................
= $30,743.55
+ $9,169.98
Proposed Adjusted Federal Rate Amount ...........................................................................................................................................
LTC–DRG 9 Relative Weight ..............................................................................................................................................................
= $39,913.53
× 0.9720
Total Proposed Adjusted Federal Prospective Payment (Before the Budget Neutrality Offset) ........................................................
Proposed Budget Neutrality Offset ......................................................................................................................................................
= $38,795.95
× 0.999
Total Proposed Federal Prospective Payment (Including the Budget Neutrality Offset) ....................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Unadjusted Proposed Standard Federal Prospective Payment Rate .................................................................................................
Proposed Labor-Related Share ...........................................................................................................................................................
= $38,757.15
VII. Transition Period
To provide a stable fiscal base for
LTCHs, under § 412.533, we
implemented a 5-year transition period
whereby a LTCH (except those defined
as ‘‘new’’ under § 412.23(e)(4)) receives
payment consisting of a portion based
on reasonable cost-based reimbursement
under the TEFRA system and a portion
based on the Federal prospective
payment rate (unless the LTCH elects
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate). Under the average pricing
system, payment is not based on the
experience of an individual hospital. As
discussed in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56038), we believe that a 5year phase-in provides LTCHs time to
adjust their operations and capital
financing to the LTCH PPS, which is
based on prospectively determined
Federal payment rates. Furthermore, we
believe that the 5-year phase-in of the
LTCH PPS also allows LTCH personnel
to develop proficiency with the LTC–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
DRG coding system, which will result in
improvement in the quality of the data
used for generating our annual
determination of relative weights and
payment rates.
Under § 412.533, the 5-year transition
period for all hospitals subject to the
LTCH PPS begins with the hospital’s
first cost reporting period beginning on
or after October 1, 2002 and extends
through the hospital’s last cost reporting
period beginning before October 1,
2007. During the 5-year transition
period, a LTCH’s total payment under
the LTCH PPS is based on two payment
percentages—one based on reasonable
cost-based (TEFRA) payments and the
other based on the standard Federal
prospective payment rate. The
percentage of payment based on the
LTCH PPS Federal rate increases by 20
percentage points each year, while the
reasonable cost-based payment rate
percentage decreases by 20 percentage
points each year, for the next 4 fiscal
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
years. For cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2006,
Medicare payment to LTCHs will be
determined entirely under the Federal
rate. The blend percentages as set forth
in § 412.533(a) are shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13
Cost reporting
periods beginning on or after
October
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Federal rate
percentage
Reasonable
cost principles rate
percentage
20
40
60
80
100
80
60
40
20
0
For cost reporting periods that begin
on or after October 1, 2005, and before
October 1, 2006 (FY 2006), the total
payment for an existing LTCH that has
not elected payment under 100 percent
of the Federal prospective payment rate
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4702
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
is 20 percent of the amount calculated
under reasonable cost principles for that
specific LTCH and 80 percent of the
Federal prospective payment amount.
For cost reporting periods that begin on
or after October 1, 2006 (FY 2007), the
total payment for a LTCH will be zero
percent of the amount calculated under
reasonable cost principles for that
specific LTCH and 100 percent of the
Federal prospective payment amount.
As we noted in the June 6, 2003 final
rule (68 FR 34155), the change in the
effective date of the annual LTCH PPS
rate update from October 1 to July 1 has
no effect on the LTCH PPS transition
period as set forth in § 412.533(a). That
is, LTCHs paid under the transition
blend under § 412.533(a) will receive
those blend percentages for the entire 5year transition period (unless they elect
payments based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate). Furthermore, LTCHs paid
under the transition blend will receive
the appropriate blend percentages of the
Federal and reasonable cost-based rate
for their entire cost reporting period as
prescribed in § 412.533(a)(1) through
(a)(5).
The reasonable cost-based rate
percentage is a LTCH specific amount
that is based on the amount that the
LTCH would have been paid (under
TEFRA) if the PPS were not
implemented. Medicare FIs will
continue to compute the LTCH
reasonable cost-based payment amount
according to § 412.22(b) of the
regulations and sections 1886(d) and (g)
of the Act.
In implementing the LTCH PPS, one
of our goals is to transition hospitals to
prospective payments based on 100
percent of the adjusted Federal
prospective payment rate as soon as
appropriate. Therefore, under
§ 412.533(c), we allow an LTCH (other
than new LTCHs defined at
§ 412.23(e)(4)), which is subject to a
blended rate, to elect payment based on
100 percent of the Federal rate at the
start of any of its cost reporting periods
during the 5-year transition period
rather than incrementally shifting from
reasonable cost-based payments to
prospective payments. Once a LTCH
elects to be paid based on 100 percent
of the Federal rate, it will not be able to
revert to the transition blend. For cost
reporting periods that began on or after
December 1, 2002 through September
30, 2006, a LTCH must notify its FI in
writing of its election on or before the
30th day prior to the start of the LTCH’s
next cost reporting period regardless of
any postmarks or anticipated delivery
dates. For example, a LTCH with a cost
reporting period that begins on May 1,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
2006, must notify its FI in writing of an
election on or before April 1, 2006.
Under § 412.533(c)(2)(i), the
notification by the LTCH to make the
election must be made in writing to the
Medicare FI. Under § 412.533 (c)(2)(iii),
the FI must receive the request on or
before the specified date (that is, on or
before the 30th day before the
applicable cost reporting period begins
for cost reporting periods beginning on
or after December 1, 2002 through
September 30, 2006), regardless of any
postmarks or anticipated delivery dates.
Requests received, postmarked, or
delivered by other means after the
specified date in § 412.533(c)(2)(iii) will
not be accepted. If the specified date
falls on a day that the postal service or
other delivery sources are not open for
business, the LTCH will be responsible
for allowing sufficient time for the
delivery of the request before the
deadline. If a LTCH’s request is not
received timely, payment will be based
on the transition period blend
percentages.
VIII. Payments to New LTCHs
Under § 412.23(e)(4), for purposes of
Medicare payment under the LTCH PPS,
we define a new LTCH as a provider of
inpatient hospital services that meets
the qualifying criteria for LTCHs, set
forth in § 412.23(e)(1) and (e)(2), and
under present or previous ownership (or
both), has its first cost reporting period
as a LTCH begins on or after October 1,
2002. We also specify in § 412.500 that
the LTCH PPS is applicable to LTCHs
for cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2002. As we
discussed in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56040), this definition of
new LTCHs should not be confused
with those LTCHs first paid under the
TEFRA payment system for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 1997,
described in section 1886(b)(7)(A) of the
Act, as added by section 4416 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)
(Pub. L. 105–33). As stated in
§ 413.40(f)(2)(ii), for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1,
1997, the payment amount for a ‘‘new’’
(post-FY 1998) LTCH is the lower of the
hospital’s net inpatient operating cost
per case or 110 percent of the national
median target amount payment limit for
hospitals in the same class for cost
reporting periods ending during FY
1996, updated to the applicable cost
reporting period (see 62 FR 46019,
August 29, 1997). Under the LTCH PPS,
those ‘‘new’’ LTCHs that meet the
definition of ‘‘new’’ under
§ 413.40(f)(2)(ii) and that have their first
cost reporting period as a LTCH
beginning prior to October 1, 2002, will
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be paid under the transition
methodology described in § 412.533.
Under § 412.533(d), new LTCHs will
not participate in the 5-year transition
from reasonable cost-based
reimbursement to prospective payment.
As we discussed in the August 30, 2002
final rule (67 FR 56040), the transition
period is intended to provide existing
LTCHs time to adjust to payment under
the new system. Since these new LTCHs
with their first cost reporting periods as
LTCHs beginning on or after October 1,
2002, would not have received payment
under reasonable cost-based
reimbursement for the delivery of LTCH
services prior to the effective date of the
LTCH PPS, we do not believe that those
new LTCHs require a transition period
in order to make adjustments to their
operations and capital financing, as will
LTCHs that have been paid under the
reasonable cost-based methodology.
IX. Method of Payment
Under § 412.513, a Medicare LTCH
patient is classified into a LTC-DRG
based on the principal diagnosis, up to
eight additional (secondary) diagnoses,
and up to six procedures performed
during the stay, as well as, age, sex, and
discharge status of the patient. The
LTC–DRG is used to determine the
Federal prospective payment that the
LTCH will receive for the Medicarecovered Part A services the LTCH
furnished during the Medicare patient’s
stay. Under § 412.541(a), the payment is
based on the submission of the
discharge bill. The discharge bill also
provides data to allow for reclassifying
the stay from payment at the full LTC–
DRG rate to payment for a case as a SSO
(under § 412.529) or as an interrupted
stay (under § 412.531), or to determine
if the case will qualify for a high-cost
outlier payment (under § 412.525(a)).
Accordingly, the ICD–9–CM codes
and other information used to determine
if an adjustment to the full LTC–DRG
payment is necessary (for example, LOS
or interrupted stay status) are recorded
by the LTCH on the Medicare patient’s
discharge bill and submitted to the
Medicare FI for processing. The
payment represents payment in full,
under § 412.521(b), for inpatient
operating and capital-related costs, but
not for the costs of an approved medical
education program, bad debts, blood
clotting factors, anesthesia services by
hospital-employed nonphysician
anesthetists or obtained under
arrangement, or the costs of
photocopying and mailing medical
records requested by a Quality
Improvement Organization (QIO), which
are costs paid outside the LTCH PPS.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
As under the previous reasonable
cost-based payment system, under
§ 412.541(b), a LTCH may elect to be
paid using the periodic interim payment
(PIP) method described in § 413.64(h)
and may be eligible to receive
accelerated payments as described in
§ 413.64(g).
For those LTCHs that are paid during
the 5-year transition based on the
blended transition methodology in
§ 412.533(a) for cost reporting periods
that began on or after October 1, 2002,
and before October 1, 2006, the PIP
amount is based on the transition blend.
For those LTCHs that are paid based on
100 percent of the standard Federal rate,
the PIP amount is based on the
estimated prospective payment for the
year rather than on the estimated
reasonable cost-based reimbursement.
We exclude high-cost outlier payments
that are paid upon submission of a
discharge bill from the PIP amounts. In
addition, Part A costs that are not paid
for under the LTCH PPS, including
Medicare costs of an approved medical
education program, bad debts, blood
clotting factors, anesthesia services by
hospital-employed nonphysician
anesthetists or obtained under
arrangement, and the costs of
photocopying and mailing medical
records requested by a QIO, are subject
to the interim payment provisions
(§ 412.541(c)).
Under § 412.541(d), LTCHs with
unusually long lengths of stay that are
not receiving payment under the PIP
method may bill on an interim basis (60
days after an admission and at intervals
of at least 60 days after the date of the
first interim bill) and ‘‘should include
any high cost outlier payment
determined as of the last day for which
the services have been billed.’’
X. Monitoring
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67
FR 56014), we described an on-going
monitoring component to the new LTCH
PPS. Specifically, we discussed ongoing analysis of the various policies
that we believe would provide equitable
payment for stays that reflect less than
the full course of treatment and reduce
the incentives for inappropriate
admissions, transfers, or premature
discharges of patients that are present in
a discharge-based PPS. To this end, we
have designed system features utilizing
MedPAR data that will enable CMS and
the FI to track beneficiary movement to
and from a LTCH and to and from
another Medicare provider. We also
stated our intent to collect and interpret
data on changes in average lengths of
stay under the LTCH PPS for specific
LTC–DRGs and the impact of these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
changes on the Medicare program. As a
result of our data analysis, we have
revisited a number of our original and
even pre-LTCH PPS policies in order to
address what we believe are behaviors
by certain LTCHs that lead to
inappropriate Medicare payments. In
recent Federal Register publications, we
have proposed and subsequently
finalized revisions to the interruption of
stay policy in the RY 2005 LTCH PPS
final rule (69 FR 25690 through 25700),
and we established a payment
adjustment for LTCH HwHs and
satellites in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule
(69 FR 49191 through 49214).
On-going data analysis is also the
basis for four of the policies that we are
proposing in this notice. As noted in
section V.A.2, we are proposing to
‘‘sunset’’ the surgical DRG exception to
the 3 day or less interruption of stay
policy at § 412.531(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1). As we
discuss in detail in section V.A.1., we
have determined that eliminating this
exception will not result in significant
hardship for LTCHs. In section V.A.2.,
we have also revisited the payment
adjustment established for short-stay
outliers (§ 412.529) as a consequence of
recent data analysis and have proposed
additional options under that policy. In
addition to these three proposed
policies, as a result of our analysis and
on-going monitoring protocols, we are
also proposing a zero percent update to
the Federal payment rate for RY 2007,
which is explained in detail in section
IV.B.4. of this proposed rule.
As we discuss in section V.B.1., our
monitoring of discharges between acute
care hospitals and LTCHs reveals that a
significant number of LTCHs that are
‘‘free-standing’’, that is, not colocated
with other hospital-level providers (as
defined in § 412.22(e) and § 412.22(h)),
also admit their patients from one
specific acute care hospital. When we
established the payment adjustment for
LTCH HwHs and satellites of LTCHs at
§ 412.534, we reiterated our concern
that these on-site LTCHs could be
functioning as units of their host
(generally, an acute care hospital), a
configuration that is not permitted in
section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Act. (The
statute specifically allows only for IRF
and IPF units in acute care hospitals but
not for LTCH units.) Therefore, we note
that in addition to monitoring
compliance with the payment
adjustment established under § 412.534
for LTCH HwHs and satellites of LTCHs,
we will also be monitoring admissions
of patients to freestanding LTCHs from
referring acute hospitals. We believe
that on-going data analysis of this
patient movement may enable us to
determine whether these ‘‘free-
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4703
standing’’ LTCHs are functioning, in a
similar way as some LTCH HwHs and
LTCH satellites, as step-down units of
their referring hospitals and are
considering additional payment
adjustments to address this issue.
As we discussed in the RY 2004
LTCH PPS final rule (68 FR 34157), the
Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC) endorsed our
monitoring activity as a primary aspect
of the design and on-going functioning
of the LTCH PPS. Furthermore, the
Commission pursued an independent
research initiative that led to a section
in the MedPAC Report entitled
‘‘Defining long-term care hospitals’’
published in the June, 2004 Report to
Congress. This study included
recommendations that we develop
facility and patient criteria for LTCH
admission and treatment and that we
require a review by Quality
Improvement Organizations (QIO) to
evaluate whether LTCH admissions
meet criteria for medical necessity once
the recommended facility and patient
criteria are established.
Therefore, in addition to pursuing our
on-going monitoring program under the
direction of ORDI, existing QIO
monitoring and studies described in the
RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24211), and our considerations of
expanding the QIO role in the LTCH
PPS, we awarded a contract to Research
Triangle Institute, International (RTI) in
September 2004 for a thorough
examination of the feasibility of
implementing MedPAC’s
recommendations in the June 2004
Report to Congress (which we detail in
section XI. of this proposed rule). In the
RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule, we noted
that this research contract, which was
funded for FY 2005 was presently being
executed and therefore, we anticipated
that we would be able to include some
preliminary findings in the RY 2007
LTCH PPS final rule. In this proposed
rule, as noted previously, we have
included a section that describes RTI’s
analyses for the purpose of providing an
opportunity for public comment prior to
the finalizing of RTI’s final report.
XI. RTI Report on MedPAC June 2004
LTCH Recommendations
In the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule
(70 FR 24209), we discussed Chapter 5
of MedPAC’s June 2004 Report to
Congress (RTC), ‘‘Defining Long-Term
Care Hospitals’’ (LTCHs). In that Report,
the Commission recommended that the
Congress and the Secretary define
LTCHs by facility and patient criteria to
ensure that patients admitted to LTCH
facilities are medically complex and
have a good chance of improvement. In
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4704
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
addition, the Commission
recommended expanding the statement
of work for the Quality Improvement
Organizations (QIOs) to enable them to
monitor LTCH compliance with any
newly-established hospital and patient
criteria.
As detailed in that same final rule, in
response to the recommendation in
MedPAC’s June 2004 Report, on
September 27, 2004, we awarded a
contract to Research Triangle Institute,
International (RTI) for a thorough
examination of the feasibility of
implementing the Commission’s
recommendations based on the
performance of a wide variety of
analytic tasks using CMS data files, and
information RTI would collect from
physicians, providers, and LTCH trade
associations. This contract, ‘‘Long Term
Care Hospital (LTCH) Payment System
Refinement/Evaluation,’’ will result in a
report that will assist CMS in the
development of criteria for assuring
appropriate and cost-effective use of
LTCHs in the Medicare program. With
the recommendations of MedPAC’s June
2004 Report to Congress as a point of
departure, RTI began to evaluate the
feasibility of developing patient and
facility level characteristics for LTCHs
in order to identify and distinguish the
role of these hospitals as a Medicare
provider.
In that same final rule, we also
described RTI’s project plan which will
be completed in two phases. Phase I
focuses on an analysis of LTCHs within
the current Medicare system: their
history as participating providers; their
case mix; the criteria currently used by
QIOs to determine the appropriateness
of treatment in LTCHs; and the site of
care for patients treated in areas that
lack LTCHs. RTI is reviewing prior
analyses of these issues by MedPAC and
other contractors (such as the Urban
Institute, 3M Health Information
Systems, and The Lewin Group) and is
also having additional discussions with
MedPAC, other researchers, and the
QIOs. Building on the work of Phase I,
Phase II addresses the feasibility of
MedPAC’s proposed criteria based on a
three-pronged approach: Medicare
claims analysis to examine patient
differences across settings; interviews
with QIOs and providers to examine
level of care definitions currently being
used or tested; and finally site visits to
interview providers with the objective
of distinguishing LTCHs from other
inpatient settings for payment purposes.
During October through December 2005,
RTI scheduled and conducted site visits
to LTCHs throughout the country that
are representative of the various types of
LTCHs. A team of RTI researchers and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
CMS analysts, including a physician,
participated in these visits.
A. Overview of the Issues
RTI’s research is guided by a
conceptual framework based upon
several fundamental premises:
• The goal of the Medicare program is
the cost-effective delivery of the highest
quality of medical services to
beneficiaries.
• LTCHs are the highest paid
hospitals in the Medicare program.
Despite the fact that their availability
varies widely across the nation, they
have increased in numbers
exponentially over the last 10 years. The
research is to determine whether this
increase is due to growing patient
demand or industry response to
generous payment policies.
• In parts of the country that lack
LTCHs, LTCH-type patients may receive
hospital-level treatment at acute
hospitals as outlier patients, at IRFs, or
in some cases, IPFs with significantly
lower payments per beneficiary
discharge than at LTCHs. The research
attempts to determine whether patient
outcomes are equivalent across these
sites.
In order to evaluate the feasibility of
developing patient and facility-level
criteria specific to LTCHs, it must be
determined whether there are
identifiable differences in the care
delivered at LTCHs as compared with
other hospital-level providers for the
same type of Medicare patient and if so,
what distinguishes the services
delivered by LTCHs from services at
other settings. One clear and easily
measurable difference is Medicare
payments for services since payments
for LTCH-type patients may differ
dramatically depending on site of care
due to the different base payment rates
for each provider category. Determining
whether there is a correlation between
the higher payments at LTCHs and
improved patient outcomes for the same
types of patients in different treatment
settings is the central question RTI will
answer. Since there is a wide variation
in the range of post-acute care available
throughout the country, if payments are
equivalent per case and patient
outcomes are generally equal in
different areas of the country, the
variations may be explained as a
reflection of variations in regional
practices. However, if outcomes differ
substantially for certain types of
patients, indicating that LTCH patients
have better outcomes, the recent growth
of the LTCH industry could result in the
availability of a better level of care for
Medicare beneficiaries nationwide.
Alternatively, if payments differ
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
between provider types but patient
outcomes are equivalent, one could
question whether higher cost LTCH
services are needed for all types of cases
currently treated, or more specifically,
which types of patients benefit from the
higher cost LTCH services. Building on
MedPAC’s earlier work (May 2004, June
2004), RTI researchers are examining
differences in payments and outcomes
for patients treated in these various
settings.
B. Describing the LTCH Universe since
FY 2003
RTI is examining changes in the
availability of LTCHs over time. The
number of LTCHs has more than tripled
from 105 in 1993 to 363 as of March
2005. Although the two States with the
largest number of LTCHs are Texas and
Louisiana, substantial growth is also
occurring in States with large numbers
of elderly populations including
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia,
Indiana, and Oklahoma.
Using Geographic Information
Services (GIS) software to spatially
present the different types of inpatient
post-acute services in acute care
hospital referral regions (as defined by
Dartmouth Atlas 2005), RTI is
highlighting the regional variation in the
availability of LTCHs and other
substitute providers. The resulting maps
indicate that while LTCHs are widely
available in the northeast and southern
States, in the western part of the nation
they are localized in several small areas
(for example, Nevada and Utah) and
relatively few LTCHs exist on the west
coast. IPFs and IRFs, in contrast, are
more common in the west and north
central parts of the U.S. where there are
few, if any, LTCHs. Also, RTI is
identifying significant changes in the
LTCH universe in terms of their
ownership. The draft report submitted
to CMS notes the following facts:
• For-profit hospitals entered the
market during the 1990s and grew
continuously until 2005 when they
accounted for 58 percent of all LTCHs.
• While the number of non-profit
hospitals also grew rapidly, they
continued to account for only one-third
of all LTCHs through 2005.
• The number of government-owned
hospitals declined dramatically from 25
percent to only 8 percent of the LTCHs
in 2005.
There are generally three distinct
types of LTCHs with the following basic
characteristics and patients:
• The majority of LTCHs specialize in
what they consider to be medically
complex patients (including many
respiratory and ventilator-dependent
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
patients), and some of these have ICUtype units;
• In some regions, LTCHs may focus
on rehabilitation patients; and
• In other areas, LTCHs may be
primarily treating patients who could
otherwise be in IPFs.
LTCHs in these last two categories
differ significantly from the first,
because generally the patients are less
medically complex.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
C. Patient, Facility, and Alternative
Treatment Site Analysis
RTI is analyzing claims from the 100
percent MedPAR files for CY 2003,
including acute care, LTCH, IRF, IPF,
and SNF records. Episodes are
constructed to include 180 days of
potential use beginning with admission
to the index hospital and including
payments and use of associated home
health services. The fundamental goals
of the analytic work are to identify
differences between patient
populations, utilization patterns,
outcomes, Medicare program payments
by site of care, and most significantly,
to develop a profile of the LTCH
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
admission in 2003. This profile is based
on primary diagnoses and examines the
use of other services prior and
subsequent to the LTCH admission.
RTI is also analyzing the data for the
acute care hospital patients with
multiple comorbidities who have
reached outlier status at the acute care
hospital with data for LTCH patients
with similar profiles. Data on acute care
patients who have reached outlier status
prior to admission to an LTCH are
evaluated to determine if there are: (1)
Clear factors that predicted LTCH use,
(2) differences in hospital readmission
rates between those who use LTCHs and
those who do not; and (3) program cost
differences between the two types of
patients.
D. Specific Findings From Claims
Analysis
The following is a summary of the
specific issues that the RTI draft report
will examine followed by a brief
description of their draft findings from
their review of 100 percent of CY 2003
MedPAR data.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4705
1. LTCHs Population
Table 14 lists the 50 most common
DRGs admitted to LTCHs in 2003 as a
result of the draft report findings and
their relative ranking in various settings.
The top five types of admissions
illustrate the heterogeneity of the
population treated in these facilities and
their relative importance as admissions
to other facilities. While the relative
ranking in each facility may differ, the
absolute number of cases admitted to
LTCHs may be similar to other settings
(Table 15). For example, DRG 012:
Nervous System Disorders are almost as
likely to go to an IRF facility for a nonoutlier stay as to be admitted to an
LTCH according to the draft report
findings. While this DRG is ranked 3rd
among LTCH and 8th among IRF
admissions, the number of cases
admitted to LTCHs and non-outlier IRFs
is fairly comparable (5,846 compared to
5,508, respectively). Further, nearly five
times as many cases are admitted to
IPFs (28,911).
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.000
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4706
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Table 15 shows the variation in these
admission rates to different sites of care.
While LTCHs treat a wide range of
DRGs, the majority of these cases are
also treated in alternative settings. For
example, LTCHs treat only 16 percent of
the total DRG 012 cases while the IPFs
treated 71 percent of these cases. It is
interesting to note, in general, that
LTCHs treat a relatively small
proportion of all types of cases
compared to other settings.
2. Similarities Between the Acute
Outlier and LTCH Samples
The most common admission to both
the LTCHs and the subset of acute
admissions with high-cost outlier
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
payments are the respiratory patients.
DRG 475 is the most common LTCH
admission and the third most common
in the acute outlier group, both
admitting over 8,000 cases a year.
Infection cases, such as DRG 416:
Septicemia, are also quite common in
the LTCH and acute outlier populations
as are renal failure patients (DRG 316).
These types of cases are frequently
admitted as either a primary or
secondary diagnosis in this population.
While patients with skin conditions are
common to both LTCHs and other
hospitals, LTCHs appear to specialize in
different subsets of the patients. LTCHs
have a large number of DRG 271: Skin
Ulcer patients (5,348 cases) while acute
care hospitals are more likely to be
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
treating DRG 217: Wound debridement
cases. DRG 127: (Heart failure and
shock) cases also are common across
settings although the severity of illness
may differ.
The population treated in LTCHs is
diverse and frequently found in
alternative settings. As indicated in
Table 15, the top 50 DRGs for LTCHs
constitute 86 percent of all LTCH
discharges. These same DRGs account
for 40 percent of acute outlier
discharges, 93 percent of IRF outliers
and 81 percent of IRF non-outliers
(majority due to rehabilitation), 87
percent of psychiatric discharges (with
72 percent due to psychoses) and 56
percent of SNFs/swing beds discharges.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.001
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
4707
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.002
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4708
4709
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.003
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
4710
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
3. Differences in DRG-Specific
Diagnoses Across Treatment Settings
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
While certain DRGs may be common
to multiple settings, the underlying
diagnoses (ICD9–CM) may differ. Table
16 addresses whether facilities are
specializing in certain subsets of
patients within DRGs. As mentioned
previously, the largest group of LTCH
discharges are patients with respiratory
system diagnosis with ventilator
support (DRG 475) but within this DRG
the majority of discharges from LTCHs
come from ‘‘other lung diseases’’ (89.2
percent). Pulmonary collapse, some
emphysema, acute edema of lung and
acute respiratory failure fall under this
category. Only 41 percent of acute
outlier patients within DRG 475 were
discharged with this ICD–9–CM code.
Instead, the DRG 475 patients in the
acute outlier setting had higher
proportions admitted with pneumoniarelated or chronic bronchitis diagnoses.
The underlying diagnoses in DRG
012: Degenerative nervous system
disorders varied extensively across
settings. More than 80 percent of the
LTCH admissions had late effects of
cerebrovascular disease, as did 74.5
percent of the IRF outliers; however,
this dropped to 54.2 percent of the IRF
non-outliers and 52.5 percent of those in
SNF/swing beds. Psychiatric patients in
this DRG were more likely to have
cerebral degeneration (95.7 percent),
which includes Alzheimer’s disease.
Parkinson’s Disease is the third most
common diagnoses in this group,
accounting for 4.2 percent of the LTCH
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
cases and over 26 percent of the nonoutlier IRF cases.
The primary diagnoses for DRG 249:
Aftercare of musculoskeletal system and
connective tissue (DRG 249) also
differed across settings. Four-fifths of
patients in LTCHs and SNF/swing beds
(82.4 percent, 78.6 percent, respectively)
were there for ‘‘other orthopedic
aftercare,’’ (which included, for
example, the removal of fracture plate,
pins, rods, screws) and the aftercare for
healing traumatic or pathologic
fractures. In contrast, in the acute
outlier, IRF outlier, and IRF non-outlier
populations these patients were more
likely to be treated for a replacement
and graft-related complications.
Among the 50 most frequent types of
LTCH admissions, the most expensive
case is DRG 076 (Other Respiratory
System OR Procedures w/CC) which has
an average Medicare episode payment of
$120,806 (Table 17). While this case is
ranked the 23rd most common type of
LTCH admission, it is the most
expensive type of episode due to its
high acute and LTCH hospital
payments. These cases have the second
highest acute payments prior to LTCH
admission ($60,612) and the second
highest LTCH payment ($58,357). The
combined acute and LTCH LOS is 81
days, of which two-thirds is LTCH days
(55 days).
The most common LTCH case, DRG
475: Respiratory System Diagnosis with
Ventilator Support is the second most
expensive LTCH episode. Medicare
payments for these cases are $118,635
on average and the average length stay
from hospital admission to LTCH
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discharge is 70 days. These cases have
the most expensive acute hospital stay
and the fourth most expensive LTCH
stay.
DRG 462: Rehabilitation is the second
most common type of LTCH admission,
although it accounts for only one-third
as many admissions as go to IRFs with
outlier payments. These cases are
ranked 35th in terms of episode
payments with almost half of the
payments ($20,311) related to the LTCH
admission. The average length stay in
the LTCH is 27 days following 11 days
in the acute hospital. This DRG is also
the most common IRF admission and
accounts for two-thirds of all IRF cases.
In contrast to the LTCH, IRF payments
range from $11,741 for the majority of
cases to $23,104 for the small percent
that receive IRF outlier adjustments.
Little is known about the differences in
severity across the different settings
since Functional Independence
Measures (FIM scores) are only
collected in the IRF.
The majority of LTCH cases are
admitted from an acute hospital (79.2
percent), and has higher LTCH
payments than acute care hospital
payments. This is particularly true
among the 20 most expensive LTCH
cases, the exceptions being DRG 76,
DRG 475, DRG 87, DRG 99, and DRG
452 which have higher acute payments.
The more common skin ailments,
including DRG 263, DRG 217, and DRG
271, have LTCH payments two to three
times greater than the preceding acute
stay payment.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4711
EP27JA06.004
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.005
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4712
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4713
EP27JA06.006
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.007
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4714
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4715
EP27JA06.008
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.009
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4716
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4. Variation of Payment and Use
Patterns by Regional Location
Table 18 presents LTCH discharges by
DRG and by census region to examine
differences in the types of cases
admitted to LTCHs across the regions.
Use of these hospitals may vary because
of the availability of alternative
providers in certain parts of the country.
The West South Central region by far
has the largest number of discharges
from LTCHs. Excluding this region, the
number of discharges was lowest in the
Western Mountain region and highest in
the East North Central region.
DRG 475 (respiratory with ventilator
support) accounted for the highest
number of discharges in most regions.
These discharges were by far the most
common among the 7 DRGs listed in the
East North Central region and the South
Atlantic. However, there were three
regions where this DRG was not the
most frequent type of discharge among
those listed: New England, East South
Central and West South Central. In the
New England region, DRG 249
(Aftercare, Musculoskeletal System and
Connective Tissues), DRG 012
(Degenerative Nervous System
Disorders) and DRG 088 (COPD) were
more common than DRG 475. In the East
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
South Central and West South Central
regions, DRG 462 (Rehabilitation) was
the most common DRG.
5. Payment Variation Across Regions
Despite the fact that the LTCH PPS,
like all prospective payment systems is
designed to provide a uniform Medicare
payment for each LTC–DRG, there are
facility and patient level adjustments
that may impact the payments for any
specific case. Under the LTCH PPS, for
example, there is an area wage
adjustment (which is being phased-in
over 5 years) which would impact
payments regionally. There may also be
variations among LTCHs and across
regions in the admission of short stay
outliers, the number of interrupted stay
cases, and on-site discharges and
readmittances, all of which could affect
Medicare per discharge payments.
RTI examined Medicare payments
and levels of use across different
regions. Among the 20 most frequently
admitted LTCH conditions, DRG 475
was the highest cost DRG across all
regions. In the West South Central, with
its high volume of LTCH admissions,
the second most expensive type of case
is the DRG 263: Skin Graft and
Debridement for Skin Ulcer which
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4717
ranked 13th in volume across all LTCH
admissions.
Use levels also varied regionally. As
with the payments, LOS for DRG 475
was highest in New England as
compared to the shortest stays for these
cases being in the West South Central
region which had the highest number of
these admissions. In general, New
England lengths of stay were longer than
in other parts of the nation for
respiratory and infection cases as well
as nervous system disorders. Skin
ulcers, pulmonary edema, respiratory
infections, skin graft and debridements,
psychoses, and renal failure cases also
tended to stay longer in the northeast.
6. Identifying LTCH Patients Relative to
Other PAC Patients
While the proportion of post acute
patients entering LTCHs is relatively
small compared to other post acute
settings (only 1.8 percent in 2002), the
number of beneficiaries discharged from
IPPS hospitals in 2002 into LTCHs more
than doubled between 1996 and 2002.
Thirty-six percent of the LTCH
admissions were subsequently admitted
to a SNF, IRF, or readmitted to an acute
care hospital.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.010
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4718
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
LTCH users tend to have a higher
number of comorbidities relative to
other types of post acute episodes. RTI
also evaluated medical complexity by
using Hierarchical Coexisting Condition
(HCC) scores which are based on a
patient’s Medicare expenditures from
the year preceding the index IPPS
admission. ‘‘LTCH only’’ users had the
highest average HCC score of any
episode type.
7. Average Medicare Payments
Several studies have shown that
LTCH stays are more costly to the
Medicare program on average than stays
within other post acute settings
(MedPAC 2003).
a. LTCH and Acute Outlier Episodes of
Care
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
RTI compared the resources,
payments, and outcomes of LTCH
patients with one of 50 common LTCH
DRGs to those admitted to an acute care
hospital and for whom the acute care
hospital received an outlier payment
(‘Acute Outlier’) (Table 19). These two
samples are separate, yet somewhat
overlapping. The LTCH sample provides
a profile of all LTCH admissions and it
includes the 80 percent of admissions
who had a prior hospital stay, of which
12.4 percent had an outlier adjustment
as well as the remaining 20 percent who
may have been admitted from home, a
SNF, IRF, or physician’s office. The
acute outlier sample includes all acute
care cases that received an outlier
payment for one of the top 50 LTCH
DRGs. This sample contains both cases
that did and did not use LTCHs and
provides an overview of high cost,
longer stay patients in the acute hospital
who could have potentially been
admitted to an LTCH. Episodes are
defined as 180 day periods beginning
with an index stay at either the LTCH
or the acute setting.
Using 2003 claims, the two sets of
episodes were created based on the
index, or qualifying, acute care hospital
stay. An episode is defined as all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Medicare services provided in an acute
hospital, LTCH, IRF, SNF, IPF, or home
health agency within 180 days of the
index admission. Within the 100
percent of 2003 MedPAR files, 102,749
LTCH episodes were identified.
The acute outlier episode sample has
54,023 cases that had a qualifying
admission at an acute hospital with an
outlier payment and an LTCH-like DRG.
Only about 11 percent of these cases
were discharged to an LTCH despite the
sample being based on the top 50 DRGs
commonly treated in an LTCH.
Demographic Characteristics. The two
samples differed in terms of their
demographic characteristics. Compared
to acute outlier episodes, LTCH
admissions were older (73.1 years vs.
71.4 years), more likely to be female (55
percent vs. 50 percent) and living in a
State with a higher concentration of
LTCHs (57 percent vs. 23 percent).
Acute outlier episodes had a higher
proportion of deaths compared to LTCH
cases (61 percent vs. 42 percent).
Severity of Illness. Several measures
of severity of illness were included and
they are useful for understanding
differences in the types of resources
used in these two types of hospitals.
The results show that both Acute
Outlier (AO) and LTCH episodes had
comparably high numbers of comorbid
diagnosis on the index claim (8.8 vs.
8.1, respectively). The Charlson
Comorbidity Index, a widely used
severity and mortality measure in health
services research, scores were also
comparable but relatively low (1.6 vs.
1.5, respectively). However, there were
substantially more procedures
performed during the index AO stay (4.6
vs. 1.7 procedures). Both types of
admissions had intensive care unit
(ICU) stays and coronary care unit
(CCU) stays, although these were longer
in the acute outlier episodes compared
to LTCH cases (21 days vs. 1 day, on
average across all cases). Almost 22
percent of the acute outlier sample with
ICU/CCU days had surgery during the
outlier stay. These differences reflect
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4719
differences in the types of procedures
completed in an acute hospital
compared to an LTCH.
Regarding the most common
conditions (that is, DRG) in both
settings, LTCH episodes were more
likely to have a DRG for respiratory
conditions (DRG 079, 087, 088, 089),
and ‘‘Degenerative Nervous System
Disorders.’’ AO populations were more
likely than LTCH admissions to be
treated for ‘‘Heart Failure & Shock.’’.
The following LTCH DRGs also
accounted for a larger share of the LTCH
sample than the acute outlier group:
Aftercare, Musculoskeletal System &
Connective Tissue; Aftercare w/o
History of Malignancy As Secondary
Diagnosis; Skin Ulcers; and a DRG for
Rehabilitation. Interestingly, despite
DRG 475 being the most common LTCH
admission, they represent a higher share
of the acute outlier episodes than the
LTCH admissions (14 percent vs. 9
percent among LTCH episodes).
Acute hospital readmission rates
(Table 20) were somewhat higher in
LTCH episodes (40 percent) than acute
outlier episodes (36 percent). Of those
readmitted from an LTCH episode, 2.3
percent received outlier adjustments for
the subsequent acute stay. Subsequent
service use also differed between the
two populations. The LTCH sample was
more likely to use home health care
(33.2 percent v. 24.3 percent). However,
they were less likely to use an IRF or
SNF (5 percent vs. 7 percent and 26
percent vs. 31 percent, respectively).
Almost 80 percent of the LTCH
admissions were admitted from an acute
hospitalization within 5 days prior to
the index LTCH admission. Among
these episodes, 63 percent had surgery
during this prior hospitalization and 12
percent of the acute stays included an
outlier payment, with an average
hospital payment of $24,790 per stay.
Among these outlier episodes, almost all
cases had surgery (99 percent) and
required intensive or coronary care (93
percent) with lengthy stays in the acute
hospital prior to the LTCH admission.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.011
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4720
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4721
EP27JA06.013
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
4722
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
b. Acute Outlier Episodes Compared to
LTCH Episodes
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
RTI has noted the differences between
the LTCH population and the subset of
acute admissions with a DRG commonly
found in the LTCH admissions and for
whom an outlier payment is made. The
acute outlier sample is further broken
out by whether the case resulted in an
LTCH admission. Table 21 shows that
only 10.5 percent of the acute outlier
cases with these DRGs were discharged
to an LTCH. As expected, the average
episode payments for LTCH users were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
87 percent greater than payments for
outlier episodes that did not include
LTCH admissions. About half the
difference is due to the LTCH payment
but the other half is largely due to
substantially higher payments for the
acute outlier stay ($80,380 for those
discharged to an LTCH compared to
$54,390 for outlier cases who did not
use LTCHs). The average LTCH payment
in the outlier sample is also higher than
the average LTCH admission payment
($34,990 compared to $26,786).
The average hospitalization in the
acute care hospital for an outlier stay is
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
significantly longer than the average
stay preceding an LTCH admission (25
to 28 days versus 14.5 days). While 79.2
percent of all LTCH admissions have an
acute care stay in the 5 days preceding
LTCH admission, only 12 percent of
them are outlier cases. The majority of
LTCH admissions are not acute outliers.
Also, once in the LTCH, about 40
percent of all cases are discharged with
a SSO adjustment. Despite this, the
average length stay in the all LTCHs is
32.8 days.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4723
EP27JA06.014
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.015
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4724
4725
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The subsequent use of IRFs and SNFs
is slightly lower in the LTCH universe
than in the acute outlier sample.
However, within the acute outliers,
those who were first discharged to
LTCHs were less likely to use IRFs and
SNFs, although their payments were
generally higher when they did use
these services.
Determining and Evaluating Levels of
Care
A key issue in defining the distinct
role of LTCHs in the Medicare provider
continuum is the need to objectively
define the service intensity level an
LTCH should provide relative to other
providers in the continuum. As part of
this effort, RTI is examining the
definitions currently used by the
Medicare program, LTCH providers,
potential substitute providers, and
insurers regarding the relative role of
acute hospitals, LTCHs, IRFs, and SNFs.
Included are reviews of the Medicare
conditions of participation governing
each of these providers, the QIOs and
insurance industry’s guidelines for
determining appropriate levels of care,
and the post acute industry’s definitions
of their own and others levels of care as
developed for Congressional testimony
or internal discussions. In addition, RTI
has conducted site visits to speak with
the physicians and discharge planning
staff at LTCHs regarding the types of
cases they typically do or do not admit.
First, because of the rising interest in
better defining post acute care in all
settings, several groups developed
definitions of intensity for the post
acute continuum either for
Congressional testimony or as internal
working documents of provider
associations or in managed care
organizations. These definitions were
made available to RTI and compared
across industries to understand the role
each expects LTCHs and the alternative
providers to serve in treating Medicare
beneficiaries. These comparisons can be
summarized in terms of the frequency of
physician visits and nursing hours, as
shown in Table 22. The LTCHs and IRFs
also tend to differ by the primary
diagnosis, with the LTCHs focusing on
medical intensity and IRFs focusing on
rehabilitation intensity.
TABLE 22.—CLINICAL INTENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CARE
[Based on the RTI Draft Report]
LTCH
IRF
SNF
Physician visits ......................................
Daily 2–3/week ......
2–3/week Close med Supervision ........
Consulting physician .............................
Nursing hours ........................................
2–3/week ...............
6–12 hr/day ...........
Frequent ................................................
6.5 Rehab RN .......................................
General supervision at least every 14–
30 days.
As needed.
2.5–4 hours/day.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
RTI analyses of Medicare Administrative files, 2003.
Source: RTI analysis of PAC comparisons developed by the PAC industries.
Second, RTI reviewed the Medicare
certification and conditions of
participation regulations for LTCHs and
potential substitute providers. These
certification regulations define: What
constitutes a type of provider; their
certification requirements; and the
coverage criteria associated with each.
Many of the requirements are common
across the IPPS, IRF, IPF, and LTCHs.
Each is providing inpatient acute care.
In addition, the IRFs and IPFs have
staffing requirements that include teamrelated management of their patients,
professional specializations that reflect
the respective services, and special
provisions governing their units and
satellite facilities. LTCHs lack most of
these requirements. Instead, they must
meet the same requirements as IPPS
acute hospitals and then demonstrate
that they meet the LOS requirement,
that is, they treat Medicare patients for
an average of greater than 25 days on an
annual basis. They have additional
requirements governing their ability to
open HwHs. However, they lack many
of the staffing and treatment
requirements that Medicare requires for
IRFs and IPFs to qualify as specialized
inpatient hospitals.
Third, RTI reviewed insurance and
industry-based definitions of the level of
care distinctions that are commonly
applied to different Medicare providers.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
These standards are generally used by
the Medicare QIOs and private
insurance review entities to make
coverage decisions. QIOs have statutory
authority under section 1154(a) of the
Act to: Review the necessity and
reasonability of services delivered under
Medicare; whether these services meet
professionally recognized standards of
health care; and whether these services,
consistent with the provision of
appropriate medical care, could be
‘‘effectively provided more
economically * * * in an inpatient
health care facility of a different type.’’
Although QIOs are not required to
utilize uniform criteria nationwide for
these determinations, most of them rely
on Interqual as a baseline screening tool
with physician-level decision-making
for cases that appear to fall outside the
acceptable level of care guidelines. QIOs
were interviewed regarding the specific
strengths and weaknesses of the
screening criteria they presently use and
their applicability for CMS purposes.
Phone interviews with QIOs in
Connecticut, Louisiana Maryland/DC,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada/Utah,
New York, Pennsylvania and Texas
(nine QIOs that represent 11 States/
districts) were conducted. In general,
States were selected that had a high
number or growing number of LTCHs
and also those that had possible
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
substitute providers, such as IRFs, IPFs
or SNFs. RTI also selected States that
had high numbers of LTCHs and at least
one other type of provider to examine
how the QIOs view similar cases and
make determinations regarding
appropriate use of LTCHs compared to
potential substitutions.
In general, most of the QIOs and many
of the hospital chains used a variation
of the Interqual definitions of level of
care to determine appropriateness of
admissions. These criteria measure a
potential patient’s severity of illness
based on combinations of conditions
and intensity of service based on
expected resources needed to treat the
patient if admitted. In addition,
hospitals may use other criteria to
determine if a patient is appropriate for
treatment at their facility. Parts of the
LTCH industry have proposed
guidelines for their hospitals to use in
determining appropriate admissions.
These criteria are less specific than
those used by the QIOs although all are
used as guidelines with the final
determinations made by physicians.
Fourth, patient assessment tools,
screening criteria, and intensity
measures were collected from LTCHs
through their associations and corporate
entities. These tools are used by LTCHs
to determine appropriateness of
admissions, intensity of patients served,
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4726
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
These site visits are essential in
providing an in-depth examination of
LTCHs’ populations and services
relative to other types of facilities and
under different models of care.
Personnel at LTCHs were asked to
contrast their level of care with that
provided in other treatment settings,
including acute care hospitals, IRFs, and
SNFs.
Interview materials were developed to
ensure that the same questions were
asked regarding the difference in
intensity or level of care for patients
treated in an LTCH versus other
inpatient hospital-level settings or
SNFs. The following groups were
interviewed from host hospitals:
Discharge planners, medical directors,
admissions directors, nursing/quality
assurance directors, therapy directors,
and in some cases, the finance directors.
The focus was on the types of patients
admitted, differences in expectations
regarding outcomes and, relative
payment to cost differences across
differently certified beds.
Although we expect the final RTI
report on this project to have a
substantial impact on future Medicare
policy for LTCHs, we still believe that
even with the development of defined
patient and perhaps facility-level
criteria, that the retention of many of the
specific payment adjustment features of
the LTCH PPS presently in place may
still be both necessary and appropriate
for purposes of protecting the integrity
of the Medicare Trust Fund. We expect
that the RTI’s final report will be
submitted to us in late Spring 2006.
Site Visits
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
and outcomes expected from the
treatment. They provide information on
items commonly used by LTCHs to track
patient conditions, treatment needs, and
determine staffing levels. In addition to
information on patient demographics,
insurance, and medical history, the
forms contain items on patient acuity,
including measures of their blood gas,
glucose levels, oxygen saturation levels,
respiratory rates, and functional levels,
as well as, treatment needs (such as tube
feeding, central lines, and IV
medications, GI suctioning, dialysis
(hemodialysis or peritoneal), ventilator
weaning, pain management, wound
measures, or telemetry monitoring.)
These measures cover the range of
special services provided by LTCHs and
can be useful for measuring patient
acuity differences. While they provide
objective measures of patient intensity,
much work remains to be done in
setting the levels for determining
whether a patient belongs in an LTCH
or an alternative site of care. Proposed
levels were already developed by
Interqual and other private sector
entities, as well as, parts of the industry.
More discussion is needed to set
specific levels of care determinations
that include the range of specialists
treating these patients. RTI is reviewing
these proposed criteria along with
existing criteria and patient assessment
models used by QIOs, LTCHs, and
incorporating input from clinicians with
the objective of developing
recommendations to CMS regarding a
patient assessment instrument for
LTCHs.
XII. Collection of Information
Requirements
RTI researchers, accompanied by CMS
analysts (including a physician with
clinical experience in LTCHs) visited
LTCHs around the country. Sites were
selected based on a breakdown of
hospital referral regions (as defined by
Dartmouth Atlas 2005) to select areas
that vary in the availability of LTCHs,
IRFs, IPFs, and SNFs across the U.S. and
with the input and cooperation of LTCH
industry groups.
Facilities were selected to provide an
overview of the range of populations
typically treated in LTCHs and varying
in geographic distribution, facility age,
and medical specializations. Hospitals
were selected to include free standing,
HwHs, and satellites as well as LTCHs
representing several different types of
facilities such as: Older non-profit
LTCHs specializing in specific types of
cases; newer for-profit chains, colocated LTCHs that are part of a medical
system; and other providers that treat
LTCH-type patients.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, we are required to provide 60day notice in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment before a
collection of information requirement is
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval. In order to fairly evaluate
whether an information collection
should be approved by OMB, section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:
• The need for the information
collection and its usefulness in carrying
out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the
information collection burden on the
affected public, including automated
collection techniques.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We are soliciting public comment on
each of these issues for the following
sections of this document that contain
information collection requirements:
Section 412.525 Adjustments to the
Federal Prospective Payment Provision
for Short-Stay Outliers
Section 412.525(a)(4)(iv)(A) states that
CMS may specify an alternative to the
cost-to-charge ratio otherwise applicable
under paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this
section. In addition, a hospital may also
request that its FI use a different (higher
or lower) CCR based on substantial
evidence provided by the hospital.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a hospital to gather,
process, and submit the necessary
documentation to its FI to substantiate
its request for the use of a different CCR
by their FI. For example, necessary
documentation, as stipulated by CMS
and the FI, may include but not be
limited to financial records
documenting the hospital’s cost and
charges.
The estimated burden for this
requirement is 8 hours per hospital.
Therefore, we estimate that it would
require 80 annual hours (8 hours × 10
facilities), to comply with this
requirement.
Section 412.529 Special Payment
Provision for Short-Stay Outliers
Section 412.529(c)(4)(iv)(A) states that
CMS may specify an alternative to the
CCR otherwise applicable under
paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(B) of this section. In
addition, a hospital may also request
that its FI use a different (higher or
lower) CCR based on substantial
evidence provided by the hospital.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a hospital to gather,
process, and submit the necessary
documentation to its FI to substantiate
its request for the use of a different CCR
by their FI. For example, necessary
documentation, as stipulated by CMS
and the FI, may include but not be
limited to financial records
documenting the hospital’s cost and
charges.
The estimated burden for this
requirement is 8 hours per hospital.
Therefore, we estimate that it would
require 80 annual hours (8 hours × 10
facilities), to comply with this
requirement.
We will be submitting a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of
the information collection requirements
described above. These requirements are
not effective until they have been
approved by OMB.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
If you comment on these information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements, please mail copies
directly to the following:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Office of Strategic Operations
and Regulatory Affairs, Regulations
Development Group, Attn: William N.
Parham, III, [CMS–1485–P], Room C4–
26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244–1850; and
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,
Attn: Carolyn Lovett, CMS Desk Officer,
[CMS–1485–P],
carolyn_lovett@omb.eop.gov. Fax (202)
395–6974.
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Introduction
We have examined the impact of this
proposed rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 (September 1993,
Regulatory Planning and Review), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354),
section 1102(b) of the Act, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4), and Executive
Order 13132.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 (as amended
by Executive Order 13258, which
merely assigns responsibility of duties)
directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) must be prepared for major rules
with economically significant effects
($100 million or more in any one year).
We are using the proposed rates, factors
and policies presented in this proposed
rule, including updated proposed wage
index values, and the best available
claims data to estimate proposed
payments for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. Based on the best available data for
259 LTCHs, we estimate that the
proposed change to the SSO policy (as
discussed in section V.A.1. of this
preamble) for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year, in conjunction with the proposed
changes to the area wage adjustment
(discussed in section IV.D.1. of the
preamble of this proposed rule) the
proposed increase in the outlier fixedloss amount (discussed in section
IV.D.3.c. of this preamble) and the
proposed slight increase in the budget
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
neutrality offset to account for the
transition methodology (as discussed in
section IV.D.5. of this preamble), would
result in a decrease in estimated
payments from the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year of approximately $362 million for
the 259 LTCHs. (An estimate of
Medicare program payments for LTCH
services for the next 5 years is shown in
section XIII.B.5. of this proposed rule.)
Because the combined distributional
effects and costs to the Medicare
program are greater than $100 million,
this proposed rule is considered a major
economic rule, as defined in this
section.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
businesses. For purposes of the RFA,
small entities include small businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Most
hospitals and most other providers and
suppliers are small entities, either by
nonprofit status or by having revenues
of $26 million or less in any 1 year. For
purposes of the RFA, all hospitals (and
most other providers and suppliers) are
considered small entities according to
the Small Business Administration’s
latest size standards (for further
information, see the Small Business
Administration’s regulation at 65 FR
69432, November 17, 2000). Because we
lack data on individual hospital
receipts, we cannot determine the
number of small proprietary LTCHs.
Therefore, we assume that all LTCHs are
considered small entities for the
purpose of the analysis that follows.
Medicare fiscal intermediaries are not
considered to be small entities.
Individuals and States are not included
in the definition of a small entity.
Currently, our database of 259 LTCHs
includes the data for 61 non-profit
(voluntary ownership control) LTCHs
and 189 proprietary LTCHs. The
remaining 9 LTCHs are Governmentowned and operated (see Table 23). The
impact of the proposed changes for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year is discussed
below in section XIII.B.4.c. of this
proposed rule. The provisions of this
proposed rule are estimated to result in
approximately an 11 percent decrease in
estimated payments per discharge in the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year on average to
LTCHs (as shown in Table 23). As
discussed in greater detail below in this
section (and as shown in Table 23), the
majority of the approximately 11
percent decrease in estimated payments
in the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year as
compared to the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year is due to the proposed change in
the payment formula for SSO cases
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4727
(discussed in section V.A.1.a. of the
preamble of this proposed rule). We do
not believe that this proposed change
would result in an adverse impact on
affected LTCHs for the reasons
discussed below in this section. We
believe that, if implemented, the
proposed changes to the SSO policy
would accomplish our stated goal of
removing the incentive for LTCHs to
admit patients for whom a long-term
hospital stay is not necessary and
therefore, for whom the LTCH would
not be providing complete treatment.
As we discuss in greater detail in
section V.A.1.a. of the preamble of this
proposed rule, currently about 37
percent of all LTCH cases are short-stay
outliers, most of which were admitted to
the LTCH directly from an acute-care
hospital. Thus, many short-stay cases
may be still in need of acute-level care
at the time of admission to the LTCH,
which may indicate a premature and
inappropriate discharge from the acute
care hospital. As we also discussed in
the preamble above, we believe that the
proposed changes to the SSO policy
would result in a more appropriate
payment for short-stay cases treated at
LTCHs. We believe that by removing the
financial incentive for LTCHs to admit
such a larger percentage of short-stay
cases by paying appropriately for these
cases, LTCHs would change their
admission patterns for these patients.
Specifically, we believe that if the
proposed changes to the SSO are
implemented, most LTCHs would
substantially reduce the number of
short-stay cases that they admit (and
most of those patients would continue
to receive treatment at the acute-care
hospital from which they are typically
discharged from immediately prior to
their LTCH (short-stay) admission).
The estimated 11.1 percent decrease
in LTCH PPS payments for RY 2007 was
determined based on the current LTCH
admission pattern of SSO cases (that is,
currently about 37 percent of all LTCH
cases). Thus, we believe that the
estimated 11.1 percent decrease in
LTCH payments per discharge for RY
2007 would only occur if LTCHs were
to continue to admit the same number
of SSO patients. Since the majority of
the approximately 11 percent decrease
in estimated payments is due to the
proposed change in the SSO policy and
since we anticipate that LTCHs would
no longer admit such a large percentage
of SSO patients if such proposed
changes are implemented, we believe
that the actual decrease in LTCHs’
payments for RY 2007 would be
considerably less than 11 percent.
(Although we expect LTCHs to admit
fewer cases under this proposed change,
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4728
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
we believe that most LTCHs, which are
HwHs, would not experience an
increase in cost per discharge as a result
of unoccupied beds. Rather, we expect
that LTCHs would make a
commensurate reduction in available
beds. LTCHs would lease fewer beds,
and therefore, the LTCHs’ cost per
discharge would not increase
dramatically.)
Furthermore, our Medicare margins
analysis of the most recent LTCH cost
report data, show that LTCH PPS
payments for FY 2003 were 8.8 percent
higher than LTCHs’ Medicare costs, and
preliminary cost report data for FY 2004
reveal an even higher Medicare margin
of 11.7 percent (as discussed in greater
detail in section IV.C.3. of the preamble
to this proposed rule). Since LTCH PPS
payments appear to be more than
adequate to cover the costs of the
efficient delivery of care to patients at
LTCHs, based on this margins analysis,
we believe that even with an estimated
decrease in LTCHs’ payments per
discharge for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year, which may result from, among
other things, the continued treatment of
some short-stay cases and the estimated
slight decrease in payments due to the
proposed changes to the area wage
adjustment (see Table 23 below in this
section) LTCH PPS payments in RY
2007 would still be sufficient to
compensate LTCHs for the costs of the
efficient delivery of LTCH services to
LTCH patients. Thus, we do not expect
that the provisions of this proposed rule
would result in an adverse financial
impact on affected LTCHs nor would
there be an effect on beneficiaries’
access to care.
For the reasons discussed above, we
do not expect an estimated decrease of
11.1 percent to the LTCH PPS Medicare
payment rates to have a significant
adverse effect on the ability of most
LTCHs to provide cost efficient services
to Medicare patients. In addition,
LTCHs provide some services to (and
generate revenue from) patients other
than Medicare beneficiaries. The
revenue to LTCHs from treating those
patients is not affected by this proposed
rule. Accordingly, we certify that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, in accordance
with RFA.
3. Impact on Rural Hospitals
Section 1102(b) of the Act requires us
to prepare a regulatory impact analysis
if a proposed or final rule may have a
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals. This analysis must conform to
the provisions of section 604 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of
the Act, we define a small rural hospital
as a hospital that is located outside of
a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has
fewer than 100 beds. As shown in Table
23, we are estimating an 11.3 percent
decrease in payment per discharge for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year as
compared to the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year based on the data of the 9 rural
hospitals in our database of 259 LTCHs
for which complete data were available.
As discussed above in this section,
the majority of the approximately 11
percent decrease in estimated payments
in the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year as
compared to the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year for rural LTCHs is due to the
proposed change in the payment
formula for SSO cases (discussed in
section V.A.1.a of the preamble of this
proposed rule). We do not believe that
this proposed change would result in an
adverse impact on rural LTCHs because,
under this proposed change, we believe
that LTCHs (including rural LTCHs)
would significantly reduce the number
of short-stay cases that they admit since
such a policy would remove the
financial incentive for LTCHs to treat
short-stay cases by paying appropriately
for them (as we discussed in greater
detail above in section XIII.A.2. of this
proposed rule). Furthermore, we believe
that if the proposed changes to the SSO
policy are implemented, although most
LTCHs (including rural LTCHs) would
admit fewer short-stay cases, most of
those patients would continue to receive
treatment at the acute-care hospital from
which they are typically discharged
from immediately prior to their LTCH
(short-stay) admission, and most LTCHs
(which are HwHs) would not experience
an increase in cost per discharge as a
result of unoccupied beds.
The estimated 11.3 percent decrease
in LTCH PPS payments for RY 2007 for
rural LTCHs was determined based on
the current LTCH admission pattern of
SSO cases (that is, currently about 37
percent of all LTCH cases). Thus, we
believe that the estimated 11.3 percent
decrease in LTCH payments per
discharge for RY 2007 for rural LTCHs
would only occur if rural LTCHs were
to continue to admit the same
percentage of SSO patients. Since the
majority of the approximately 11
percent decrease in estimated payments
for rural LTCHs is due to the proposed
change in the SSO policy and since we
anticipate that LTCHs (including rural
LTCHs) would no longer admit such a
large percentage of SSO patients if such
proposed changes are implemented, we
believe that the actual decrease in rural
LTCHs’ payments for RY 2007 would be
considerably less than 11 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Therefore, we believe that the estimated
11.3 percent decrease in payments per
discharge for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year for rural LTCHs would only occur
if LTCHs maintain the same level of
SSO patients.
Moreover, as also discussed in greater
detail above in section XIII.A.2. of this
proposed rule, based on our Medicare
margins analysis for LTCHs which
shows payments in excess of costs for
FYs 2003 and 2004, we believe that
even with an estimated decrease in
LTCHs’ payments per discharge for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year, LTCH PPS
payments to rural LTCHs would still be
sufficient to compensate LTCHs for the
costs of the efficient delivery of LTCH
services to LTCH patients. (For
additional information on the impact of
the proposed changes on rural LTCHs
presented in this proposed rule, refer to
the discussion of the impact analysis in
section XIII.B.4 of this proposed rule.)
For the reasons discussed in this
section, we do not expect that the
provisions of this proposed rule would
result in an adverse financial impact on
rural LTCHs nor would there be an
effect on beneficiaries’ access to care.
Therefore, we do not expect an
estimated decrease of 11.3 percent to the
LTCH PPS Medicare payment rates for
rural LTCHs to have a significant
adverse effect on the ability of most
LTCHs to provide cost efficient services
to Medicare patients. Accordingly, we
substantiate that the rates and policies
set forth in this proposed rule would not
have an adverse impact on rural
hospitals based on the data of the 9 rural
hospitals in our database of 259 LTCHs
for which data were available.
4. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the UMRA requires
that agencies assess anticipated costs
and benefits before issuing any rule that
may result in expenditures in any one
year by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $120 million or more.
This proposed rule would not mandate
any requirements for State, local, or
tribal governments, nor would it result
in expenditures by the private sector of
$110 million or more in any one year.
5. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it publishes a proposed
rule (and subsequent final rule) that
imposes substantial direct requirement
costs on State and local governments,
preempts State law, or otherwise has
Federalism implications.
We have examined this proposed rule
under the criteria set forth in Executive
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Order 13132 and have determined that
this proposed rule would not have any
significant impact on the rights, roles,
and responsibilities of State, local, or
tribal governments or preempt State
law, based on the 9 State and local
LTCHs in our database of 259 LTCHs for
which data were available.
B. Anticipated Effects of Proposed
Payment Rate Changes
We discuss the impact of the
proposed changes to the payment rates,
factors, and policies presented in this
proposed rule in terms of their fiscal
impact on the Medicare budget and on
LTCHs.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1. Budgetary Impact
Section 123(a)(1) of BBRA requires
that the PPS developed for LTCHs
‘‘maintain budget neutrality.’’ Therefore,
in calculating the FY 2003 standard
Federal rate under § 412.523(d)(2), we
set total estimated payments for FY
2003 under the LTCH PPS so that
aggregate payments under the LTCH
PPS are estimated to equal the amount
that would have been paid if the LTCH
PPS had not been implemented.
However, as discussed in greater detail
in the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR
56033 through 56036), the FY 2003
LTCH PPS standard Federal rate
($34,956.15) was calculated based on all
LTCHs being paid 100 percent of the
standard Federal rate in FY 2003. As
discussed in section IV.D.5. of this
proposed rule, we would apply a
proposed budget neutrality offset to
payments to account for the monetary
effect of the 5-year transition period and
the policy to permit LTCHs to elect to
be paid based on 100 percent of the
proposed standard Federal rate rather
than a blend of proposed Federal
prospective payments and reasonable
cost-based payments during the
transition. The amount of the proposed
offset is equal to 1 minus the ratio of the
estimated payments based on 100
percent of the LTCH PPS Federal rate to
the projected total Medicare program
payments that would be made under the
transition methodology and the option
to elect payment based on 100 percent
of the Federal prospective payment rate.
2. Impact on Providers
The basic methodology for
determining a LTCH PPS payment is set
forth in § 412.515 through § 412.525. In
addition to the basic LTC–DRG payment
(standard Federal rate x LTC–DRG
relative weight), we make adjustments
for differences in area wage levels, costof-living adjustment for Alaska and
Hawaii, and short-stay outliers.
Furthermore, LTCHs may also receive
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
high-cost outlier payments for those
cases that qualify based on the threshold
established each rate year. Section
412.533 provides for a 5-year transition
to payments based on 100 percent of the
Federal prospective payment rate.
During the 5-year transition period,
payments to LTCHs are based on an
increasing percentage of the LTCH PPS
Federal rate and a decreasing percentage
of payment based on reasonable costbased methodology. Section 412.533(c)
provides for a one-time opportunity for
LTCHs to elect payments based on 100
percent of the LTCH PPS Federal rate.
In order to understand the impact of
the proposed changes to the LTCH PPS
discussed in this proposed rule on
different categories of LTCHs for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year, it is necessary
to estimate payments per discharge
under the LTCH PPS rates, factors and
policies established for the RY 2006
LTCH PPS final rule and to estimate
proposed payments per discharge that
would be made under the proposed
LTCH PPS rates, factors and policies for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year (as
discussed in the preamble of this
proposed rule). We also evaluated the
percent change in payments per
discharge of estimated 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year payments to estimated
proposed 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
payments for each category of LTCHs.
Hospital groups were based on
characteristics provided in the Online
Survey Certification and Reporting
(System) (OSCAR) data, FYs 2001
through 2003 cost report data, and
Provider Specific File data. Hospitals
with incomplete characteristics were
grouped into the ‘‘unknown’’ category.
Hospital groups include:
• Location: Large Urban/Other Urban/
Rural
• Participation date
• Ownership control
• Census region
• Bed size
To estimate the impacts among the
various categories of providers during
the LTCH PPS transition period, it is
necessary that reasonable cost-based
methodology payments and prospective
payments contain similar inputs. More
specifically, in the impact analysis
showing the impact reflecting the
applicable transition blend percentages
of prospective payments and reasonable
cost-based methodology payments and
the option to elect payment based on
100 percent of the proposed Federal rate
(see Table 24), we estimated payments
only for those providers for whom we
are able to calculate payments based on
reasonable cost-based methodology. For
example, if we did not have at least 2
years of historical cost data for a LTCH,
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4729
we were unable to determine an update
to the LTCH’s target amount to estimate
payment under reasonable cost-based
methodology.
Using LTCH cases from the FY 2004
MedPAR file and cost data from FYs
1999 through 2003 to estimate payments
under the current reasonable cost-based
principles, we have obtained both casemix and cost data for 259 LTCHs. Thus,
for the impact analyses reflecting the
applicable transition blend percentages
of proposed prospective payments and
reasonable cost-based methodology
payments and the option to elect
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate (see Table 23), we used data
from 259 LTCHs. While currently there
are more than 375 LTCHs, the most
recent growth is predominantly in forprofit LTCHs that provide respiratory
and ventilator-dependent patient care.
We believe that the discharges from the
FY 2004 MedPAR data for the 259
LTCHs in our database provide
sufficient representation in the LTC–
DRGs containing discharges for patients
who received respiratory and ventilatordependent care based on the relatively
large number of LTCH cases in LTC–
DRGs for these diagnoses. However,
using cases from the FY 2004 MedPAR
file we had case-mix data for 337
LTCHs. Cost data to determine current
payments under reasonable cost-based
methodology payments are not needed
to simulate payments based on 100
percent of the proposed Federal rate.
Therefore, for the impact analyses
reflecting fully phased-in prospective
payments (see Table 24), we used data
from 337 LTCHs.
These impacts reflect the estimated
‘‘losses’’ or ‘‘gains’’ among the various
classifications of LTCHs for the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year (July 1, 2005
through June 30, 2006) compared to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year (July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007). Prospective
payments for the 2006 LTCH rate year
were based on the standard Federal rate
of $38,086.04, the outlier fixed-loss
amount of $10,501, and the hospitals’
estimated case-mix based on FY 2004
LTCH claims data. Estimated proposed
prospective payments for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year would be based on
the proposed standard Federal rate of
$38,086.04 (based on the proposed zero
percent update discussed in section
IV.C.3. of this proposed rule), the
proposed outlier fixed-loss amount of
$18,489, and the same FY 2004 LTCH
claims data.
3. Calculation of Prospective Payments
To estimate payments under the
LTCH PPS, we simulated payments on
a case-by-case basis by applying the
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4730
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
proposed payment policy for short-stay
outliers (as described in section V.A.1.
of this proposed rule), the proposed
adjustments for area wage differences
(as described in section IV.D.1. of this
proposed rule), and for the cost-of-living
for Alaska and Hawaii (as described in
section IV.D.2. of this proposed rule).
Additional payments would also be
made for high-cost outlier cases (as
described in section IV.D.3. of this
proposed rule). As noted in section
IV.D.4. of this proposed rule, we are not
proposing to make adjustments for rural
location, geographic reclassification,
indirect medical education costs, or a
disproportionate share of low-income
patients because sufficient new data
have not been generated that would
enable us to conduct a comprehensive
reevaluation of these payment
adjustments. We adjusted for area wage
differences for estimated 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year payments by computing a
weighted average of a LTCH’s applicable
wage index during the period from July
1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 because
some providers may experience a
change in the wage index phase-in
percentage during that period. For cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2004 and before September
30, 2005 (FY 2005), the labor portion of
the Federal rate was adjusted by threefifths of the applicable LTCH PPS wage
index. For cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2005
and before September 30, 2006 (FY
2006), the labor portion of the Federal
rate is adjusted by four-fifths of the
applicable LTCH PPS wage index.
Therefore, during RY 2006, a provider
with a cost reporting period that began
October 1, 2005 would have 3 months
of payments under the three-fifths wage
index value and 9 months of payment
under the four-fifths wage index value.
For this provider, we computed a
blended wage index of 25 percent (3
months/12 months) of the three-fifths
wage index value and 75 percent (9
months/12 months) of the four-fifths
wage index value. The applicable LTCH
PPS wage index values for the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year are shown in Tables
1 and 2 of the Addendum to the RY
2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR 24224
through 24247). We adjusted for area
wage differences for estimated 2006
LTCH PPS rate year payments using the
current LTCH PPS labor-related share of
72.885 percent (70 FR 241852).
Similarly, we adjusted for area wage
differences for estimated proposed 2007
LTCH PPS rate year payments by
computing a weighted average of a
LTCH’s applicable wage index during
the period from July 1, 2006 through
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
June 30, 2007 because some providers
may experience a change in the wage
index phase-in percentage during that
period. For cost reporting periods that
began on or after October 1, 2005 and
on or before September 30, 2006 (FY
2006), the labor portion of the Federal
rate is adjusted by four-fifths of the
applicable LTCH PPS wage index. For
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2006, the labor portion
of the Federal rate is adjusted by the full
(five-fifths) applicable LTCH PPS wage
index. The applicable proposed LTCH
PPS wage index values for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year are shown in Tables
1 and 2 of the Addendum to this
proposed rule. We adjusted for area
wage differences for estimated proposed
2007 LTCH PPS rate year payments
using the proposed LTCH PPS laborrelated share of 75.923 percent (see
section IV.D.1.c. of this proposed rule).
For those providers projected to
receive payment under the transition
blend methodology, we also calculated
payments using the applicable
transition blend percentages. During the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year, based on the
transition blend percentages set forth in
§ 412.533(a), some providers may
experience a change in the transition
blend percentage during the period from
July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. For
example, during the period from July 1,
2005 through June 30, 2006, a provider
with a cost reporting period beginning
on October 1, 2004 (which is paid under
the 40/60 transition blend (40 percent of
payments based on reasonable costbased methodology and 60 percent of
payments under the LTCH PPS)) had 3
months (July 1, 2005 through September
30, 2005) under the 40/60 blend and 9
months (October 1, 2005 through June
30, 2006) of payment under the 20/80transition blend (20 percent of payments
based on reasonable cost-based
methodology and 80 percent of
payments under the LTCH PPS). The
20/80 transition blend will continue
until the provider’s cost reporting
period beginning on October 1, 2006
(FY 2007).
Similarly, during the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year, based on the transition blend
percentages set forth in § 412.533(a),
some of the providers that would be
paid under the transition blend
methodology may experience a change
in the transition blend percentage
during the period from July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007. For example,
during the period from July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007, a provider with
a cost reporting period beginning on
October 1, 2005 (which is paid under
the 20/80 transition blend) would have
3 months (July 1, 2006 through
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
September 30, 2006) under the 20/80
blend and 9 months (October 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007) of payment
based on 100 percent of Federal rate
payments under the LTCH PPS (and
zero percent based on reasonable costbased methodology). The provider will
continue to receive payments based on
100 percent of the LTCH PPS Federal
rate for its cost reporting period
beginning on October 1, 2006 (FY 2007).
In estimating blended transition
payments, we estimated payments based
on the reasonable cost-based
methodology, in accordance with the
requirements at section 1886(b) of the
Act. For those providers who have not
already made the election (as
determined from PSF data) to be paid
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate,
we compared the estimated blended
transition payment to the LTCH’s
estimated payment if it would elect
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate. If we estimated that the
LTCH would be paid more based on 100
percent of the Federal rate, we assumed
that it would elect to bypass the
transition methodology and would
receive payments based on 100 percent
of prospective payment.
We applied the applicable budget
neutrality offset to payments to account
for the effect of the 5-year transition
methodology and election of payment
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
on Medicare program payments
(established in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56034)). In estimating 2006
LTCH PPS rate year payments, we
applied the 0.0 percent (a budget
neutrality factor of 1.0) budget
neutrality offset to payments to account
for the effect of the 5-year transition
methodology and election of payment
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
on Medicare program payments (see the
RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24202)) to each LTCH’s estimated
payments under the LTCH PPS for the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year. Similarly, in
estimating proposed 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year payments, we applied the
proposed 0.1 percent (a budget
neutrality factor of 0.999) budget
neutrality offset to payments to account
for the effect of the 5-year transition
methodology and election of payment
based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
on Medicare program payments (see
section IV.D.5. of this proposed rule) to
each LTCH’s estimated payments under
the LTCH PPS for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year. The impact, based on our
projection using the best available data
for 259 LTCHs that approximately 3
percent of LTCHs would be paid based
on the transition blend methodology
and 97 percent of LTCHs would elect
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
payment based on 100 percent of the
Federal rate is shown in Table 23.
In Table 24, we also show the impact
if all LTCHs would be paid 100 percent
of the Federal rate; that is, as if there
were a mandatory immediate transition
to fully Federal prospective payments
under the LTCH PPS for the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year and the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year. In the impact analysis shown
in Table 24, the respective budget
neutrality adjustments to account for the
5-year transition methodology on
LTCHs’ Medicare program payments for
the 2006 and 2007 LTCH PPS rate years
(0.0 percent and the proposed 0.1
percent, respectively) were not applied
to LTCHs’ estimated payments under
the LTCH PPS.
Tables 23 and 24 illustrate the
estimated aggregate impact of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
payment system among various
classifications of LTCHs.
• The first column, LTCH
Classification, identifies the type of
LTCH.
• The second column lists the
number of LTCHs of each classification
type.
• The third column identifies the
number of long-term care cases.
• The fourth column shows the
estimated payment per discharge for the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year.
• The fifth column shows the
estimated proposed payment per
discharge for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year.
• The sixth column shows the
estimated percent decrease in estimated
payments per discharge from the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year to the 2007 LTCH
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4731
PPS rate year for proposed changes to
the area wage adjustment at § 412.525(c)
(as discussed in section IV.D.1. of the
preamble of this proposed rule).
• The seventh column shows the
estimated percent change in estimated
payments per discharge from the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year to the 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year for proposed changes to
the SSO policy at § 412.529 (as
discussed in section V.A.1.a. of the
preamble of this proposed rule).
• The eighth column shows the
percent decrease in estimated payments
per discharge from the 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year to the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
for all proposed changes (as discussed
in the preamble of this proposed rule.)
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.016
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4732
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4733
EP27JA06.017
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.019
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4734
4735
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.020
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4736
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
4. Results
Based on the most recent available
data (as described previously for 259
LTCHs), we have prepared the following
summary of the impact (as shown above
in Table 23) of the LTCH PPS set forth
in this proposed rule. The impact
analysis in Table 23 shows that
estimated payments per discharge are
expected to decrease approximately 11
percent on average for all LTCHs from
the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year as
compared to the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year as a result of the proposed changes
presented in this proposed rule. As
noted previously, the estimated percent
decrease in payments per discharge
from the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year is largely
attributable to the proposed change in
the payment formula for SSO cases
(discussed in section V.A.1.a. of this
proposed rule). Specifically, under the
proposed changes to the SSO policy for
RY 2007, approximately 96 percent of
LTCH SSO cases (which is
approximately 36 percent of all LTCH
cases) would receive a lower payment
than under the current SSO policy. We
believe this proposed policy is
appropriate given that many of these
short-stay cases most likely do not
belong in a LTCH, which in general are
intended to treat patients with an ALOS
of greater than 25 days. As we discussed
in greater detail in section IV.D.3.c. of
the preamble of this proposed rule),
given the regulatory requirement at
§ 412.525(a) that estimated outlier
payments equal to 8 percent of
estimated total LTCH PPS payments,
this estimated decrease in LTCH PPS
payments for RY 2007 resulting from the
proposed changes to the SSO policy
would require a proposed increase in
the high-cost outlier fixed-loss amount
in order to maintain that estimated
outlier payments at 8 percent of the
reduced estimated total LTCH PPS
payments (resulting from the proposed
changes to the SSO policy). The
proposed increase in the outlier fixedloss amount and the proposed slight
increase in the budget neutrality offset
to account for the transition
methodology (discussed in section
IV.D.5. of this proposed rule) are also
factors contributing to the proposed
decrease in payments per discharge
from the 2006 LTCH PPS rate year to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year. For example,
many LTCHs are expected to receive a
decrease in high-cost outlier payments.
A result of the proposed increase to the
fixed-loss amount from the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year ($10,501) to the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year ($18,489), fewer
cases would qualify as outlier cases
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
(that is, the estimated cost of the case
exceeds the outlier threshold). Since,
many LTCHs would receive fewer
outlier payments, total estimated
payments per discharge would
discharge (as discussed in section
IV.D.3. of this proposed rule).
a. Location
Based on the most recent available
data, the majority of LTCHs are in urban
areas. Approximately 3.5 percent of the
LTCHs are identified as being located in
a rural area, and approximately 2.3
percent of all LTCH cases are treated in
these rural hospitals. Impact analysis in
Table 23 shows that the percent
decrease in estimated payments per
discharge for the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year compared to the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year for rural LTCHs would be
¥11.3 percent, and would be ¥11.1
percent for urban LTCHs (see Table 23).
While rural LTCHS are expected to
experience a lower decrease in
payments due to the proposed changes
in the SSO policy because they treat a
smaller percentage of SSO cases, they
are projected to experience a higher
decrease in payments per discharge as a
result of the proposed changes to the
area wage adjustment (discussed in
section IV.D.1. of the preamble of this
proposed rule). Specifically, rural
LTCHs are expected to experience a
higher decrease in payments per
discharge as a result of the proposed
changes to the area wage adjustment
because the wage index for all rural
LTCHs is less than 1.0, and therefore,
they would experience a decrease in
payments per discharge as a result of the
proposed increase in the labor-related
share and the progression of the 5-year
phase-in of the wage index adjustment.
Large urban LTCHs are projected to
experience a 12.8 percent decrease in
payments per discharge from the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year compared to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year, while other
urban LTCHs are projected to
experience a 11.8 percent decrease in
payments per discharge from the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year compared to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year (see Table 23).
Other urban LTCHs are projected to
experience a higher than average
decrease in payments per discharge
primarily because of the proposed
changes to the area wage adjustment
(discussed in section IV.D.1. of the
preamble of this proposed rule).
Specifically, the majority of other urban
LTCHs (over 80 percent) are located in
urban areas that have a proposed wage
index value of less than 1.0, and
therefore, would experience a higher
than average decrease in payments per
discharge as a result of the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increase in the labor-related share and
the progression of the 5-year phase-in of
the wage index adjustment. In addition,
other urban LTCHs have a slightly
higher percentage of SSO cases and
therefore are projected to experience a
slightly higher than average decrease in
payments per discharge as a result of the
proposed changes to the SSO policy (as
discussed in greater detail above in this
section).
b. Participation Date
LTCHs are grouped by participation
date into three categories: (1) Before
October 1983; (2) between October 1983
and September 1993; and (3) between
October 1993 and September 2002. At
this time, we do not have sufficient cost
report data for any of the LTCHs that
began participating in the Medicare
program after October 2002 (the
implementation of the LTCH PPS), and,
therefore, they are not included in the
impact analysis shown in Table 23.
Based on the most recent available
data, the majority, approximately 71
percent, of the LTCH cases are in
hospitals that began participating
between October 1993 and September
2002, and are projected to experience an
11.3 percent decrease in payments per
discharge from the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year compared to the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year. Approximately 22 percent of
the cases are in LTCHs that began
participating in Medicare between
October 1983 and September 1993, and
those LTCHs are projected to experience
a 10.2 percent decrease in payments per
discharge from the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year compared to the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year (see Table 23). We are
projecting that LTCHs that began
participating in Medicare between
October 1983 and September 1993
would experience a lower than average
decrease in payments for RY 2007
primarily because we are projecting that
these LTCH would experience a slight
increase (0.1 percent) in payments per
discharge due to the proposed changes
to the area wage adjustment.
Specifically, many of the LTCHs that
began participating in Medicare
between October 1983 and September
1993 are located in areas where the
proposed RY 2007 wage index value
would be greater than the RY 2006 wage
index value. In addition, several of these
LTCH are located in areas that have a
proposed wage index value of greater
than 1.0, and therefore, would
experience a slight increase in payments
per discharge as a result of the proposed
increase in the labor-related share and
the progression of the 5-year phase-in of
the wage index adjustment.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
c. Ownership Control
higher than average percentage of SSO
cases.
The majority (approximately 73
percent) of LTCHs are proprietary. We
project that 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
payments per discharge for these
proprietary LTCHs would decrease 10.4
percent in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year (see Table 23). We
are projecting that proprietary LTCHs
would experience a lower than average
decrease in payments in RY 2007 as
compared to RY 2006 primarily due to
our estimate that these LTCHs would
experience a lower than average
decrease in payments due to the
proposed changes to the SSO policy,
since many proprietary LTCHs have a
lower than average percentage of SSO
cases.
LTCHs are grouped into three
categories based on ownership control
type: voluntary; proprietary; and
government.
Based on the most recent available
data, approximately 3.5 percent of
LTCHs are government owned and
operated. We expect that for these
government-owned and operated
LTCHs, 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
payments per discharge would decrease
14.3 percent in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year (see Table 23). We
are projecting that government-run
LTCHs would experience a higher than
average decrease in payment in RY 2007
as compared to RY 2006 primarily due
to the proposed changes to the SSO
policy, since many of these LTCHs have
a higher than average percentage of SSO
cases. Also contributing to the projected
higher than average decrease in
payments in RY 2007 as compared to
RY 2006 for government-run LTCHs is
the effect of the proposed changes to the
area wage adjustment. Specifically, all
but 1 of the 9 government-run LTCHs in
our database are located in areas where
the proposed wage index value for RY
2007 is less than 1.0, and therefore,
would experience a higher than average
decrease in payments per discharge as a
result of the proposed increase in the
labor-related share and the progression
of the 5-year phase-in of the wage index
adjustment.
Similarly, we project that 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year payments per discharge
for voluntary LTCHs would decrease
13.2 percent in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year (see Table 23). We
are projecting that voluntary LTCHs
would experience a higher than average
decrease in payments in RY 2007 as
compared to RY 2006 primarily due to
the proposed changes to the SSO policy,
since approximately two-thirds (40
LTCHs) of the voluntary LTCHs have a
d. Census Region
Payments per discharge for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year are estimated to
decrease for LTCHs located in all
regions in comparison to the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year. As explained in greater
detail above in this section, the
estimated percent decrease in payments
per discharge from the 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year to the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
is largely attributable to the proposed
change in the payment formula for SSO
cases, the proposed changes in the area
wage adjustment, the proposed increase
in outlier fixed-loss amount, and the
proposed slight decrease in the
transition period budget neutrality
offset.
Of the 9 census regions, we project
that the estimated decrease in proposed
2007 LTCH PPS rate year payments per
discharge in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year would have the
largest impact on LTCHs in the New
England region (12.7 percent; see Table
23). LTCHs located in New England are
expected to experience an increase (0.8
percent) in payments due to the
proposed changes in the area wage
adjustment, since all New England
LTCHs are located in areas where the
proposed wage index value for RY 2007
is greater than 1.0, and therefore, would
experience an increase in payments per
discharge as a result of the proposed
increase in the labor-related share and
the progression of the 5-year phase-in of
the wage index adjustment. However,
even with this projected increase in
payments from the proposed changes in
the area wage adjustment, because the
vast majority of New England LTCH
treat a higher than average percentage of
SSO cases, we are projecting that these
LTCHs would experience a higher than
average decrease in payments in RY
2007 as a result of the proposed changes
to the SSO policy.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTCHs that began participating before
October 1983 are projected to
experience a 12.0 percent decrease in
payments per discharge from the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year compared to the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year (see Table 23).
We are projecting that LTCHs that
began participating in Medicare before
October 1983 would experience a higher
than average decrease in payments for
RY 2007 as compared to RY 2006
primarily because many of these LTCHs
have a higher than average percentage of
SSO cases, and therefore, we are
projecting that they would experience a
higher than average decrease in
payments per discharge due to the
proposed changes to the SSO policy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4737
We project that proposed 2007 LTCH
PPS rate year payments per discharge
would decrease the least for LTCHs in
the Pacific region in comparison to the
2006 LTCH PPS rate year (6.3 percent;
see Table 23). We estimate that for
LTCHs located in the Pacific region, the
projected decrease in payments per
discharge for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year compared to the 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year is less than the decreases
projected for other regions, because all
LTCHs in this region are located in areas
where the proposed RY 2007 wage
index value is greater than the RY 2006
wage index value. Furthermore, all of
the LTCHs located in the Pacific region
are located in areas where the proposed
wage index value for RY 2007 is greater
than 1.0, and therefore, would
experience an increase in payments per
discharge as a result of the proposed
increase in the labor-related share and
the progression of the 5-year phase-in of
the wage index adjustment. In addition,
many of the Pacific LTCHs treat a lower
than average percentage of SSO cases,
and therefore, we are projecting that
these LTCHs would experience a lower
than average decrease in average
payments as a result of the proposed
changes to the SSO policy.
e. Bed Size
LTCHs were grouped into six
categories based on bed size: 0–24 beds;
25–49 beds; 50–74 beds; 75–124 beds;
125–199 beds; and 200+ beds.
We are projecting a decrease in 2007
LTCH PPS rate year payments per
discharge in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year for all bed size
categories. Most LTCHs are in bed size
categories where 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year payments per discharge are
projected to decrease by at least 10
percent in comparison to the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year. As discussed in
greater detail above in this section, the
estimated percent decrease in payments
per discharge from the 2006 LTCH PPS
rate year to the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year
is largely attributable to the proposed
change in the payment formula for SSO
cases, the proposed changes in the area
wage adjustment, the proposed increase
in outlier fixed-loss amount, and the
proposed slight increase in the
transition period budget neutrality
offset.
We project that LTCHs with greater
than 200 beds would have the smallest
decrease in estimated 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year payments per discharge in
comparison to the 2006 LTCH PPS rate
year (9.5 percent), followed by LTCHs
with 75–124 beds (10.3 percent). This
lower than average decrease in projected
payments per discharge for LTCHs with
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4738
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
greater than 200 beds and for LTCHs
with 75–124 beds is largely due to the
proposed changes to the area wage
adjustment. Specifically, for LTCHs
with 75–124 beds, the majority of these
LTCHs are located in areas where the
proposed change in the wage index
value from RY 2006 to RY 2007 would
be very small, and therefore we are
projecting that the proposed changes to
the area wage adjustment would have a
negligible impact on these LTCHs’ RY
2007 payments (0.0 percent) rather than
decreasing their RY 2007 payments (as
we estimate would be the impact of
such proposed changes for ‘‘All
Providers’’ as shown in Table 23). For
LTCHs with greater than 200 beds, the
majority of these LTCHs are located in
areas where the proposed RY 2007 wage
index value is greater than the RY 2006
wage index value. In addition, the
majority of LTCHs with greater than 200
beds are located in areas where the
proposed RY 2007 wage index value is
greater than 1.0, and therefore, would
experience an increase in payments per
discharge as a result of the proposed
increase in the labor-related share and
the progression of the 5-year phase-in of
the wage index adjustment.
Payments per discharge for the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year for LTCHs with 0–
24 beds are projected to decrease the
most in comparison to the 2006 LTCH
PPS rate year (13.5 percent; see Table
23), followed by LTCHs with 25–49
beds (11.8 percent; see Table 23). This
higher than average decrease in
projected payments per discharge for
LTCHs with less than 49 beds (that is,
LTCHs in the 0–24 bed size category
and LTCHs in the 25–49 bed size
category) is largely due to the proposed
changes to the area wage adjustment.
Specifically, the majority of LTCHs with
49 beds or less are located in areas
where the proposed RY 2007 wage
index value is less than the RY 2006
wage index value. In addition, the
majority of LTCHs with 49 beds or less
are located in areas where the proposed
RY 2007 wage index is less than 1.0,
and therefore, would experience a
higher than average decrease in
payments per discharge as a result of the
proposed increase in the labor-related
share and the progression of the 5-year
phase-in of the wage index adjustment.
Furthermore, many of LTCHs with 0–24
beds have a higher than average percent
of SSO cases, and therefore, would
experience a higher than average
decrease in payments per discharge as a
result of the proposed changes to the
SSO policy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
5. Effect on the Medicare Program
Based on actuarial projections, we
estimate that Medicare spending (total
estimated Medicare program payments)
for LTCH services over the next 5 years
would be as shown in Table 25:
TABLE 25
Estimated
payments
($ in billions)
LTCH PPS
rate year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
$5.27
5.44
5.64
5.88
6.15
These estimates are based on the most
recent and complete LTCH data
available, including the projection that
97 percent of LTCHs would elect to be
paid based on 100 percent of the 2007
LTCH PPS rate year proposed standard
Federal rate rather than the applicable
transition blend, and an estimated
increase in the number of discharges
from LTCHs. (We note that the 5-year
spending estimates shown in above
Table 25 are significantly higher than
the 5-year spending estimates presented
in the 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24203). This is primarily due to an
adjustment by our Office of the Actuary
(OACT) to account for the significant
increase in the expected number of
LTCH discharges based on the most
recent complete available LTCH
discharge data.) These estimates are also
based on the current estimate of the
increase in the excluded hospital with
capital market basket (currently used
under the LTCH PPS) of 3.6 percent for
the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year, 3.5
percent for the 2008 LTCH PPS rate
year, 3.1 for the 2009 LTCH PPS rate
year, 2.6 percent for the 2010 LTCH PPS
rate year and 3.0 percent for the 2011
LTCH PPS rate year. (We note that,
although we are proposing a zero
percent update to the LTCH PPS Federal
rate for RY 2007 (as discussed in section
IV.C.3. of this proposed rule), OACT
develops its spending projections based
on existing policy and therefore,
changes that have not yet been
implemented are not reflected in the
spending projections shown in Table
25.) We estimate that there would be a
change in Medicare fee-for service
beneficiary enrollment of ¥2.3 percent
in the 2007 LTCH PPS rate year, ¥1.0
percent in the 2008 LTCH PPS rate year,
0.3 percent in 2009 and 2010 LTCH PPS
rate years, and 0.6 percent in the 2011
LTCH PPS rate year, and an estimated
increase in the total number of LTCHs.
(We note that, based on the most recent
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
available data, OACT is projecting a
decrease in Medicare fee-for-service Part
A enrollment, in part, because they are
projecting an increase in Medicare
managed care enrollment as a result of
the implementation of several
provisions of the MMA.)
Consistent with the statutory
requirement for budget neutrality, as we
discussed in the August 30, 2002 final
rule that implemented the LTCH PPS, in
developing the LTCH PPS, we intended
for estimated aggregate payments under
the LTCH PPS in FY 2003 would equal
the estimated aggregate payments that
would have been made if the LTCH PPS
were not implemented. Our
methodology for estimating payments
for purposes of the budget neutrality
calculations uses the best available data
and necessarily reflects assumptions. As
we collect data from LTCHs, we will
monitor payments and evaluate the
ultimate accuracy of the assumptions
used to calculate the budget neutrality
calculations (that is, inflation factors,
intensity of services provided, or
behavioral response to the
implementation of the LTCH PPS). As
discussed in section IV.D.6. of this
proposed rule, we still do not have
sufficient new cost report and claims
data generated under the LTCH PPS to
enable us to conduct a comprehensive
reevaluation of our FY 2003 budget
neutrality calculation at this time.
Section 123 of BBRA and section 307
of BIPA provide the Secretary with
extremely broad authority in developing
the LTCH PPS, including the authority
for appropriate adjustments. In
accordance with this broad authority,
we may discuss in a future proposed
rule a possible one-time prospective
adjustment to the LTCH PPS rates under
§ 412.523(d)(3) to maintain budget
neutrality so that the effect of the
difference between actual payments and
estimated payments for the first year of
LTCH PPS is not perpetuated in the PPS
rates for future years. As discussed in
section IV.D.6. of this proposed rule,
due to the lag time in the availability of
Medicare data upon which this
adjustment would be based, we believe
that it is appropriate to propose a
postponement of the requirement
established in § 412.523(d)(3) from the
existing October 1, 2006 deadline to July
1, 2008.
6. Effect on Medicare Beneficiaries
Under the LTCH PPS, hospitals
receive payment based on the average
resources consumed by patients for each
diagnosis. We do not expect any
changes in the quality of care or access
to services for Medicare beneficiaries
under the LTCH PPS, but we expect that
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
paying prospectively for LTCH services
would enhance the efficiency of the
Medicare program.
C. Revising paragraph (d)(3).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
C. Accounting Statement
§ 412.523 Methodology for calculating the
Federal prospective payment rates.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 26, we have
prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this proposed rule. Table
26 provides our best estimate of the
proposed decrease in Medicare
payments under the LTCH PPS as a
result of the proposed changes
presented in this proposed rule based
on the data for 259 LTCHs in our
database. All expenditures are classified
as transfers to Medicare providers (that
is, LTCHs).
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) For long-term care hospital
prospective payment system rate years
beginning on or after July 1, 2003 and
ending on or before June 30, 2006. The
standard Federal rate for long-term care
hospital prospective payment system
rate years beginning on or after July 1,
2003 and ending on or before June 30,
2006 is the standard Federal rate for the
previous long-term care hospital
prospective payment system rate year,
updated by the increase factor described
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and
adjusted, as appropriate, as described in
TABLE 26.—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: paragraph (d) of this section. For the
CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EX- rate year from July 1, 2003 through June
PENDITURES, FROM THE 2006 LTCH 30, 2004, the updated and adjusted
standard Federal rate is offset by a
PPS RATE YEAR TO THE 2007
budget neutrality factor to account for
[LTCH PPS rate year (in millions)]
updating the FY 2003 standard Federal
rate on July 1 rather than October 1.
Category
Transfers
(iii) For long-term care hospital
Annualized Monetized Negative transfer—
prospective payment system rate year
Transfers.
Estimated decrease July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The
in expenditures:
standard Federal rate for long-term care
$362.
hospital prospective payment system
From Whom To
Federal Government
rate year July 1, 2006 through June 30,
Whom?
To LTCH Medicare
2007 is the standard Federal rate for the
Providers.
previous long-term care hospital
prospective payment system rate year,
In accordance with the provisions of
updated by an update factor of zero
Executive Order 12866, this proposed
percent. The standard Federal rate is
rule was reviewed by the Office of
adjusted, as appropriate, as described in
Management and Budget.
paragraph (d) of this section.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 412
*
*
*
*
*
Administrative practice and
(d) * * *
procedure, Health facilities, Medicare,
(3) One-time prospective adjustment.
Puerto Rico, Reporting and
The Secretary reviews payments under
recordkeeping requirements.
this prospective payment system and
For the reasons set forth in the
may make a one-time prospective
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
adjustment to the long-term care
Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR hospital prospective payment system
chapter IV as set forth below:
rates on or before July 1, 2008, so that
the effect of any significant difference
PART 412—PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT
between actual payments and estimated
SYSTEMS FOR INPATIENT HOSPITAL
payments for the first year of the longSERVICES
term care hospital prospective payment
system is not perpetuated in the
1. The authority citation for part 412
prospective payment rates for future
continues to read as follows:
years.
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
*
*
*
*
*
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
3. Section 412.525 is amended by—
1395hh).
A. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
Subpart O—Prospective Payment
B. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii).
System for Long-Term Care Hospitals
C. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(iii).
D. Adding new paragraph (a)(4)(iv).
2. Section 412.523 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as
B. Adding new paragraph (c)(3)(iii).
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
*
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4739
§ 412.525 Adjustments to the Federal
prospective payment.
(a) * * *
(3) The additional payment equals 80
percent of the difference between the
estimated cost of the patient care
(determined by multiplying the
hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio by
the Medicare allowable covered charge)
and the sum of the adjusted LTCH PPS
Federal prospective payment and the
fixed-loss amount.
(4) * * *
(ii) For discharges occurring on or
after August 8, 2003 and before October
1, 2006, high-cost outlier payments are
subject to the provisions of
§ 412.84(i)(1), (i)(3), and (i)(4) and (m)
for adjustments of cost-to-charge ratios.
(iii) For discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2003 and before October
1, 2006, high-cost outlier payments are
subject to the provisions of § 412.84(i)(2)
for adjustments to cost-to-charge ratios.
(iv) For discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2006, high cost stay
outlier payments are subject to the
following provisions:
(A) CMS may specify an alternative to
the cost-to-charge ratio otherwise
applicable under paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B)
of this section. A hospital may also
request that its fiscal intermediary use a
different (higher or lower) cost-to-charge
ratio based on substantial evidence
presented by the hospital. A request
must be approved by the CMS Regional
Office.
(B) The cost-to-charge ratio applied at
the time a claim is processed is based
on either the most recent settled cost
report or the most recent tentative
settled cost report, whichever is from
the latest cost reporting period.
(C) The fiscal intermediary may use a
Statewide average cost-to-charge ratio,
which CMS establishes annually, if it is
unable to determine an accurate cost-tocharge ratio for a hospital in one of the
following circumstances:
(1) New hospitals that have not yet
submitted their first Medicare cost
report. (For this purpose, a new hospital
is defined as an entity that has not
accepted assignment of an existing
hospital’s provider agreement in
accordance with § 489.18 of this
chapter.)
(2) Hospitals whose cost-to-charge
ratio is in excess of 3 standard
deviations above the corresponding
national geometric mean cost to charge
ratio. CMS establishes and publishes
this mean annually.
(3) Other hospitals for whom data
with which to calculate a cost-to-charge
ratio is not available.
(D) Any reconciliation of outlier
payments is based on the cost-to-charge
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4740
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ratio calculated based on a ratio of costs
to charges computed from the relevant
cost report and charge data determined
at the time the cost report coinciding
with the discharge is settled.
(E) At the time of any reconciliation
under paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(D) of this
section, outlier payments may be
adjusted to account for the time value of
any underpayments or overpayments.
Any adjustment is based upon a widely
available index to be established in
advance by the Secretary, and is applied
from the midpoint of the cost reporting
period to the date of reconciliation.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 412.529 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (c).
B. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 412.529 Special payment provision for
short-stay outliers.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Method for determining the
payment amount. (1) For discharges
from long-term care hospitals described
under § 412.23(e)(2)(i), occurring before
July 1, 2006, the LTCH prospective
payment system adjusted payment
amount for a short-stay outlier case is
the least of the following amounts:
(i) 120 percent of the LTC–DRG
specific per diem amount determined
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
multiplied by the length of stay of the
discharge;
(ii) 120 percent of the cost of the case
determined under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section; or
(iii) The Federal prospective payment
for the LTC–DRG.
(2) For discharges occurring on or
after July 1, 2006, from long-term care
hospitals described under
§ 412.23(e)(2)(i), and for discharges
occurring in cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2006,
from the long-term care hospitals
described under § 412.23(e)(2)(ii), the
LTCH prospective payment system
adjusted payment amount for a shortstay outlier case is the least of the
following amounts:
(i) 120 percent of the LTC–DRG
specific per diem amount determined
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
multiplied by the length of stay of the
discharge;
(ii) 100 percent of the cost of the case
determined under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section;
(iii) The Federal prospective payment
for the LTC–DRG; or
(iv) An amount payable under subpart
O that is comparable to an amount that
is otherwise paid under the hospital
inpatient prospective payment system
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
determined under paragraph (d)(3) of
this section.
(3) The adjusted payment amount for
discharges from long-term care hospitals
described under § 412.23(e)(2)(ii) that
occur on or after October 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2003, is determined
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
Effective for discharges occurring on or
after July 1, 2003, subject to provisions
of paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section, for
long-term care hospitals described
under § 412.23(e)(2)(ii), the adjusted
payment amount for a short-stay outlier
is determined under the formulas set
forth in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) For the first year of the transition
period, as specified at § 412.533(a)(1),
under the formula set forth in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, the percentages
specified for the LTC–DRG specific per
diem amount and the cost of the case
under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)
of this section are substituted with 195
percent.
(ii) For the second year of the
transition period, as specified at
§ 412.533(a)(2), under the formula set
forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
the percentages specified for the LTC–
DRG specific per diem amount and the
cost of the case under paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section are
substituted with 193 percent.
(iii) For the third year of the transition
period, as specified at § 412.533(a)(3),
under the formula set forth in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, the percentages
specified for the LTC–DRG specific per
diem amount and the cost of the case
under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)
of this section are substituted with 165
percent.
(iv) For the fourth year of the
transition period, as specified at
§ 412.533(a)(4), under the formula set
forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
the percentages specified for the LTC–
DRG specific per diem amount and cost
of the case under paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
and (c)(1)(ii) of this section are
substituted with 136 percent.
(v) For discharges occurring in cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2006 (beginning with the
fifth year of the transition period), as
specified at § 412.533(a)(5)), short-stay
outlier payments to long-term care
hospitals described under
§ 412.23(e)(2)(ii) are made in accordance
with the formula set forth in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
(4) Short-stay outlier payments. (i) For
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2002 and before August 8, 2003, no
reconciliations are made to short-stay
outlier payments upon cost report
settlement to account for differences
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
between cost-to-charge ratio and the
actual cost-to-charge ratio of the case.
(ii) For discharges occurring on or
after August 8, 2003 and before October
1, 2006, short-stay outlier payments are
subject to the provisions of
§ 412.84(i)(1), (i)(3), and (i)(4) and (m)
for adjustments of cost-to-charge ratios.
(iii) For discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2003 and before October
1, 2006, short-stay outlier payments are
subject to the provisions of § 412.84(i)(2)
for adjustments to cost-to-charge ratios.
(iv) For discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2006, short-stay outlier
payments are subject to the following
provisions:
(A) CMS may specify an alternative to
the cost-to-charge ratio otherwise
applicable under paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(B)
of this section. A hospital may also
request that its fiscal intermediary use a
different (higher or lower) cost-to-charge
ratio based on substantial evidence
presented by the hospital. This request
must be approved by the CMS Regional
Office.
(B) The cost-to-charge ratio applied at
the time a claim is processed is based
on either the most recent settled cost
report or the most recent tentative
settled cost report, whichever is from
the latest cost reporting period.
(C) The fiscal intermediary may use a
Statewide average cost-to-charge ratio,
which CMS establishes annually, if it is
unable to determine an accurate cost-tocharge ratio for a hospital in one of the
following circumstances:
(1) New hospitals that have not yet
submitted their first Medicare cost
report. (For this purpose, a new hospital
is defined as an entity that has not
accepted assignment of an existing
hospital’s provider agreement in
accordance with § 489.18 of this
chapter.)
(2) Hospitals whose cost-to-charge
ratio is in excess of 3 standard
deviations above the corresponding
national geometric mean. CMS
establishes and publishes this mean
annually.
(3) Other hospitals for whom data
with which to calculate a cost-to-charge
ratio is not available.
(D) Any reconciliation of outlier
payments is based on the cost-to-charge
ratio calculated based on a ratio of costs
to charges computed from the relevant
cost report and charge data determined
at the time the cost report coinciding
with the discharge is settled.
(E) At the time of any reconciliation
under paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(C)(4) of this
section, outlier payments may be
adjusted to account for the time value of
any underpayments or overpayments.
Any adjustment is based upon a widely
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
available index to be established in
advance by the Secretary, and is applied
from the midpoint of the cost reporting
period to the date of reconciliation.
(d) Calculation of costs. (1) CMS
calculates a per diem amount for shortstay outliers for each LTC–DRG by
dividing the product of the standard
Federal payment rate and the LTC–DRG
weight by the geometric mean length of
stay of the specific LTC–DRG.
(2) To determine the cost of a case,
CMS uses the hospital-specific cost-tocharge ratio and the Medicare allowable
charges for the case.
(3) CMS calculates, under Subpart O,
an amount comparable to what would
otherwise be paid under the hospital
Inpatient prospective payment system
based on the sum of the applicable
operating inpatient prospective payment
system standardized amount and capital
inpatient prospective payment system
Federal rate in effect at the time of the
LTCH discharge.
(i) Operating inpatient prospective
payment system standardized amount.
The operating inpatient prospective
payment system standardized amount—
(A) Is adjusted for the applicable
inpatient prospective payment system
DRG weighting factors.
(B) Is adjusted for different area wage
levels based on the geographic
classifications set forth at
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) and the
applicable inpatient prospective
payment system labor-related share,
using the applicable inpatient
prospective payment system wage index
value for non-reclassified inpatient
prospective payment system hospitals.
For LTCHs located in Alaska and
Hawaii, this amount is also adjusted by
the applicable inpatient prospective
payment system cost of living
adjustment factors.
(C) Includes, where applicable,
adjustments for indirect medical
education costs and the costs of serving
a disproportionate share of low-income
patients.
(ii) Capital inpatient prospective
payment system Federal rate. The
capital inpatient prospective payment
system Federal rate—
(A) Is adjusted for the applicable
inpatient prospective payment system
DRG weighting factors.
(B) Is adjusted for the applicable
geographic adjustment factors,
including local cost variation based on
the geographic classifications set forth at
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) and the
applicable full inpatient prospective
payment system wage index value for
non-reclassified inpatient prospective
payment system hospitals and,
applicable large urban location cost of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
living adjustment factors for LTCHs in
Alaska and Hawaii, if applicable.
(C) Includes, where applicable,
adjustments for indirect medical
education costs and the costs of serving
a disproportionate share of low-income
patients.
5. Section 412.531 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C).
B. Redesignating paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) as (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3).
C. Adding new paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 412.531 Special payment provisions
when an interruption of a stay occurs in a
long-term care hospital.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Surgical DRG exception to the 3day or less interruption of stay policy.
(1) The number of days that a
beneficiary spends away from a longterm care hospital during a 3-day or less
interruption of stay under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section during which the
beneficiary receives a procedure
grouped to a surgical DRG under the
inpatient prospective payment system
in an acute care hospital during the
2005 and 2006 LTCH prospective
payment system rate years are not
included in determining the length of
stay of the patient at the long-term care
hospital.
(2) For discharges occurring on or
after July 1 2006, the number of days
that a beneficiary spends away from a
long-term care hospital during a 3-day
or less interruption of stay under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section during
which the beneficiary receives a
procedure grouped to a surgical DRG
under the inpatient prospective
payment system in an acute care
hospital are included in determining the
length of stay of the patient at the longterm care hospital.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) For discharges occurring on or
after July 1, 2006, for a 3-day or less
interruption of stay under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section in which a longterm care hospital discharges a patient
to an acute care hospital and the
patient’s treatment during the
interruption is grouped into a surgical
DRG under the acute care inpatient
hospital prospective payment system,
the services must be provided under
arrangements in accordance with
§ 412.509(c). CMS does not make a
separate payment to the acute care
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4741
hospital for the surgical treatment. The
LTC–DRG payment made to the longterm care hospital is considered
payment in full as specified in
§ 412.521(b).
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 412.534 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (c)(1).
B. Revising paragraph (c)(2).
C. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
D. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
E. Redesignating paragraph (f) as
paragraph (g).
F. Adding new paragraph (f).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 412.534 Special payment provisions for
long-term care hospitals within hospitals
and satellites of long-term care hospitals.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(g) of this section, for any cost reporting
period beginning on or after October 1,
2004 in which the long-term care
hospital or its satellite facility has a
discharged Medicare inpatient
population of whom no more than 25
percent were admitted to the hospital or
its satellite facility from the co-located
hospital, payments are made under the
rules at § 412.500 through § 412.541 in
this subpart with no adjustment under
this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(d), (e), or (g) of this section, for any cost
reporting period beginning on or after
October 1, 2004 in which the long-term
care hospital or satellite facility has a
discharged Medicare inpatient
population of whom more than 25
percent were admitted to the hospital or
satellite facility from the co-located
hospital, payments for the patients who
are admitted from the co-located
hospital and who cause the long-term
care hospital or satellite facility to
exceed the 25 percent threshold for
discharged patients who have been
admitted from the co-located hospital
are the lesser of the amount otherwise
payable under this subpart or the
amount payable under this subpart that
is equivalent, as set forth in paragraph
(f) of this section, to the amount that
would be determined under the rules at
Subpart A, § 412.1(a). Payments for the
remainder of the long-term care
hospital’s or satellite facility’s patients
are made under the rules in this subpart
at § 412.500 through § 412.541 with no
adjustment under this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Subject to paragraph (g) of this
section, in the case of a long-term care
hospital or satellite facility that is
located in a rural area as defined in
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
4742
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C) and is co-located
with another hospital for any cost
reporting period beginning on or after
October 1, 2004 in which the long-term
care hospital or satellite facility has a
discharged Medicare inpatient
population of whom more than 50
percent were admitted to the long-term
care hospital or satellite facility from the
co-located hospital, payments for the
patients who are admitted from the colocated hospital and who cause the
long-term care hospital or satellite
facility to exceed the 50 percent
threshold for discharged patients who
were admitted from the co-located
hospital are the lesser of the amount
otherwise payable under this subpart or
the amount payable under this subpart
that is equivalent, as set forth in
paragraph (f) of this section, to the
amount that were otherwise payable
under subpart A, § 412.1(a). Payments
for the remainder of the long-term care
hospital’s or satellite facility’s patients
are made under the rules in this subpart
at § 412.500 through § 412.541 with no
adjustment under this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Subject to paragraph (g) of this
section, In the case of a long-term care
hospital or satellite facility that is colocated with the only other hospital in
the MSA or with a MSA dominant
hospital as defined in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section, for any cost reporting
period beginning on or after October 1,
2004 in which the long-term care
hospital or satellite facility has a
discharged Medicare inpatient
population of whom more than the
percentage calculated under paragraph
(e)(2) of this section were admitted to
the hospital from the co-located
hospital, payments for the patients who
are admitted from the co-located
hospital and who cause the long-term
care hospital to exceed the applicable
threshold for discharged patients who
have been admitted from the co-located
hospital are the lesser of the amount
otherwise payable under this subpart or
the amount under this subpart that is
equivalent, as set forth in paragraph (f)
of this section, to the amount that
otherwise would be determined under
Subpart A, § 412.1(a). Payments for the
remainder of the long-term care
hospital’s or satellite facility’s patients
are made under the rules in this subpart
with no adjustment under this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Calculation of rates. (1) Calculation
of LTCH prospective payment system
amount. CMS calculates an amount
payable under subpart O equivalent to
an amount that would otherwise be paid
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
under the hospital inpatient prospective
payment system based on the sum of the
applicable operating inpatient
prospective payment system
standardized amount and capital
inpatient prospective payment system
Federal rate in effect at the time of the
LTCH discharge.
(2) Operating inpatient prospective
payment system standardized amount.
The operating inpatient prospective
payment system standardized amount—
(i) Is adjusted for the applicable
inpatient prospective payment system
DRG weighting factors;
(ii) Is adjusted for different area wage
levels based on the geographic
classifications set forth at
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) and the
applicable inpatient prospective
payment system labor-related share,
using the applicable inpatient
prospective payment system wage index
value for non-reclassified inpatient
prospective payment system hospitals.
For LTCHs located in Alaska and
Hawaii, this amount is also adjusted by
the applicable inpatient prospective
payment system cost of living
adjustment factors;
(iii) Includes, where applicable,
adjustments for indirect medical
education costs and the costs of serving
a disproportionate share of low-income
patients.
(3) Capital inpatient prospective
payment system Federal rate. The
capital inpatient prospective payment
system Federal rate —
(i) Is adjusted for the applicable
inpatient prospective payment system
DRG weighting factors;
(ii) Is adjusted by the applicable
geographic adjustment factors,
including local cost variation based on
the applicable geographic classifications
set forth at § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through
(C) and the applicable full inpatient
prospective payment system wage index
value for non-reclassified inpatient
prospective payment system hospitals,
applicable large urban location and cost
of living adjustment factors for LTCHs
for Alaska and Hawaii, if applicable;
(iii) Includes, where applicable,
capital inpatient prospective payment
system adjustments for indirect medical
education costs and the costs of serving
a disproportionate share of low-income
patients.
(4) High cost outlier. An additional
payment for high cost outlier cases is
based on the fixed loss amount paid
under the inpatient prospective
payment system if the estimated
operating and capital costs exceed the
applicable inpatient prospective
payment system outlier threshold.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital
Insurance)
Dated: December 8, 2005.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Approved: January 19, 2006.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
Editorial Note: The following appendix
will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Appendix A—Description of a
Preliminary Model of an Update
Framework under the LTCH PPS
Section 307(b) of BIPA requires that the
Secretary shall examine and may provide for
appropriate adjustments to the LTCH PPS,
including updates. Updates are necessary to
appropriately account for changes in the
prices of goods and services used by a
provider in furnishing care to patients. A
market basket has historically been used
under the Medicare program in setting
update factors for services furnished by
providers. When we established the LTCH
PPS for FY 2003 in the August 30, 2002 final
rule (67 FR 56030), we established under
§ 412.523(c)(3)(ii) that for FYs after FY 2003,
the LTCH PPS Federal rate was to be the
previous year’s Federal rate updated by the
most recent estimate of the LTCH PPS market
basket. When we moved the date of the
annual update of the LTCH PPS from October
1 to July 1, beginning with the RY 2004
LTCH PPS final rule (68 FR 34138), we
revised § 412.523(c)(3)(ii) to specify that for
LTCH PPS rate years beginning on or after
July 1, 2003, the annual update to the
standard Federal rate for the LTCH
prospective payment system will be equal to
the previous rate year’s Federal rate updated
by the most recent estimate of the LTCH PPS
market basket. (Currently, the LTCH PPS
market basket is the FY 1997-based excluded
hospital with capital market basket index (68
FR 34134 through 34137); however, we are
proposing to adopt the FY 2002-based RPL
market basket, as discussed in section IV.B.
of this proposed rule.) As we discuss in
section IV.C.3. of this proposed rule, based
on our analysis of the best available LTCH
case-mix and margins data, we are proposing
to revise § 412.523(c) to specify that for the
2007 LTCH PPS rate year, the standard
Federal rate from the previous year would be
updated by a factor of zero percent. However,
in the future we may propose to develop an
update framework to update payments to
LTCHs that would account for other
appropriate factors that affect the efficient
delivery of services and care provided to
Medicare patients. The update framework
would be proposed in accordance with the
notice and comment rulemaking process.
While we are not implementing a specific
update framework for the LTCH prospective
payment system at this time in this proposed
rule, we are providing a conceptual basis for
developing such an update framework.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
A. Need for an Update Framework
Under the LTCH prospective payment
system, Medicare payments to LTCHs are
based on a predetermined national payment
amount per discharge. Under section 123 of
the BBRA and section 307(b) of the BIPA, the
Secretary has broad discretionary authority to
make appropriate adjustments to the LTCH
payment system, including updates to the
payment rates. Our goal is to develop a
method for analyzing and comparing
expected trends in the underlying cost per
discharge to use in establishing these
updates. However, as stated earlier, until an
appropriate update framework is developed,
future updates may be based on the increase
in the applicable LTCH PPS market basket.
The market basket for the LTCH PPS,
developed by OACT, represents only one
component in the measure of growth in
LTCHs’ costs per discharge. It captures only
the pure price change of inputs (labor,
materials, and capital) used by the hospital
to produce a constant quantity and quality of
care. However, other factors also contribute
to the change in costs per discharge,
including changes in case-mix, intensity, and
productivity.
Previously, under the acute care hospital
IPPS for operating costs (the operating IPPS),
we utilized an update framework to account
for these other factors and to make annual
recommendations to the Congress concerning
the magnitude of the update. We continue to
use a similar framework under the acute care
hospital IPPS for capital costs (the capital
IPPS) to determine the annual update to the
capital PPS Federal rate. We also use a
similar framework under the SNF PPS. Based
on our experience in developing other update
frameworks, we are currently examining
these factors and exploring ways that they
could be measured and incorporated into an
update framework for the LTCH PPS. We are
also examining additional conceptual and
data issues that must be considered when the
framework is constructed and applied.
In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR
56087), we pointed out that it is important
to develop successively more refined models
of an update framework based on our
evaluation of public comments and
recommendations submitted to us on this
issue. We would then further study the
potential adjustments using the best available
data. To actively pursue the development of
an analytical framework that would support
the continued appropriateness and relevance
of the payment rates for services provided to
beneficiaries in LTCHs, in this proposed rule,
we are soliciting comments concerning the
use and feasibility of the conceptual
approach outlined in section B of this
Appendix. Specifically, we are requesting
comments concerning which factors are
appropriate and should be accounted for in
the framework, and suggestions concerning
potential data sources and analysis to
support the model. As with the existing
methodology used under both the capital
EQUATION 1:
4743
IPPS and SNF PPS, the features of a LTCHspecific update framework would need to be
based on sound policy and methodology.
Although we received no comments on the
conceptual basis for a LTCH PPS update
framework presented in the August 30, 2002
final rule, we continue to be interested in
comments concerning the potential
development of an update framework for the
LTCH prospective payment system.
Therefore, in this proposed rule we are again
presenting a conceptual basis for the
framework along with an illustrative LTCH
PPS framework for RY 2007 (shown in
section E of this Appendix).
B. Factors Inherent in LTCH Payments Per
Discharge
In order to understand the factors that
determine LTCH costs per discharge, it is
first necessary to understand the factors that
determine LTCH payments per discharge.
Payments per discharge under the LTCH PPS
are based on the cost and an implicit normal
profit margin to the LTCH in providing an
efficient level of care. We have developed a
methodology to identify a mutually exclusive
and exhaustive set of factors included in
LTCH payments per discharge. The
discussion here details a set of equations to
identify these factors.
In its simplest form, the average payment
per discharge to a LTCH can be separated
into a cost term and a profit term as shown
in Equation 1.
Payments
Costs
Profits
=
+
Discharge Discharge Discharge
This equation can be made multiplicative
by converting profit per discharge into a
profit rate as shown in Equation 2.
Payments Input Prices Productivity
Payments
Costs
=
*
*
*
Discharge Discharge Costs
Productivity Input Prices
EQUATION 3:
The cost per discharge term can be further
separated by accounting for real case-mix.
Under the LTCH PPS, LTC–DRGs are used to
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
the input price and profit margin adjusted for
productivity.
classify patients. Based on accurate DRG
classification data, average real case-mix per
discharge can be incorporated, as shown in
Equation 4.
EQUATION 4:
Real Case Mix Payments Input Prices Productivity
Payments
Costs / Discharge
*
*
*
=
*
Discharge
Productivity Input Prices
Discharge Real Case Mix/Discharge
Costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.025
productivity. As shown in Equation 3, the
term inside the brackets represents the
output price, since an output price reflects
EP27JA06.024
An output price term can be introduced
into the equation by multiplying and
dividing through by input prices and
Payments
Costs
Payments
=
*
Discharge Discharge
Costs
EP27JA06.022 EP27JA06.023
EQUATION 2:
4744
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The term ‘‘real’’ is imperative here because
only true case-mix should be measured, not
case-mix caused by improper coding
behavior. We believe payment should be
based on changes in ‘‘real’’ case mix (that is,
the treatment of more resource intensive and
costly patients) rather than case mix caused
by improper coding behavior or changes in
coding practice (that is, ‘‘apparent’’ case mix
change) because ‘‘apparent’’ case mix
increase does not result in an increase in a
hospital’s cost of treating those patients. By
rearranging the terms in Equation 4, a set of
mutually exclusive and exhaustive factors
such as those shown in Equation 5 can be
identified.
EQUATION 5:
Costs
Real Case Mix
Payments
1
Payments
Discharge
=
*
* Input Prices*
* Productivity *
Real Case Mix
Discharge Input Prices*
Discharge
Productivity
Costs
Discharge
The term in brackets can be analyzed in
two steps. First, excluding the productivity
term results in case-mix adjusted real cost
per discharge, which is input intensity per
discharge. Second, multiplying input
intensity by productivity results in case-mix
adjusted real payment per discharge, or
output intensity per discharge. The rationale
behind this step is explained in detail in
section C.
The result of this exercise is that LTCH
payment per discharge can be determined
from the following factors as shown in
Equation 6.
EQUATION 6:
)
(
Case-Mix-Constant Real Case Mix
t
Real Output Intensity * per Discharge * ( Input Prices ) * ( Profit Margins )
Per Discharge
Payment Per Discharge =
Productivity
Thus, it holds that the change in LTCH
payment per discharge is a function of the
change in these factors as shown in Equation
6. In order to determine an annual update
that most accurately reflects the underlying
cost to the LTCH of efficiently providing
care, the four factors related to cost must be
accounted for when an update framework is
developed. A brief discussion of each factor,
including specific conceptual and data
issues, is provided in section C.
C. Defining Each Factor Inherent in LTCH
Costs Per Discharge
Each cost factor from Equation 6 in section
B is discussed here in detail. Because this is
a basic conceptual discussion, it is likely that
more detailed issues may be relevant that are
not explored here.
1. Input Prices
Input prices are the pure prices of inputs
used by the LTCH in providing services.
When we refer to inputs, we are referring to
costs, which have both a price and a quantity
component. The price is an input price, and
the quantity component reflects real inputs
or real costs. Similarly, when we refer to
outputs, we are referring to payments, which
also have both a price and a quantity
component. The price component is the
transaction output price, and the quantity
component is the real output or real
payment. The real inputs include labor,
capital, and other materials, such as drugs.
By definition, an input price reflects prices
that LTCHs encounter in purchasing these
inputs, whereas an output price reflects the
prices that buyers encounter in purchasing
LTCH services. We currently measure input
prices using the excluded hospital with
capital market basket; however, as discussed
section IV.B. of this proposed rule, we are
proposing to adopt the RPL market basket,
which is based on the operating and capital
costs of IRFs, IPFs and LTCHs. While not
specific to LTCHs, we believe this index
would adequately reflect the input prices
faced by LTCHs.
2. Productivity
Productivity measures the efficiency of the
LTCH in producing outputs. It is the amount
of real outputs, or real payments that can be
produced from a given amount of real inputs
or real costs. For LTCHs, these inputs are in
the form of both labor and capital; thus, they
represent multifactor productivity, as not just
labor productivity is reflected. Equation 7
shows how multifactor productivity can be
measured in terms of available data, such as
payments, costs, and input prices:
Real Payments
Real Costs
(Payments/Output Price)
=
(Costs/Input Price)
Payments Input Price
=
*
Output Price
Costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
Equation 6 shows that productivity is
divided through the equation, offsetting other
factors. The theory behind this offset is that
if an efficient LTCH in a competitive market
can produce more output with the same
amount of inputs, the full increase in input
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
costs does not have to be passed on by the
provider to maintain a normal profit margin.
3. Real Case Mix Per Discharge
Real case mix per discharge is the average
overall mix of care provided by the LTCH, as
measured using the LTC–DRG classification
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.028
Rearranging the terms, this multifactor
productivity equation (Equation 7) was used
as the basis for incorporating an output price
term in Equation 3. This equation is the basis
for understanding the relationship between
input prices, output prices, profit margins,
and productivity.
EP27JA06.026 EP27JA06.027
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
EQUATION 7 : Productivity =
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
system. Over time, a measure of real case mix
will change as care is given in more or less
complex LTC–DRGs. Changes in the level of
care within a LTC–DRG classification group
would not be reflected in a case-mix measure
based on LTC–DRGs, but instead should be
captured in the intensity factor of Equation
6. The important distinction here is the
difference between real and nominal casemix. Under the LTCH prospective payment
system, LTCHs will submit claims using the
LTC–DRG classification system. The casemix reflected by the claims is considered
‘‘nominal’’. However, the reported
classification can reflect the true level of care
provided or improper coding behavior. An
example of improper coding behavior would
be the upcoding, or case-mix ‘‘creep,’’ that
took place when the acute care hospital IPPS
was implemented. (For further details, see
ProPAC’s March 1, 1994 Report and
Recommendations to Congress (pp. 73–74).)
Any change in case-mix that is not associated
with the actual level of care or a true change
in the level of care provided must be
excluded in order to determine real case-mix.
4. Case-Mix Constant Real Output Intensity
Per Discharge
Intensity is the true underlying nature of
the product or service and can take the form
of output or input intensity, or both. In the
case of LTCHs, output intensity per discharge
is associated with real payment per
discharge, while input intensity per
discharge is associated with real cost per
discharge. For example, input intensity
would be associated with a nurse’s hours
when providing treatment, whereas output
intensity would be associated with the type
and number of treatments a nurse provides.
4745
The underlying nature of LTCH services is
determined by factors such as technological
capabilities, increased utilization of inputs
(such as labor or drugs), site of care, and
practice patterns. Because these factors can
be difficult to measure, intensity per
discharge is usually calculated as a residual
after the other factors from Equation 6 were
accounted for.
Accounting for output intensity associated
with an efficient LTCH can be more
accurately analyzed using a LTCH’s costs
rather than its payments. This analysis would
also provide an alternative to developing or
using a transaction output price index.
Equation 8 shows how to use the definition
of an output price as defined earlier to
convert the equation for output intensity per
discharge to reflect costs instead of
payments, as used in Equation 6.
EQUATION 8: Case-Mix-Constant Real Output Intensity per Discharge
s
=
[ Payments / Discharge]
Output Prices*Real Case Mix/Discharge
[ Payments/Discharge]
=
Payments Input Prices
*
* Real Case Mix/Discharge
Productivity
Costs
[ Payments/Discharge] *Costs
=
Input Prices
*Real Case Mix/Discharge
Payments*
Productivity
Payments * [ Costs/Discharge ]
Input Prices
* Real Case Mix/Discharge
Payments *
Productivity
=
=
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
The last equation in Equation 8 is identical
to the term in brackets in Equation 5, casemix constant real input intensity per
discharge multiplied by productivity. Thus,
output intensity per discharge can be defined
in such a way that cost data from the LTCH
are utilized. This equation can be broken
down even further to account for different
types of input intensity per discharge. We
discuss this matter more fully in section D.
D. Applying the Factors That Affect LTCH
Costs Per Discharge in an Update Framework
As discussed earlier, payments per
discharge under the LTCH PPS have been
updated annually since the LTCH PPS was
implemented for cost-reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2002. Under
this proposed rule, the standard Federal rate
from the previous year would be updated by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
[Costs/Discharge]
Input Prices
* Re al Case Mix/Discharge
Pr oductivity
[Costs/Discharge]
Input Prices*Real Case Mix/Discharge
a factor of zero percent based on our analysis
of LTCH margins and case-mix using the best
available data. The development of an update
framework with a sound conceptual basis
provides the capability to understand the
underlying trends in LTCH costs per
discharge for an efficient provider.
Previously we identified factors inherent in
LTCH costs per discharge. Changes in these
factors determine the change in LTCH costs
per discharge and fitting these factors into an
appropriate framework would allow us to
accurately reflect changes in the underlying
costs for efficient LTCHs. The following
explanation accounts for each of these factors
from Equation 6 under the LTCH PPS:
• Change in case-mix constant real output
intensity per discharge would be accounted
for in the update framework, reflecting the
factors that affect not only case-mix constant
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*Productivity
real input intensity per discharge, but also
productivity, which is determined separately.
Factors that can cause changes in case-mix
constant real input intensity per discharge
include, but are not limited to, changes in
site of service, changes in within-LTC–DRG
case-mix, changes in practice patterns,
changes in the use of inputs, and changes in
technology available.
• Changes in nominal case-mix are
automatically included in the payment to the
LTCH. Therefore, the update framework
should include an adjustment to convert
changes in nominal case-mix per discharge to
changes in real case-mix per discharge, if
they are different.
• Change in multifactor productivity
would be accounted for in the update
framework. The availability of historical data
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
EP27JA06.029
=
4746
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
on input prices, payments, and costs are
useful in the analysis of this factor.
• Changes in input prices for labor,
material, and capital would be accounted for
in the update framework using an input price
index, or market basket. To assist in updating
payments for LTCH services, OACT currently
has developed an input price index; this is
currently the excluded hospital with capital
market basket, and we are proposing to use
the RPL market basket as discussed in section
IV.B. of the preamble of this proposed rule.
• In an update framework, a forecast error
adjustment would be included to reflect that
the updates are set prospectively and a
forecast error for a given year should not be
perpetuated in payments for future years. In
the case of the acute care hospital IPPS, this
prospective adjustment is made on a 2-year
lag and only if the error exceeds a defined
threshold (0.25 percentage points).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
E. Illustrative LTCH Prospective Payment
System Update Framework for the 2007
LTCH PPS Rate Year
Table 27 shows an illustrative update
framework for the LTCH PPS for RY 2007.
Some of the factors in the LTCH framework
are computed using Medicare cost report
data, while others are determined based on
policy considerations. This is consistent with
the factors in the capital IPPS and SNF PPS
update frameworks. This design for a LTCH
update framework is for illustrative purposes
only, as much more work needs to be done
to determine the appropriate level of detail
for each factor.
MedPAC supported this for updating
payments and applied a similar framework
when it proposed updates to hospital
payments in its annual Report to Congress
(MedPAC, 2000). The appropriateness of this
framework for updating hospital payments
was also discussed in the article, ‘‘Are PPS
Payments Adequate? Issues for Updating and
Assessing Rates’’ (Health Care Financing
Review, Winter 1992). We believe a similar
framework would be useful for analyzing
updates to LTCH payments.
If we applied this update framework to
determine the LTCH PPS standard Federal
rate for RY 2007, the update factor for RY
2007 would be ¥0.5 percent. This estimate
is based on the best available data at this
time. The estimated update factor is based on
a projected 3.6 percent increase in the
proposed RPL market basket, a 0.0
adjustment for intensity, a ¥0.9 percent
adjustment for productivity, a ¥4.0 percent
adjustment for case-mix, and a forecast error
correction of 0.8 percent. The following is a
description of the policy adjustments that
have been applied under the illustrative
LTCH PPS update framework for RY 2007.
The case-mix index is the measure of the
average DRG weight for cases paid under the
LTCH PPS. Because the DRG weight
determines the prospective payment for each
case, any percentage increase in the case-mix
index corresponds to an equal percentage
increase in hospital payments.
The case-mix index can change for any of
several reasons:
• The average resource use of Medicare
patients changes (‘‘real’’ case-mix change);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
• Changes in hospital coding of patient
records result in higher weight DRG
assignments (‘‘apparent’’ case-mix index).
We define real case-mix change as actual
changes in the mix (and resource
requirements) of Medicare patients as
opposed to changes in coding behavior that
result in assignment of cases to higher
weighted DRGs but do not reflect higher
resource requirements.
As discussed in section IV.C.3. of the
preamble of this proposed rule, for RY 2007,
we are estimating a 6.75 percent nominal
increase in the case-mix index. We estimate
that the real case-mix increase would equal
2.75 percent in RY 2007. The net adjustment
for change in case-mix is the difference
between the projected increase in real casemix and the projected nominal increase in
real case-mix. Therefore, the estimated
adjustment for case-mix change would be
¥4.0 percentage points (2.75 percent minus
6.75 percent).
The framework also contains an
adjustment for forecast error. The market
basket forecast is based on historical trends
and relationships ascertainable at the time
the update factor is established for the
upcoming year. In any given year, there may
be unanticipated price fluctuations that may
result in differences between the actual
increases in prices and the forecast used in
calculating the update factors. There is a 2year lag between the forecast and the
measurement of the forecast error. A forecast
error of 0.8 percentage points was calculated
for the RY 2005 update. That is, current
historical data indicate that the forecasted RY
2005 market basket (3.1 percent) understated
the actual realized price increases (3.9
percent) by 0.8 percentage points. Therefore,
a 0.8 percent adjustment would be
appropriate to account for the forecast error
under the illustrative LTCH PPS update
framework for RY 2007.
Under this framework, we also make an
adjustment for productivity, an efficiency
measure. Productivity measures the ability of
hospitals to reduce the quantity of inputs
required to produce a unit of service while
maintaining quality. MedPAC has
recommended a productivity target based on
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ estimate of the
10-year moving national average rate of
productivity growth. The productivity target
currently equals 0.9 percent. This target is
lower than the productivity estimate
calculated using the latest available LTCH
cost report data. Therefore, under the
illustrative LTCH PPS update framework for
RY 2007, we would recommend a 0.9 percent
adjustment for productivity.
We also make an adjustment for changes in
intensity. The intensity factor reflects how
hospital services are utilized to produce the
final product, that is, the discharge. This
component accounts for changes in these
types of factors, such as the use of qualityenhancing services, for changes in withinDRG severity, and for expected modification
of practice patterns to remove non-cost
effective services. Based on the latest
available LTCH data, we calculated a
negative intensity factor. As we have done in
the past under the IPPS, when we have found
that case-mix consistent intensity is
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
declining, we believe that it would be
appropriate to apply a zero intensity
adjustment under the illustrative LTCH PPS
update framework for RY 2007 (August 1,
2000, 65 FR 47119).
Table 27 illustrates what a possible LTCH
PPS update framework would be if we
proposed to determine the annual update to
the LTCH PPS Federal rate based on a
framework model such as this for RY 2007.
This conceptual model of a LTCH PPS
update framework is for illustrative purposes
only. As we discuss in greater detail in
section IV.C.3. of the preamble of this
proposed rule, we are proposing a 0 percent
update to the LTCH PPS standard Federal
rate for RY 2007.
TABLE 27.—ILLUSTRATIVE LTCH PPS
UPDATE FRAMEWORK FOR RY 2007
Factors
Price (+):
Proposed RPL Market Basket ......................................
Forecast Error .......................
Productivity (¥) ........................
Output Intensity (+) ...................
Input Intensity
Productivity ............................
Case-mix Creep Adjustment (+)
Nominal Case-Mix .................
Real Case-Mix ......................
Other factors (+) .......................
Total ...................................
Percent
change
3.6
0.8
0.9
0.0
0.9
¥4.0
¥6.75
2.75
0.0
¥0.5
F. Additional Conceptual and Data Issues
Additional conceptual issues specific to
the LTCH PPS include the relevance of a siteof-service substitution adjustment, the
necessity of an adjustment for LTC–DRG
reclassification, the handling of one-time
factors, and consistency with other types of
hospital updates since LTCHs are similar in
structure to these other types of hospitals.
Under the acute care hospital IPPS, a siteof-service substitution factor (captured as
part of intensity) was necessary because of
the incentive to shift care from inpatient
hospital to other settings such as hospital
outpatient departments, SNFs, or HHAs. For
the LTCH PPS, it is not clear without
additional research whether there is an
incentive to shift care either into or out of the
LTCH because of the changes in behavior
created by the different Medicare payment
systems.
A reclassification and recalibration
adjustment under the acute care hospital
IPPS is necessary to account for changes in
the case-mix or the types of patients treated
by hospitals resulting from the annual
reclassification and recalibration of the
DRGs. This adjustment for case-mix is
applied to the current FY update, but reflects
the effect of revisions in the FY that is 2 years
before that fiscal year. Whether a LTC–DRG
reclassification adjustment would be
necessary in the update framework would
depend on the data availability and the
likelihood of revisions to LTC–DRG
classifications on a periodic basis.
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4747
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
There is also a question about how to
handle one-time factors (an example of these
could be the increased costs of converting
computer systems to Year 2000 compliance).
An update framework might be an
appropriate mechanism to account for these
items, but because of uncertainty
surrounding their impact on costs,
determining an appropriate adjustment
amount may be difficult.
LTCHs are heterogeneous and are
designated as a separate payment category
only because their patients have longer
average lengths of stay. This raises the
question of whether certain factors in an
update framework for LTCHs should be
consistent with the factors in an update
framework for other types of hospitals since
they face similar cost pressures. Additional
research in this area would need to be
conducted to determine the reasonableness of
having consistent updates.
The purpose of this conceptual discussion
is not to determine how the identified factors
of the update framework would be measured.
We recognize that there are significant
measurement issues in accurately
determining the factors that would account
for growth in costs per discharge for
efficiently providing care. This is driven, in
part, by the shift from a cost-based payment
system with an upper payment limit to a
PPS. Significant research and data collection
would be necessary to accurately measure
these factors over the historical period. One
example of this would be to measure the
distinction between real and nominal casemix change. However, many of these same
concerns were also encountered and
successfully addressed in the hospital IPPS
update framework.
The discussion here provides the
conceptual basis for developing an update
framework for the LTCH PPS that reflects
changes in the underlying costs of efficiently
providing services. It is important to note
that the framework would not handle
distribution issues such as geographic wage
variations. Due to some variations in
technical methodologies for measuring the
factors of an update framework, and because
of some of the data concerns mentioned
earlier, implementing an update framework
for the LTCH PPS would involve making
significant policy decisions on issues similar
to those made for the hospital IPPS update
framework. We invite comments on the type
of data sources to use, what other factors (if
any) we should consider in an update
framework, and any additional comments
concerning the issues discussed in this
proposed rule regarding the update
framework.
The following addendum will not appear
in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Addendum
This addendum contains the tables referred
to throughout the preamble to this proposed
rule. The tables presented below are as
follows:
Table 1: Proposed Long-Term Care
Hospital Wage Index for Urban Areas for
Discharges Occurring from July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007.
Table 2: Proposed Long-Term Care
Hospital Wage Index for Rural Areas for
Discharges Occurring from July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007.
Table 3: FY 2006 LTC-DRG Relative
Weights and Geometric Mean Length of Stay
for Discharges Occurring from October 1,
2005 through September 30, 2006. (Note:
This is the same information provided in
Table 11 of the FY 2006 IPPS final rule
(August 12, 2005; 70 FR 47681 through
47690), which has been reprinted here for
convenience.)
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
10180 .......
Abilene, TX.
Callahan County, TX.
Jones County, TX.
Taylor County, TX ..................................................................................................................................
´
Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, PR.
Aguada Municipio, PR.
Aguadilla Municipio, PR.
A±asco Municipio, PR.
Isabela Municipio, PR.
Lares Municipio, PR.
Moca Municipio, PR.
´
Rinon Municipio, PR.
´
San Sebastian Municipio, PR ................................................................................................................
Akron, OH.
Portage County, OH.
Summit County, OH ...............................................................................................................................
Albany, GA.
Baker County, GA.
Dougherty County, GA.
Lee County, GA.
Terrell County, GA.
Worth County, GA .................................................................................................................................
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY.
Albany County, NY.
Rensselaer County, NY.
Saratoga County, NY.
Schenectady County, NY.
Schoharie County, NY ...........................................................................................................................
Albuquerque, NM.
Bernalillo County, NM.
Sandoval County, NM.
Torrance County, NM.
Valencia County, NM .............................................................................................................................
Alexandria, LA.
Grant Parish, LA.
Rapides Parish, LA ................................................................................................................................
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ.
Warren County, NJ.
Carbon County, PA.
10380 .......
10420 .......
10500 .......
10580 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
10740 .......
10780 .......
10900 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.8738
0.8317
0.7896
0.6843
0.5790
0.4738
0.9389
0.9186
0.8982
0.9177
0.8902
0.8628
0.9153
0.8871
0.8589
0.9810
0.9747
0.9684
0.8820
0.8426
0.8033
4748
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
11020 .......
11100 .......
11180 .......
11260 .......
11300 .......
11340 .......
11460 .......
11500 .......
11540 .......
11700 .......
12020 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
12060 .......
12100 .......
12220 .......
12260 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Lehigh County, PA.
Northampton County, PA .......................................................................................................................
Altoona, PA.
Blair County, PA ....................................................................................................................................
Amarillo, TX.
Armstrong County, TX.
Carson County, TX.
Potter County, TX.
Randall County, TX ...............................................................................................................................
Ames, IA.
Story County, IA ....................................................................................................................................
Anchorage, AK.
Anchorage Municipality, AK.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, AK ..........................................................................................................
Anderson, IN.
Madison County, IN ...............................................................................................................................
Anderson, SC.
Anderson County, SC ............................................................................................................................
Ann Arbor, MI.
Washtenaw County, MI .........................................................................................................................
Anniston-Oxford, AL.
Calhoun County, AL ..............................................................................................................................
Appleton, WI.
Calumet County, WI.
Outagamie County, WI ..........................................................................................................................
Asheville, NC.
Buncombe County, NC.
Haywood County, NC.
Henderson County, NC.
Madison County, NC .............................................................................................................................
Athens-Clarke County, GA.
Clarke County, GA.
Madison County, GA.
Oconee County, GA.
Oglethorpe County, GA .........................................................................................................................
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA.
Barrow County, GA.
Bartow County, GA.
Butts County, GA.
Carroll County, GA.
Cherokee County, GA.
Clayton County, GA.
Cobb County, GA.
Coweta County, GA.
Dawson County, GA.
DeKalb County, GA.
Douglas County, GA.
Fayette County, GA.
Forsyth County, GA.
Fulton County, GA.
Gwinnett County, GA.
Haralson County, GA.
Heard County, GA.
Henry County, GA.
Jasper County, GA.
Lamar County, GA.
Meriwether County, GA.
Newton County, GA.
Paulding County, GA.
Pickens County, GA.
Pike County, GA.
Rockdale County, GA.
Spalding County, GA.
Walton County, GA ................................................................................................................................
Atlantic City, NJ.
Atlantic County, NJ ................................................................................................................................
Auburn-Opelika, AL.
Lee County, AL ......................................................................................................................................
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9891
0.9854
0.9818
0.9366
0.9155
0.8944
0.9494
0.9325
0.9156
0.9722
0.9629
0.9536
1.1137
1.1516
1.1895
0.9152
0.8869
0.8586
0.9398
0.9198
0.8997
1.0515
1.0687
1.0859
0.8609
0.8146
0.7682
0.9573
0.9430
0.9288
0.9571
0.9428
0.9285
0.9913
0.9884
0.9855
0.9876
0.9834
0.9793
1.0969
1.1292
1.1615
0.8860
0.8480
0.8100
4749
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
12420 .......
12540 .......
12580 .......
12620 .......
12700 .......
12940 .......
12980 .......
13020 .......
13140 .......
13380 .......
13460 .......
13644 .......
13740 .......
13780 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
13820 .......
13900 .......
13980 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Burke County, GA.
Columbia County, GA.
McDuffie County, GA.
Richmond County, GA.
Aiken County, SC.
Edgefield County, SC ............................................................................................................................
Austin-Round Rock, TX.
Bastrop County, TX.
Caldwell County, TX.
Hays County, TX.
Travis County, TX.
Williamson County, TX ..........................................................................................................................
Bakersfield, CA.
Kern County, CA ....................................................................................................................................
Baltimore-Towson, MD.
Anne Arundel County, MD.
Baltimore County, MD.
Carroll County, MD.
Harford County, MD.
Howard County, MD.
Queen Anne’s County, MD.
Baltimore City, MD .................................................................................................................................
Bangor, ME.
Penobscot County, ME ..........................................................................................................................
Barnstable Town, MA.
Barnstable County, MA ..........................................................................................................................
Baton Rouge, LA.
Ascension Parish, LA.
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA.
East Feliciana Parish, LA.
Iberville Parish, LA.
Livingston Parish, LA.
Pointe Coupee Parish, LA.
St. Helena Parish, LA.
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA.
West Feliciana Parish, LA .....................................................................................................................
Battle Creek, MI.
Calhoun County, MI ...............................................................................................................................
Bay City, MI.
Bay County, MI ......................................................................................................................................
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX.
Hardin County, TX.
Jefferson County, TX.
Orange County, TX ................................................................................................................................
Bellingham, WA.
Whatcom County, WA ...........................................................................................................................
Bend, OR.
Deschutes County, OR ..........................................................................................................................
Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD.
Frederick County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD .......................................................................................................................
Billings, MT.
Carbon County, MT.
Yellowstone County, MT ........................................................................................................................
Binghamton, NY.
Broome County, NY.
Tioga County, NY ..................................................................................................................................
Birmingham-Hoover, AL.
Bibb County, AL.
Blount County, AL.
Chilton County, AL.
Jefferson County, AL.
St. Clair County, AL.
Shelby County, AL.
Walker County, AL .................................................................................................................................
Bismarck, ND.
Burleigh County, ND.
Morton County, ND ................................................................................................................................
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9849
0.9798
0.9748
0.9662
0.9550
0.9437
1.0282
1.0376
1.0470
0.9938
0.9918
0.9897
0.9996
0.9994
0.9993
1.1560
1.2080
1.2600
0.9156
0.8874
0.8593
0.9705
0.9606
0.9508
0.9606
0.9474
0.9343
0.9047
0.8730
0.8412
1.1039
1.1385
1.1731
1.0472
1.0629
1.0786
1.0890
1.1186
1.1483
0.9300
0.9067
0.8834
0.9137
0.8850
0.8562
0.9375
0.9167
0.8959
0.8544
0.8059
0.7574
4750
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
14020 .......
14060 .......
14260 .......
14484 .......
14500 .......
14540 .......
14740 .......
14860 .......
15180 .......
15260 .......
15380 .......
15500 .......
15540 .......
15764 .......
15804 .......
15940 .......
15980 .......
16180 .......
16220 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
16300 .......
16580 .......
16620 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Giles County, VA.
Montgomery County, VA.
Pulaski County, VA.
Radford City, VA ....................................................................................................................................
Bloomington, IN.
Greene County, IN.
Monroe County, IN.
Owen County, IN ...................................................................................................................................
Bloomington-Normal, IL.
McLean County, IL ................................................................................................................................
Boise City-Nampa, ID.
Ada County, ID.
Boise County, ID.
Canyon County, ID.
Gem County, ID.
Owyhee County, ID ...............................................................................................................................
Boston-Quincy, MA.
Norfolk County, MA.
Plymouth County, MA.
Suffolk County, MA ................................................................................................................................
Boulder, CO.
Boulder County, CO ..............................................................................................................................
Bowling Green, KY.
Edmonson County, KY.
Warren County, KY ................................................................................................................................
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA.
Kitsap County, WA ................................................................................................................................
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT.
Fairfield County, CT ...............................................................................................................................
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX.
Cameron County, TX .............................................................................................................................
Brunswick, GA.
Brantley County, GA.
Glynn County, GA.
McIntosh County, GA ............................................................................................................................
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY.
Erie County, NY.
Niagara County, NY ...............................................................................................................................
Burlington, NC.
Alamance County, NC ...........................................................................................................................
Burlington-South Burlington, VT.
Chittenden County, VT.
Franklin County, VT.
Grand Isle County, VT ...........................................................................................................................
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA.
Middlesex County, MA ...........................................................................................................................
Camden, NJ.
Burlington County, NJ.
Camden County, NJ.
Gloucester County, NJ ..........................................................................................................................
Canton-Massillon, OH.
Carroll County, OH.
Stark County, OH ..................................................................................................................................
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL.
Lee County, FL ......................................................................................................................................
Carson City, NV.
Carson City, NV .....................................................................................................................................
Casper, WY.
Natrona County, WY ..............................................................................................................................
Cedar Rapids, IA.
Benton County, IA.
Jones County, IA.
Linn County, IA ......................................................................................................................................
Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Champaign County, IL.
Ford County, IL.
Piatt County, IL ......................................................................................................................................
Charleston, WV.
Boone County, WV.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.8772
0.8363
0.7954
0.9068
0.8758
0.8447
0.9445
0.9260
0.9075
0.9431
0.9242
0.9052
1.0935
1.1246
1.1558
0.9840
0.9787
0.9734
0.8927
0.8569
0.8211
1.0405
1.0540
1.0675
1.1555
1.2074
1.2592
0.9882
0.9843
0.9804
0.9587
0.9449
0.9311
0.9707
0.9609
0.9511
0.9343
0.9124
0.8905
0.9646
0.9528
0.9410
1.0703
1.0938
1.1172
1.0310
1.0414
1.0517
0.9361
0.9148
0.8935
0.9614
0.9485
0.9356
1.0140
1.0187
1.0234
0.9416
0.9221
0.9026
0.9295
0.9060
0.8825
0.9756
0.9675
0.9594
4751
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
16700 .......
16740 .......
16820 .......
16860 .......
16940 .......
16974 .......
17020 .......
17140 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
17300 .......
17420 .......
17460 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Clay County, WV.
Kanawha County, WV.
Lincoln County, WV.
Putnam County, WV ..............................................................................................................................
Charleston-North Charleston, SC.
Berkeley County, SC.
Charleston County, SC.
Dorchester County, SC ..........................................................................................................................
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC.
Anson County, NC.
Cabarrus County, NC.
Gaston County, NC.
Mecklenburg County, NC.
Union County, NC.
York County, SC ....................................................................................................................................
Charlottesville, VA.
Albemarle County, VA.
Fluvanna County, VA.
Greene County, VA.
Nelson County, VA.
Charlottesville City, VA ..........................................................................................................................
Chattanooga, TN-GA.
Catoosa County, GA.
Dade County, GA.
Walker County, GA.
Hamilton County, TN.
Marion County, TN.
Sequatchie County, TN .........................................................................................................................
Cheyenne, WY.
Laramie County, WY .............................................................................................................................
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL.
Cook County, IL.
DeKalb County, IL.
DuPage County, IL.
Grundy County, IL.
Kane County, IL.
Kendall County, IL.
McHenry County, IL.
Will County, IL .......................................................................................................................................
Chico, CA.
Butte County, CA ...................................................................................................................................
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN.
Dearborn County, IN.
Franklin County, IN.
Ohio County, IN.
Boone County, KY.
Bracken County, KY.
Campbell County, KY.
Gallatin County, KY.
Grant County, KY.
Kenton County, KY.
Pendleton County, KY.
Brown County, OH.
Butler County, OH.
Clermont County, OH.
Hamilton County, OH.
Warren County, OH ...............................................................................................................................
Clarksville, TN-KY.
Christian County, KY.
Trigg County, KY.
Montgomery County, TN.
Stewart County, TN ...............................................................................................................................
Cleveland, TN.
Bradley County, TN.
Polk County, TN ....................................................................................................................................
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH.
Cuyahoga County, OH.
Geauga County, OH.
Lake County, OH.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9067
0.8756
0.8445
0.9547
0.9396
0.9245
0.9850
0.9800
0.9750
1.0112
1.0150
1.0187
0.9453
0.9270
0.9088
0.9265
0.9020
0.8775
1.0474
1.0632
1.0790
1.0307
1.0409
1.0511
0.9769
0.9692
0.9615
0.8970
0.8627
0.8284
0.8883
0.8511
0.8139
4752
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
17660 .......
17780 .......
17820 .......
17860 .......
17900 .......
17980 .......
18020 .......
18140 .......
18580 .......
18700 .......
19060 .......
19124 .......
19140 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
19180 .......
19260 .......
19340 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Lorain County, OH.
Medina County, OH ...............................................................................................................................
Coeur d’Alene, ID.
Kootenai County, ID ..............................................................................................................................
College Station-Bryan, TX.
Brazos County, TX.
Burleson County, TX.
Robertson County, TX ...........................................................................................................................
Colorado Springs, CO.
El Paso County, CO.
Teller County, CO ..................................................................................................................................
Columbia, MO.
Boone County, MO.
Howard County, MO ..............................................................................................................................
Columbia, SC.
Calhoun County, SC.
Fairfield County, SC.
Kershaw County, SC.
Lexington County, SC.
Richland County, SC.
Saluda County, SC ................................................................................................................................
Columbus, GA-AL.
Russell County, AL.
Chattahoochee County, GA.
Harris County, GA.
Marion County, GA.
Muscogee County, GA ..........................................................................................................................
Columbus, IN.
Bartholomew County, IN ........................................................................................................................
Columbus, OH.
Delaware County, OH.
Fairfield County, OH.
Franklin County, OH.
Licking County, OH.
Madison County, OH.
Morrow County, OH.
Pickaway County, OH.
Union County, OH .................................................................................................................................
Corpus Christi, TX.
Aransas County, TX.
Nueces County, TX.
San Patricio County, TX ........................................................................................................................
Corvallis, OR.
Benton County, OR ...............................................................................................................................
Cumberland, MD-WV.
Allegany County, MD.
Mineral County, WV ...............................................................................................................................
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX.
Collin County, TX.
Dallas County, TX.
Delta County, TX.
Denton County, TX.
Ellis County, TX.
Hunt County, TX.
Kaufman County, TX.
Rockwall County, TX .............................................................................................................................
Dalton, GA.
Murray County, GA.
Whitfield County, GA .............................................................................................................................
Danville, IL.
Vermilion County, IL ..............................................................................................................................
Danville, VA.
Pittsylvania County, VA.
Danville City, VA ....................................................................................................................................
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL.
Henry County, IL.
Mercer County, IL.
Rock Island County, IL.
Scott County, IA .....................................................................................................................................
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9528
0.9370
0.9213
0.9788
0.9718
0.9647
0.9340
0.9120
0.8900
0.9681
0.9574
0.9468
0.9007
0.8676
0.8345
0.9434
0.9246
0.9057
0.9136
0.8848
0.8560
0.9753
0.9670
0.9588
0.9916
0.9888
0.9860
0.9130
0.8840
0.8550
1.0437
1.0583
1.0729
0.9590
0.9454
0.9317
1.0137
1.0182
1.0228
0.9447
0.9263
0.9079
0.9417
0.9222
0.9028
0.9093
0.8791
0.8489
0.9234
0.8979
0.8724
4753
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
19380 .......
Dayton, OH.
Greene County, OH.
Miami County, OH.
Montgomery County, OH.
Preble County, OH ................................................................................................................................
Decatur, AL.
Lawrence County, AL.
Morgan County, AL ................................................................................................................................
Decatur, IL.
Macon County, IL ..................................................................................................................................
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL.
Volusia County, FL ................................................................................................................................
Denver-Aurora, CO.
Adams County, CO.
Arapahoe County, CO.
Broomfield County, CO.
Clear Creek County, CO.
Denver County, CO.
Douglas County, CO.
Elbert County, CO.
Gilpin County, CO.
Jefferson County, CO.
Park County, CO ...................................................................................................................................
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA.
Dallas County, IA.
Guthrie County, IA.
Madison County, IA.
Polk County, IA.
Warren County, IA .................................................................................................................................
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI.
Wayne County, MI .................................................................................................................................
Dothan, AL.
Geneva County, AL.
Henry County, AL.
Houston County, AL ..............................................................................................................................
Dover, DE.
Kent County, DE ....................................................................................................................................
Dubuque, IA.
Dubuque County, IA ..............................................................................................................................
Duluth, MN-WI.
Carlton County, MN.
St. Louis County, MN.
Douglas County, WI ...............................................................................................................................
Durham, NC.
Chatham County, NC.
Durham County, NC.
Orange County, NC.
Person County, NC ................................................................................................................................
Eau Claire, WI.
Chippewa County, WI.
Eau Claire County, WI ...........................................................................................................................
Edison, NJ.
Middlesex County, NJ.
Monmouth County, NJ.
Ocean County, NJ.
Somerset County, NJ ............................................................................................................................
El Centro, CA.
Imperial County, CA ..............................................................................................................................
Elizabethtown, KY.
Hardin County, KY.
Larue County, KY ..................................................................................................................................
Elkhart-Goshen, IN.
Elkhart County, IN .................................................................................................................................
Elmira, NY.
Chemung County, NY ............................................................................................................................
El Paso, TX.
El Paso County, TX ...............................................................................................................................
Erie, PA.
Erie County, PA .....................................................................................................................................
19460 .......
19500 .......
19660 .......
19740 .......
19780 .......
19804 .......
20020 .......
20100 .......
20220 .......
20260 .......
20500 .......
20740 .......
20764 .......
20940 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
21060 .......
21140 .......
21300 .......
21340 .......
21500 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9438
0.9251
0.9064
0.9081
0.8775
0.8469
0.8840
0.8454
0.8067
0.9579
0.9439
0.9299
1.0434
1.0578
1.0723
0.9801
0.9735
0.9669
1.0254
1.0339
1.0424
0.8633
0.8177
0.7721
0.9866
0.9821
0.9776
0.9414
0.9219
0.9024
1.0128
1.0170
1.0213
1.0146
1.0195
1.0244
0.9521
0.9361
0.9201
1.0749
1.0999
1.1249
0.9344
0.9125
0.8906
0.9281
0.9042
0.8802
0.9776
0.9702
0.9627
0.8950
0.8600
0.8250
0.9386
0.9182
0.8977
0.9242
0.8990
0.8737
4754
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
21604 .......
Essex County, MA.
Essex County, MA .................................................................................................................................
Eugene-Springfield, OR.
Lane County, OR ...................................................................................................................................
Evansville, IN-KY.
Gibson County, IN.
Posey County, IN.
Vanderburgh County, IN.
Warrick County, IN.
Henderson County, KY.
Webster County, KY ..............................................................................................................................
Fairbanks, AK.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK ........................................................................................................
Fajardo, PR.
Ceiba Municipio, PR.
Fajardo Municipio, PR.
Luquillo Municipio, PR ...........................................................................................................................
Fargo, ND-MN.
Cass County, ND.
Clay County, MN ...................................................................................................................................
Farmington, NM.
San Juan County, NM ...........................................................................................................................
Fayetteville, NC.
Cumberland County, NC.
Hoke County, NC ...................................................................................................................................
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO.
Benton County, AR.
Madison County, AR.
Washington County, AR.
McDonald County, MO ..........................................................................................................................
Flagstaff, AZ.
Coconino County, AZ ............................................................................................................................
Flint, MI.
Genesee County, MI ..............................................................................................................................
Florence, SC.
Darlington County, SC.
Florence County, SC .............................................................................................................................
Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL.
Colbert County, AL.
Lauderdale County, AL ..........................................................................................................................
Fond du Lac, WI.
Fond du Lac County, WI .......................................................................................................................
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO.
Larimer County, CO ...............................................................................................................................
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL.
Broward County, FL ...............................................................................................................................
Fort Smith, AR-OK.
Crawford County, AR.
Franklin County, AR.
Sebastian County, AR.
Le Flore County, OK.
Sequoyah County, OK ...........................................................................................................................
Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL.
Okaloosa County, FL .............................................................................................................................
Fort Wayne, IN.
Allen County, IN.
Wells County, IN.
Whitley County, IN .................................................................................................................................
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX.
Johnson County, TX.
Parker County, TX.
Tarrant County, TX.
Wise County, TX ....................................................................................................................................
Fresno, CA.
Fresno County, CA ................................................................................................................................
Gadsden, AL.
Etowah County, AL ................................................................................................................................
Gainesville, FL.
Alachua County, FL.
21660 .......
21780 .......
21820 .......
21940 .......
22020 .......
22140 .......
22180 .......
22220 .......
22380 .......
22420 .......
22500 .......
22520 .......
22540 .......
22660 .......
22744 .......
22900 .......
23020 .......
23060 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
23104 .......
23420 .......
23460 .......
23540 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
1.0323
1.0430
1.0538
1.0491
1.0654
1.0818
0.9228
0.8970
0.8713
1.0845
1.1126
1.1408
0.6492
0.5322
0.4153
0.9092
0.8789
0.8486
0.9105
0.8807
0.8509
0.9650
0.9533
0.9416
0.9197
0.8929
0.8661
1.1255
1.1674
1.2092
1.0393
1.0524
1.0655
0.9368
0.9158
0.8947
0.8963
0.8618
0.8272
0.9784
0.9712
0.9640
1.0073
1.0098
1.0122
1.0259
1.0346
1.0432
0.8938
0.8584
0.8230
0.9323
0.9098
0.8872
0.9876
0.9834
0.9793
0.9692
0.9589
0.9486
1.0323
1.0430
1.0538
0.8763
0.8350
0.7938
4755
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
23580 .......
23844 .......
24020 .......
24140 .......
24220 .......
24300 .......
24340 .......
24500 .......
24540 .......
24580 .......
24660 .......
24780 .......
24860 .......
25020 .......
25060 .......
25180 .......
25260 .......
25420 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
25500 .......
25540 .......
25620 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Gilchrist County, FL ...............................................................................................................................
Gainesville, GA.
Hall County, GA .....................................................................................................................................
Gary, IN.
Jasper County, IN.
Lake County, IN.
Newton County, IN.
Porter County, IN ...................................................................................................................................
Glens Falls, NY.
Warren County, NY.
Washington County, NY ........................................................................................................................
Goldsboro, NC.
Wayne County, NC ................................................................................................................................
Grand Forks, ND-MN.
Polk County, MN.
Grand Forks County, ND .......................................................................................................................
Grand Junction, CO.
Mesa County, CO ..................................................................................................................................
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI.
Barry County, MI.
Ionia County, MI.
Kent County, MI.
Newaygo County, MI .............................................................................................................................
Great Falls, MT.
Cascade County, MT .............................................................................................................................
Greeley, CO.
Weld County, CO ...................................................................................................................................
Green Bay, WI.
Brown County, WI.
Kewaunee County, WI.
Oconto County, WI ................................................................................................................................
Greensboro-High Point, NC.
Guilford County, NC.
Randolph County, NC.
Rockingham County, NC .......................................................................................................................
Greenville, NC.
Greene County, NC.
Pitt County, NC ......................................................................................................................................
Greenville, SC.
Greenville County, SC.
Laurens County, SC.
Pickens County, SC ...............................................................................................................................
Guayama, PR.
Arroyo Municipio, PR.
Guayama Municipio, PR.
Patillas Municipio, PR ............................................................................................................................
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS.
Hancock County, MS.
Harrison County, MS.
Stone County, MS .................................................................................................................................
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV.
Washington County, MD.
Berkeley County, WV.
Morgan County, WV ..............................................................................................................................
Hanford-Corcoran, CA.
Kings County, CA ..................................................................................................................................
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA.
Cumberland County, PA.
Dauphin County, PA.
Perry County, PA ...................................................................................................................................
Harrisonburg, VA.
Rockingham County, VA.
Harrisonburg City, VA ............................................................................................................................
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT.
Hartford County, CT.
Litchfield County, CT.
Middlesex County, CT.
Tolland County, CT ................................................................................................................................
Hattiesburg, MS.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9633
0.9510
0.9388
0.9324
0.9099
0.8874
0.9637
0.9516
0.9395
0.9135
0.8847
0.8559
0.9265
0.9020
0.8775
0.8741
0.8321
0.7901
0.9730
0.9640
0.9550
0.9634
0.9512
0.9390
0.9431
0.9242
0.9052
0.9742
0.9656
0.9570
0.9690
0.9586
0.9483
0.9462
0.9283
0.9104
0.9655
0.9540
0.9425
1.0016
1.0022
1.0027
0.5909
0.4545
0.3181
0.9357
0.9143
0.8929
0.9693
0.9591
0.9489
1.0022
1.0029
1.0036
0.9588
0.9450
0.9313
0.9453
0.9270
0.9088
1.0644
1.0858
1.1073
4756
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
25860 .......
25980 .......
26100 .......
26180 .......
26300 .......
26380 .......
26420 .......
26580 .......
26620 .......
26820 .......
26900 .......
26980 .......
27060 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
27100 .......
27140 .......
27180 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Forrest County, MS.
Lamar County, MS.
Perry County, MS ..................................................................................................................................
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC.
Alexander County, NC.
Burke County, NC.
Caldwell County, NC.
Catawba County, NC .............................................................................................................................
Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA.
Liberty County, GA.
Long County, GA ...................................................................................................................................
Holland-Grand Haven, MI.
Ottawa County, MI .................................................................................................................................
Honolulu, HI.
Honolulu County, HI ..............................................................................................................................
Hot Springs, AR.
Garland County, AR ..............................................................................................................................
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA.
Lafourche Parish, LA.
Terrebonne Parish, LA ..........................................................................................................................
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX.
Austin County, TX.
Brazoria County, TX.
Chambers County, TX.
Fort Bend County, TX.
Galveston County, TX.
Harris County, TX.
Liberty County, TX.
Montgomery County, TX.
San Jacinto County, TX.
Waller County, TX .................................................................................................................................
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH.
Boyd County, KY.
Greenup County, KY.
Lawrence County, OH.
Cabell County, WV.
Wayne County, WV ...............................................................................................................................
Huntsville, AL.
Limestone County, AL.
Madison County, AL ..............................................................................................................................
Idaho Falls, ID.
Bonneville County, ID.
Jefferson County, ID ..............................................................................................................................
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN.
Boone County, IN.
Brown County, IN.
Hamilton County, IN.
Hancock County, IN.
Hendricks County, IN.
Johnson County, IN.
Marion County, IN.
Morgan County, IN.
Putnam County, IN.
Shelby County, IN ..................................................................................................................................
Iowa City, IA.
Johnson County, IA.
Washington County, IA ..........................................................................................................................
Ithaca, NY.
Tompkins County, NY ............................................................................................................................
Jackson, MI.
Jackson County, MI ...............................................................................................................................
Jackson, MS.
Copiah County, MS.
Hinds County, MS.
Madison County, MS.
Rankin County, MS.
Simpson County, MS .............................................................................................................................
Jackson, TN.
Chester County, TN.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.8561
0.8081
0.7601
0.9353
0.9137
0.8921
0.8597
0.8130
0.7662
0.9433
0.9244
0.9055
1.0728
1.0971
1.1214
0.9403
0.9204
0.9005
0.8736
0.8315
0.7894
0.9998
0.9997
0.9996
0.9686
0.9582
0.9477
0.9488
0.9317
0.9146
0.9652
0.9536
0.9420
0.9952
0.9936
0.9920
0.9848
0.9798
0.9747
0.9876
0.9834
0.9793
0.9582
0.9443
0.9304
0.8987
0.8649
0.8311
4757
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
27260 .......
27340 .......
27500 .......
27620 .......
27740 .......
27780 .......
27860 .......
27900 .......
28020 .......
28100 .......
28140 .......
28420 .......
28660 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
28700 .......
28740 .......
28940 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Madison County, TN ..............................................................................................................................
Jacksonville, FL.
Baker County, FL.
Clay County, FL.
Duval County, FL.
Nassau County, FL.
St. Johns County, FL .............................................................................................................................
Jacksonville, NC.
Onslow County, NC ...............................................................................................................................
Janesville, WI.
Rock County, WI ....................................................................................................................................
Jefferson City, MO.
Callaway County, MO.
Cole County, MO.
Moniteau County, MO.
Osage County, MO ................................................................................................................................
Johnson City, TN.
Carter County, TN.
Unicoi County, TN.
Washington County, TN ........................................................................................................................
Johnstown, PA.
Cambria County, PA ..............................................................................................................................
Jonesboro, AR.
Craighead County, AR.
Poinsett County, AR ..............................................................................................................................
Joplin, MO.
Jasper County, MO.
Newton County, MO ..............................................................................................................................
Kalamazoo-Portage, MI.
Kalamazoo County, MI.
Van Buren County, MI ...........................................................................................................................
Kankakee-Bradley, IL.
Kankakee County, IL .............................................................................................................................
Kansas City, MO-KS.
Franklin County, KS.
Johnson County, KS.
Leavenworth County, KS.
Linn County, KS.
Miami County, KS.
Wyandotte County, KS.
Bates County, MO.
Caldwell County, MO.
Cass County, MO.
Clay County, MO.
Clinton County, MO.
Jackson County, MO.
Lafayette County, MO.
Platte County, MO.
Ray County, MO ....................................................................................................................................
Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA.
Benton County, WA.
Franklin County, WA ..............................................................................................................................
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX.
Bell County, TX.
Coryell County, TX.
Lampasas County, TX ...........................................................................................................................
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA.
Hawkins County, TN.
Sullivan County, TN.
Bristol City, VA.
Scott County, VA.
Washington County, VA ........................................................................................................................
Kingston, NY.
Ulster County, NY ..................................................................................................................................
Knoxville, TN.
Anderson County, TN.
Blount County, TN.
Knox County, TN.
Loudon County, TN.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9378
0.9171
0.8964
0.9574
0.9432
0.9290
0.8942
0.8589
0.8236
0.9723
0.9630
0.9538
0.9032
0.8710
0.8387
0.8762
0.8350
0.7937
0.9012
0.8683
0.8354
0.8747
0.8329
0.7911
0.9149
0.8866
0.8582
1.0229
1.0305
1.0381
1.0433
1.0577
1.0721
0.9686
0.9581
0.9476
1.0371
1.0495
1.0619
0.9116
0.8821
0.8526
0.8832
0.8443
0.8054
0.9553
0.9404
0.9255
4758
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
29020 .......
29100 .......
29140 .......
29180 .......
29340 .......
29404 .......
29460 .......
29540 .......
29620 .......
29700 .......
29740 .......
29820 .......
29940 .......
30020 .......
30140 .......
30300 .......
30340 .......
30460 .......
30620 .......
30700 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
30780 .......
30860 .......
30980 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Union County, TN ..................................................................................................................................
Kokomo, IN.
Howard County, IN.
Tipton County, IN ...................................................................................................................................
La Crosse, WI-MN.
Houston County, MN.
La Crosse County, WI ...........................................................................................................................
Lafayette, IN.
Benton County, IN.
Carroll County, IN.
Tippecanoe County, IN ..........................................................................................................................
Lafayette, LA.
Lafayette Parish, LA.
St. Martin Parish, LA .............................................................................................................................
Lake Charles, LA.
Calcasieu Parish, LA.
Cameron Parish, LA ..............................................................................................................................
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI.
Lake County, IL.
Kenosha County, WI ..............................................................................................................................
Lakeland, FL.
Polk County, FL .....................................................................................................................................
Lancaster, PA.
Lancaster County, PA ............................................................................................................................
Lansing-East Lansing, MI.
Clinton County, MI.
Eaton County, MI.
Ingham County, MI ................................................................................................................................
Laredo, TX.
Webb County, TX ..................................................................................................................................
Las Cruces, NM.
Dona Ana County, NM ..........................................................................................................................
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV.
Clark County, NV ...................................................................................................................................
Lawrence, KS.
Douglas County, KS ..............................................................................................................................
Lawton, OK.
Comanche County, OK ..........................................................................................................................
Lebanon, PA.
Lebanon County, PA .............................................................................................................................
Lewiston, ID-WA.
Nez Perce County, ID.
Asotin County, WA ................................................................................................................................
Lewiston-Auburn, ME.
Androscoggin County, ME .....................................................................................................................
Lexington-Fayette, KY.
Bourbon County, KY.
Clark County, KY.
Fayette County, KY.
Jessamine County, KY.
Scott County, KY.
Woodford County, KY ............................................................................................................................
Lima, OH.
Allen County, OH ...................................................................................................................................
Lincoln, NE.
Lancaster County, NE.
Seward County, NE ...............................................................................................................................
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR.
Faulkner County, AR.
Grant County, AR.
Lonoke County, AR.
Perry County, AR.
Pulaski County, AR.
Saline County, AR .................................................................................................................................
Logan, UT-ID.
Franklin County, ID.
Cache County, UT .................................................................................................................................
Longview, TX.
Gregg County, TX.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9065
0.8753
0.8441
0.9705
0.9606
0.9508
0.9738
0.9651
0.9564
0.9242
0.8989
0.8736
0.9057
0.8742
0.8428
0.8700
0.8266
0.7833
1.0257
1.0343
1.0429
0.9347
0.9130
0.8912
0.9816
0.9755
0.9694
0.9876
0.9835
0.9794
0.8841
0.8454
0.8068
0.9080
0.8774
0.8467
1.0862
1.1150
1.1437
0.9122
0.8830
0.8537
0.8723
0.8298
0.7872
0.9075
0.8767
0.8459
0.9932
0.9909
0.9886
0.9599
0.9465
0.9331
0.9445
0.9260
0.9075
0.9535
0.9380
0.9225
1.0128
1.0171
1.0214
0.9248
0.8998
0.8747
0.9498
0.9331
0.9164
4759
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
31020 .......
31084 .......
31140 .......
31180 .......
31340 .......
31420 .......
31460 .......
31540 .......
31700 .......
31900 .......
32420 .......
32580 .......
32780 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
32820 .......
32900 .......
33124 .......
33140 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Rusk County, TX.
Upshur County, TX ................................................................................................................................
Longview, WA.
Cowlitz County, WA ...............................................................................................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA.
Los Angeles County, CA .......................................................................................................................
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN.
Clark County, IN.
Floyd County, IN.
Harrison County, IN.
Washington County, IN.
Bullitt County, KY.
Henry County, KY.
Jefferson County, KY.
Meade County, KY.
Nelson County, KY.
Oldham County, KY.
Shelby County, KY.
Spencer County, KY.
Trimble County, KY ...............................................................................................................................
Lubbock, TX.
Crosby County, TX.
Lubbock County, TX ..............................................................................................................................
Lynchburg, VA.
Amherst County, VA.
Appomattox County, VA.
Bedford County, VA.
Campbell County, VA.
Bedford City, VA.
Lynchburg City, VA ................................................................................................................................
Macon, GA.
Bibb County, GA.
Crawford County, GA.
Jones County, GA.
Monroe County, GA.
Twiggs County, GA ................................................................................................................................
Madera, CA.
Madera County, CA ...............................................................................................................................
Madison, WI.
Columbia County, WI.
Dane County, WI.
Iowa County, WI ....................................................................................................................................
Manchester-Nashua, NH.
Hillsborough County, NH.
Merrimack County, NH ..........................................................................................................................
Mansfield, OH.
Richland County, OH .............................................................................................................................
¨
Mayaguez, PR.
Hormigueros Municipio, PR.
¨
Mayaguez Municipio, PR .......................................................................................................................
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX.
Hidalgo County, TX ...............................................................................................................................
Medford, OR.
Jackson County, OR ..............................................................................................................................
Memphis, TN-MS-AR.
Crittenden County, AR.
DeSoto County, MS.
Marshall County, MS.
Tate County, MS.
Tunica County, MS.
Fayette County, TN.
Shelby County, TN.
Tipton County, TN .................................................................................................................................
Merced, CA.
Merced County, CA ...............................................................................................................................
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL.
Miami-Dade County, FL .........................................................................................................................
Michigan City-La Porte, IN.
LaPorte County, IN ................................................................................................................................
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9238
0.8984
0.8730
0.9747
0.9663
0.9579
1.1070
1.1426
1.1783
0.9551
0.9401
0.9251
0.9270
0.9026
0.8783
0.9215
0.8953
0.8691
0.9666
0.9554
0.9443
0.9228
0.8970
0.8713
1.0395
1.0527
1.0659
1.0212
1.0283
1.0354
0.9935
0.9913
0.9891
0.6412
0.5216
0.4020
0.9360
0.9147
0.8934
1.0135
1.0180
1.0225
0.9638
0.9518
0.9397
1.0665
1.0887
1.1109
0.9850
0.9800
0.9750
0.9639
0.9519
0.9399
4760
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
33260 .......
Midland, TX.
Midland County, TX ...............................................................................................................................
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI.
Milwaukee County, WI.
Ozaukee County, WI.
Washington County, WI.
Waukesha County, WI ...........................................................................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI.
Anoka County, MN.
Carver County, MN.
Chisago County, MN.
Dakota County, MN.
Hennepin County, MN.
Isanti County, MN.
Ramsey County, MN.
Scott County, MN.
Sherburne County, MN.
Washington County, MN.
Wright County, MN.
Pierce County, WI.
St. Croix County, WI ..............................................................................................................................
Missoula, MT.
Missoula County, MT .............................................................................................................................
Mobile, AL.
Mobile County, AL .................................................................................................................................
Modesto, CA.
Stanislaus County, CA ...........................................................................................................................
Monroe, LA.
Ouachita Parish, LA.
Union Parish, LA ....................................................................................................................................
Monroe, MI.
Monroe County, MI ................................................................................................................................
Montgomery, AL.
Autauga County, AL.
Elmore County, AL.
Lowndes County, AL.
Montgomery County, AL ........................................................................................................................
Morgantown, WV.
Monongalia County, WV.
Preston County, WV ..............................................................................................................................
Morristown, TN.
Grainger County, TN.
Hamblen County, TN.
Jefferson County, TN .............................................................................................................................
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA.
Skagit County, WA ................................................................................................................................
Muncie, IN.
Delaware County, IN .............................................................................................................................
Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI.
Muskegon County, MI ............................................................................................................................
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC.
Horry County, SC ..................................................................................................................................
Napa, CA.
Napa County, CA ...................................................................................................................................
Naples-Marco Island, FL.
Collier County, FL ..................................................................................................................................
Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro, TN.
Cannon County, TN.
Cheatham County, TN.
Davidson County, TN.
Dickson County, TN.
Hickman County, TN.
Macon County, TN.
Robertson County, TN.
Rutherford County, TN.
Smith County, TN.
Sumner County, TN.
Trousdale County, TN.
Williamson County, TN.
33340 .......
33460 .......
33540 .......
33660 .......
33700 .......
33740 .......
33780 .......
33860 .......
34060 .......
34100 .......
34580 .......
34620 .......
34740 .......
34820 .......
34900 .......
34940 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
34980 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9708
0.9611
0.9514
1.0088
1.0117
1.0146
1.0645
1.0860
1.1075
0.9684
0.9578
0.9473
0.8735
0.8313
0.7891
1.1131
1.1508
1.1885
0.8819
0.8425
0.8031
0.9681
0.9574
0.9468
0.9171
0.8894
0.8618
0.9052
0.8736
0.8420
0.8777
0.8369
0.7961
1.0272
1.0363
1.0454
0.9358
0.9144
0.8930
0.9798
0.9731
0.9664
0.9360
0.9147
0.8934
1.1586
1.2114
1.2643
1.0083
1.0111
1.0139
4761
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
35004 .......
35084 .......
35300 .......
35380 .......
35644 .......
35660 .......
35980 .......
36084 .......
36100 .......
36140 .......
36220 .......
36260 .......
36420 .......
36500 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
36540 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Wilson County, TN .................................................................................................................................
Nassau-Suffolk, NY.
Nassau County, NY.
Suffolk County, NY ................................................................................................................................
Newark-Union, NJ-PA.
Essex County, NJ.
Hunterdon County, NJ.
Morris County, NJ.
Sussex County, NJ.
Union County, NJ.
Pike County, PA ....................................................................................................................................
New Haven-Milford, CT.
New Haven County, CT .........................................................................................................................
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA.
Jefferson Parish, LA.
Orleans Parish, LA.
Plaquemines Parish, LA.
St. Bernard Parish, LA.
St. Charles Parish, LA.
St. John the Baptist Parish, LA.
St. Tammany Parish, LA .......................................................................................................................
New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ.
Bergen County, NJ.
Hudson County, NJ.
Passaic County, NJ.
Bronx County, NY.
Kings County, NY.
New York County, NY.
Putnam County, NY.
Queens County, NY.
Richmond County, NY.
Rockland County, NY.
Westchester County, NY .......................................................................................................................
Niles-Benton Harbor, MI.
Berrien County, MI .................................................................................................................................
Norwich-New London, CT.
New London County, CT .......................................................................................................................
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA.
Alameda County, CA.
Contra Costa County, CA ......................................................................................................................
Ocala, FL.
Marion County, FL .................................................................................................................................
Ocean City, NJ.
Cape May County, NJ ...........................................................................................................................
Odessa, TX.
Ector County, TX ...................................................................................................................................
Ogden-Clearfield, UT.
Davis County, UT.
Morgan County, UT.
Weber County, UT .................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma City, OK.
Canadian County, OK.
Cleveland County, OK.
Grady County, OK.
Lincoln County, OK.
Logan County, OK.
McClain County, OK.
Oklahoma County, OK ...........................................................................................................................
Olympia, WA.
Thurston County, WA ............................................................................................................................
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA.
Harrison County, IA.
Mills County, IA.
Pottawattamie County, IA.
Cass County, NE.
Douglas County, NE.
Sarpy County, NE.
Saunders County, NE.
Washington County, NE ........................................................................................................................
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9874
0.9832
0.9790
1.1631
1.2175
1.2719
1.1130
1.1506
1.1883
1.1132
1.1510
1.1887
0.9397
0.9196
0.8995
1.1913
1.2550
1.3188
0.9327
0.9103
0.8879
1.0807
1.1076
1.1345
1.3208
1.4277
1.5346
0.9355
0.9140
0.8925
1.0607
1.0809
1.1011
0.9930
0.9907
0.9884
0.9417
0.9223
0.9029
0.9419
0.9225
0.9031
1.0556
1.0742
1.0927
0.9736
0.9648
0.9560
4762
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
36740 .......
Orlando-Kissimmee, FL.
Lake County, FL.
Orange County, FL.
Osceola County, FL.
Seminole County, FL .............................................................................................................................
Oshkosh-Neenah, WI.
Winnebago County, WI ..........................................................................................................................
Owensboro, KY.
Daviess County, KY.
Hancock County, KY.
McLean County, KY ...............................................................................................................................
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA.
Ventura County, CA ...............................................................................................................................
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL.
Brevard County, FL ...............................................................................................................................
Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL.
Bay County, FL ......................................................................................................................................
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH.
Washington County, OH.
Pleasants County, WV.
Wirt County, WV.
Wood County, WV .................................................................................................................................
Pascagoula, MS.
George County, MS.
Jackson County, MS ..............................................................................................................................
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL.
Escambia County, FL.
Santa Rosa County, FL .........................................................................................................................
Peoria, IL.
Marshall County, IL.
Peoria County, IL.
Stark County, IL.
Tazewell County, IL.
Woodford County, IL ..............................................................................................................................
Philadelphia, PA.
Bucks County, PA.
Chester County, PA.
Delaware County, PA.
Montgomery County, PA.
Philadelphia County, PA ........................................................................................................................
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ.
Maricopa County, AZ.
Pinal County, AZ ....................................................................................................................................
Pine Bluff, AR.
Cleveland County, AR.
Jefferson County, AR.
Lincoln County, AR ................................................................................................................................
Pittsburgh, PA.
Allegheny County, PA.
Armstrong County, PA.
Beaver County, PA.
Butler County, PA.
Fayette County, PA.
Washington County, PA.
Westmoreland County, PA ....................................................................................................................
Pittsfield, MA.
Berkshire County, MA ............................................................................................................................
Pocatello, ID.
Bannock County, ID.
Power County, ID ..................................................................................................................................
Ponce, PR.
´
Juana Dıaz Municipio, PR.
Ponce Municipio, PR.
Villalba Municipio, PR ............................................................................................................................
Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME.
Cumberland County, ME.
Sagadahoc County, ME.
York County, ME ...................................................................................................................................
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA.
36780 .......
36980 .......
37100 .......
37340 .......
37460 .......
37620 .......
37700 .......
37860 .......
37900 .......
37964 .......
38060 .......
38220 .......
38300 .......
38340 .......
38540 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
38660 .......
38860 .......
38900 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9678
0.9571
0.9464
0.9510
0.9346
0.9183
0.9268
0.9024
0.8780
1.0973
1.1298
1.1622
0.9903
0.9871
0.9839
0.8803
0.8404
0.8005
0.8962
0.8616
0.8270
0.8894
0.8525
0.8156
0.8858
0.8477
0.8096
0.9322
0.9096
0.8870
1.0623
1.0830
1.1038
1.0076
1.0102
1.0127
0.9208
0.8944
0.8680
0.9307
0.9076
0.8845
1.0109
1.0145
1.0181
0.9611
0.9481
0.9351
0.6963
0.5951
0.4939
1.0229
1.0306
1.0382
4763
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
38940 .......
39100 .......
39140 .......
39300 .......
39340 .......
39380 .......
39460 .......
39540 .......
39580 .......
39660 .......
39740 .......
39820 .......
39900 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
40060 .......
40140 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Clackamas County, OR.
Columbia County, OR.
Multnomah County, OR.
Washington County, OR.
Yamhill County, OR.
Clark County, WA.
Skamania County, WA ..........................................................................................................................
Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL.
Martin County, FL.
St. Lucie County, FL ..............................................................................................................................
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY.
Dutchess County, NY.
Orange County, NY ...............................................................................................................................
Prescott, AZ.
Yavapai County, AZ ...............................................................................................................................
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA.
Bristol County, MA.
Bristol County, RI.
Kent County, RI.
Newport County, RI.
Providence County, RI.
Washington County, RI ..........................................................................................................................
Provo-Orem, UT.
Juab County, UT.
Utah County, UT ....................................................................................................................................
Pueblo, CO.
Pueblo County, CO ................................................................................................................................
Punta Gorda, FL.
Charlotte County, FL .............................................................................................................................
Racine, WI.
Racine County, WI .................................................................................................................................
Raleigh-Cary, NC.
Franklin County, NC.
Johnston County, NC.
Wake County, NC ..................................................................................................................................
Rapid City, SD.
Meade County, SD.
Pennington County, SD .........................................................................................................................
Reading, PA.
Berks County, PA ..................................................................................................................................
Redding, CA.
Shasta County, CA ................................................................................................................................
Reno-Sparks, NV.
Storey County, NV.
Washoe County, NV ..............................................................................................................................
Richmond, VA.
Amelia County, VA.
Caroline County, VA.
Charles City County, VA.
Chesterfield County, VA.
Cumberland County, VA.
Dinwiddie County, VA.
Goochland County, VA.
Hanover County, VA.
Henrico County, VA.
King and Queen County, VA.
King William County, VA.
Louisa County, VA.
New Kent County, VA.
Powhatan County, VA.
Prince George County, VA.
Sussex County, VA.
Colonial Heights City, VA.
Hopewell City, VA.
Petersburg City, VA.
Richmond City, VA ................................................................................................................................
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA.
Riverside County, CA.
San Bernardino County, CA ..................................................................................................................
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
1.0760
1.1013
1.1266
1.0074
1.0098
1.0123
1.0535
1.0713
1.0891
0.9921
0.9895
0.9869
1.0580
1.0773
1.0966
0.9700
0.9600
0.9500
0.9174
0.8898
0.8623
0.9553
0.9404
0.9255
0.9398
0.9198
0.8997
0.9815
0.9753
0.9691
0.9392
0.9190
0.8987
0.9812
0.9749
0.9686
1.1322
1.1762
1.2203
1.0589
1.0786
1.0982
0.9597
0.9462
0.9328
1.0616
1.0822
1.1027
4764
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
CBSA
Code
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
40220 .......
Roanoke, VA.
Botetourt County, VA.
Craig County, VA.
Franklin County, VA.
Roanoke County, VA.
Roanoke City, VA.
Salem City, VA ......................................................................................................................................
Rochester, MN.
Dodge County, MN.
Olmsted County, MN.
Wabasha County, MN ...........................................................................................................................
Rochester, NY.
Livingston County, NY.
Monroe County, NY.
Ontario County, NY.
Orleans County, NY.
Wayne County, NY ................................................................................................................................
Rockford, IL.
Boone County, IL.
Winnebago County, IL ...........................................................................................................................
Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH.
Rockingham County, NH.
Strafford County, NH .............................................................................................................................
Rocky Mount, NC.
Edgecombe County, NC.
Nash County, NC ...................................................................................................................................
Rome, GA.
Floyd County, GA ..................................................................................................................................
Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA.
El Dorado County, CA.
Placer County, CA.
Sacramento County, CA.
Yolo County, CA ....................................................................................................................................
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI.
Saginaw County, MI ..............................................................................................................................
St. Cloud, MN.
Benton County, MN.
Stearns County, MN ..............................................................................................................................
St. George, UT.
Washington County, UT ........................................................................................................................
St. Joseph, MO-KS.
Doniphan County, KS.
Andrew County, MO.
Buchanan County, MO.
DeKalb County, MO ...............................................................................................................................
St. Louis, MO-IL.
Bond County, IL.
Calhoun County, IL.
Clinton County, IL.
Jersey County, IL.
Macoupin County, IL.
Madison County, IL.
Monroe County, IL.
St. Clair County, IL.
Crawford County, MO.
Franklin County, MO.
Jefferson County, MO.
Lincoln County, MO.
St. Charles County, MO.
St. Louis County, MO.
Warren County, MO.
Washington County, MO.
St. Louis City, MO .................................................................................................................................
Salem, OR.
Marion County, OR.
Polk County, OR ....................................................................................................................................
Salinas, CA.
Monterey County, CA ............................................................................................................................
Salisbury, MD.
40340 .......
40380 .......
40420 .......
40484 .......
40580 .......
40660 .......
40900 .......
40980 .......
41060 .......
41100 .......
41140 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
41180 .......
41420 .......
41500 .......
41540 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9024
0.8699
0.8374
1.0679
1.0905
1.1131
0.9473
0.9297
0.9121
0.9990
0.9987
0.9984
1.0224
1.0299
1.0374
0.9349
0.9132
0.8915
0.9648
0.9531
0.9414
1.1781
1.2375
1.2969
0.9453
0.9270
0.9088
0.9979
0.9972
0.9965
0.9635
0.9514
0.9392
0.9711
0.9615
0.9519
0.9372
0.9163
0.8954
1.0265
1.0354
1.0442
1.2477
1.3302
1.4128
4765
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
41620 .......
41660 .......
41700 .......
41740 .......
41780 .......
41884 .......
41900 .......
41940 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
41980 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Somerset County, MD.
Wicomico County, MD ...........................................................................................................................
Salt Lake City, UT.
Salt Lake County, UT.
Summit County, UT.
Tooele County, UT ................................................................................................................................
San Angelo, TX.
Irion County, TX.
Tom Green County, TX .........................................................................................................................
San Antonio, TX.
Atascosa County, TX.
Bandera County, TX.
Bexar County, TX.
Comal County, TX.
Guadalupe County, TX.
Kendall County, TX.
Medina County, TX.
Wilson County, TX .................................................................................................................................
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA.
San Diego County, CA ..........................................................................................................................
Sandusky, OH.
Erie County, OH ....................................................................................................................................
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA.
Marin County, CA.
San Francisco County, CA.
San Mateo County, CA ..........................................................................................................................
´
San German-Cabo Rojo, PR.
Cabo Rojo Municipio, PR.
Lajas Municipio, PR.
Sabana Grande Municipio, PR.
´
San German Municipio, PR ...................................................................................................................
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA.
San Benito County, CA.
Santa Clara County, CA ........................................................................................................................
San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR.
Aguas Buenas Municipio, PR.
Aibonito Municipio, PR.
Arecibo Municipio, PR.
Barceloneta Municipio, PR.
Barranquitas Municipio, PR.
´
Bayamon Municipio, PR.
Caguas Municipio, PR.
Camuy Municipio, PR.
´
Canovanas Municipio, PR.
Carolina Municipio, PR.
˜
Catano Municipio, PR.
Cayey Municipio, PR.
Ciales Municipio, PR.
Cidra Municipio, PR.
´
Comerıo Municipio, PR.
Corozal Municipio, PR.
Dorado Municipio, PR.
Florida Municipio, PR.
Guaynabo Municipio, PR.
Gurabo Municipio, PR.
Hatillo Municipio, PR.
Humacao Municipio, PR.
Juncos Municipio, PR.
Las Piedras Municipio, PR.
´
Loıza Municipio, PR.
´
Manatı Municipio, PR.
Maunabo Municipio, PR.
Morovis Municipio, PR.
Naguabo Municipio, PR.
Naranjito Municipio, PR.
Orocovis Municipio, PR.
Quebradillas Municipio, PR.
´
Rıo Grande Municipio, PR.
San Juan Municipio, PR.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9438
0.9251
0.9064
0.9653
0.9537
0.9421
0.8963
0.8617
0.8271
0.9388
0.9184
0.8980
1.0848
1.1130
1.1413
0.9411
0.9215
0.9019
1.2996
1.3995
1.4994
0.6790
0.5720
0.4650
1.3059
1.4079
1.5099
4766
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
42020 .......
42044 .......
42060 .......
42100 .......
42140 .......
42220 .......
42260 .......
42340 .......
42540 .......
42644 .......
42680 .......
43100 .......
43300 .......
43340 .......
43580 .......
43620 .......
43780 .......
43900 .......
44060 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
44100 .......
44140 .......
44180 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
San Lorenzo Municipio, PR.
Toa Alta Municipio, PR.
Toa Baja Municipio, PR.
Trujillo Alto Municipio, PR.
Vega Alta Municipio, PR.
Vega Baja Municipio, PR.
Yabucoa Municipio, PR .........................................................................................................................
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA.
San Luis Obispo County, CA ................................................................................................................
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA.
Orange County, CA ...............................................................................................................................
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA.
Santa Barbara County, CA ....................................................................................................................
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA.
Santa Cruz County, CA .........................................................................................................................
Santa Fe, NM.
Santa Fe County, NM ............................................................................................................................
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA.
Sonoma County, CA ..............................................................................................................................
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL.
Manatee County, FL.
Sarasota County, FL ..............................................................................................................................
Savannah, GA.
Bryan County, GA.
Chatham County, GA.
Effingham County, GA ...........................................................................................................................
Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA.
Lackawanna County, PA.
Luzerne County, PA.
Wyoming County, PA ............................................................................................................................
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA.
King County, WA.
Snohomish County, WA ........................................................................................................................
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL.
Indian River County, FL .........................................................................................................................
Sheboygan, WI.
Sheboygan County, WI ..........................................................................................................................
Sherman-Denison, TX.
Grayson County, TX ..............................................................................................................................
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA.
Bossier Parish, LA.
Caddo Parish, LA.
De Soto Parish, LA ................................................................................................................................
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD.
Woodbury County, IA.
Dakota County, NE.
Dixon County, NE.
Union County, SD ..................................................................................................................................
Sioux Falls, SD.
Lincoln County, SD.
McCook County, SD.
Minnehaha County, SD.
Turner County, SD .................................................................................................................................
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI.
St. Joseph County, IN.
Cass County, MI ....................................................................................................................................
Spartanburg, SC.
Spartanburg County, SC .......................................................................................................................
Spokane, WA.
Spokane County, WA ............................................................................................................................
Springfield, IL.
Menard County, IL.
Sangamon County, IL ............................................................................................................................
Springfield, MA.
Franklin County, MA.
Hampden County, MA.
Hampshire County, MA .........................................................................................................................
Springfield, MO.
Christian County, MO.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.6773
0.5697
0.4621
1.0809
1.1079
1.1349
1.0935
1.1247
1.1559
1.1016
1.1355
1.1694
1.3100
1.4133
1.5166
1.0552
1.0736
1.0920
1.2096
1.2794
1.3493
0.9783
0.9711
0.9639
0.9677
0.9569
0.9461
0.9124
0.8832
0.8540
1.0946
1.1262
1.1577
0.9660
0.9547
0.9434
0.9347
0.9129
0.8911
0.9704
0.9606
0.9507
0.9256
0.9008
0.8760
0.9629
0.9505
0.9381
0.9781
0.9708
0.9635
0.9873
0.9830
0.9788
0.9503
0.9338
0.9172
1.0543
1.0724
1.0905
0.9275
0.9034
0.8792
1.0149
1.0198
1.0248
4767
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
44220 .......
44300 .......
44700 .......
44940 .......
45060 .......
45104 .......
45220 .......
45300 .......
45460 .......
45500 .......
45780 .......
45820 .......
45940 .......
46060 .......
46140 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
46220 .......
46340 .......
46540 .......
46660 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Dallas County, MO.
Greene County, MO.
Polk County, MO.
Webster County, MO .............................................................................................................................
Springfield, OH.
Clark County, OH ..................................................................................................................................
State College, PA.
Centre County, PA .................................................................................................................................
Stockton, CA.
San Joaquin County, CA .......................................................................................................................
Sumter, SC.
Sumter County, SC ................................................................................................................................
Syracuse, NY.
Madison County, NY.
Onondaga County, NY.
Oswego County, NY ..............................................................................................................................
Tacoma, WA.
Pierce County, WA ................................................................................................................................
Tallahassee, FL.
Gadsden County, FL.
Jefferson County, FL.
Leon County, FL.
Wakulla County, FL ...............................................................................................................................
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL.
Hernando County, FL.
Hillsborough County, FL.
Pasco County, FL.
Pinellas County, FL ...............................................................................................................................
Terre Haute, IN.
Clay County, IN.
Sullivan County, IN.
Vermillion County, IN.
Vigo County, IN .....................................................................................................................................
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR.
Miller County, AR.
Bowie County, TX ..................................................................................................................................
Toledo, OH.
Fulton County, OH.
Lucas County, OH.
Ottawa County, OH.
Wood County, OH .................................................................................................................................
Topeka, KS.
Jackson County, KS.
Jefferson County, KS.
Osage County, KS.
Shawnee County, KS.
Wabaunsee County, KS ........................................................................................................................
Trenton-Ewing, NJ.
Mercer County, NJ .................................................................................................................................
Tucson, AZ.
Pima County, AZ ...................................................................................................................................
Tulsa, OK.
Creek County, OK.
Okmulgee County, OK.
Osage County, OK.
Pawnee County, OK.
Rogers County, OK.
Tulsa County, OK.
Wagoner County, OK ............................................................................................................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Greene County, AL.
Hale County, AL.
Tuscaloosa County, AL .........................................................................................................................
Tyler, TX.
Smith County, TX ..................................................................................................................................
Utica-Rome, NY.
Herkimer County, NY.
Oneida County, NY ................................................................................................................................
Valdosta, GA.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.8942
0.8590
0.8237
0.9038
0.8717
0.8396
0.9014
0.8685
0.8356
1.0784
1.1046
1.1307
0.9026
0.8702
0.8377
0.9744
0.9659
0.9574
1.0445
1.0594
1.0742
0.9213
0.8950
0.8688
0.9540
0.9386
0.9233
0.8982
0.8643
0.8304
0.8970
0.8626
0.8283
0.9744
0.9659
0.9574
0.9352
0.9136
0.8920
1.0500
1.0667
1.0834
0.9404
0.9206
0.9007
0.9126
0.8834
0.8543
0.9187
0.8916
0.8645
0.9501
0.9334
0.9168
0.9015
0.8686
0.8358
4768
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
46700 .......
47020 .......
47220 .......
47260 .......
47300 .......
47380 .......
47580 .......
47644 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
47894 .......
47940 .......
48140 .......
48260 .......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Brooks County, GA.
Echols County, GA.
Lanier County, GA.
Lowndes County, GA .............................................................................................................................
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA.
Solano County, CA ................................................................................................................................
Victoria, TX.
Calhoun County, TX.
Goliad County, TX.
Victoria County, TX ................................................................................................................................
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ.
Cumberland County, NJ ........................................................................................................................
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC.
Currituck County, NC.
Gloucester County, VA.
Isle of Wight County, VA.
James City County, VA.
Mathews County, VA.
Surry County, VA.
York County, VA.
Chesapeake City, VA.
Hampton City, VA.
Newport News City, VA.
Norfolk City, VA.
Poquoson City, VA.
Portsmouth City, VA.
Suffolk City, VA.
Virginia Beach City, VA.
Williamsburg City, VA ............................................................................................................................
Visalia-Porterville, CA.
Tulare County, CA .................................................................................................................................
Waco, TX.
McLennan County, TX ...........................................................................................................................
Warner Robins, GA.
Houston County, GA ..............................................................................................................................
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI.
Lapeer County, MI.
Livingston County, MI.
Macomb County, MI.
Oakland County, MI.
St. Clair County, MI ...............................................................................................................................
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV.
District of Columbia, DC.
Calvert County, MD.
Charles County, MD.
Prince George’s County, MD.
Arlington County, VA.
Clarke County, VA.
Fairfax County, VA.
Fauquier County, VA.
Loudoun County, VA.
Prince William County, VA.
Spotsylvania County, VA.
Stafford County, VA.
Warren County, VA.
Alexandria City, VA.
Fairfax City, VA.
Falls Church City, VA.
Fredericksburg City, VA.
Manassas City, VA.
Manassas Park City, VA.
Jefferson County, WV ............................................................................................................................
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA.
Black Hawk County, IA.
Bremer County, IA.
Grundy County, IA .................................................................................................................................
Wausau, WI.
Marathon County, WI .............................................................................................................................
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH.
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.9320
0.9093
0.8866
1.2962
1.3949
1.4936
0.8896
0.8528
0.8160
0.9896
0.9862
0.9827
0.9279
0.9039
0.8799
1.0074
1.0098
1.0123
0.9111
0.8814
0.8518
0.9187
0.8916
0.8645
0.9923
0.9897
0.9871
1.0556
1.0741
1.0926
0.9134
0.8846
0.8557
0.9754
0.9672
0.9590
4769
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1—Continued
CBSA
Code
48300 .......
48424 .......
48540 .......
48620 .......
48660 .......
48700 .......
48864 .......
48900 .......
49020 .......
49180 .......
49340 .......
49420 .......
49500 .......
49620 .......
49660 .......
49700 .......
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
49740 .......
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
Urban Area
(Constituent Counties)
Jefferson County, OH.
Brooke County, WV.
Hancock County, WV ............................................................................................................................
Wenatchee, WA.
Chelan County, WA.
Douglas County, WA .............................................................................................................................
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL.
Palm Beach County, FL ........................................................................................................................
Wheeling, WV-OH.
Belmont County, OH.
Marshall County, WV.
Ohio County, WV ...................................................................................................................................
Wichita, KS.
Butler County, KS.
Harvey County, KS.
Sedgwick County, KS.
Sumner County, KS ...............................................................................................................................
Wichita Falls, TX.
Archer County, TX.
Clay County, TX.
Wichita County, TX ................................................................................................................................
Williamsport, PA.
Lycoming County, PA ............................................................................................................................
Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ.
New Castle County, DE.
Cecil County, MD.
Salem County, NJ ..................................................................................................................................
Wilmington, NC.
Brunswick County, NC.
New Hanover County, NC.
Pender County, NC ...............................................................................................................................
Winchester, VA-WV.
Frederick County, VA.
Winchester City, VA.
Hampshire County, WV .........................................................................................................................
Winston-Salem, NC.
Davie County, NC.
Forsyth County, NC.
Stokes County, NC.
Yadkin County, NC ................................................................................................................................
Worcester, MA.
Worcester County, MA ..........................................................................................................................
Yakima, WA.
Yakima County, WA ..............................................................................................................................
Yauco, PR.
´
Guanica Municipio, PR.
Guayanilla Municipio, PR.
˜
Penuelas Municipio, PR.
Yauco Municipio, PR .............................................................................................................................
York-Hanover, PA.
York County, PA ....................................................................................................................................
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA.
Mahoning County, OH.
Trumbull County, OH.
Mercer County, PA ................................................................................................................................
Yuba City, CA.
Sutter County, CA.
Yuba County, CA ...................................................................................................................................
Yuma, AZ.
Yuma County, AZ ..................................................................................................................................
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
0.8691
0.8255
0.7819
1.0042
1.0056
1.0070
1.0040
1.0054
1.0067
0.8297
0.7729
0.7161
0.9492
0.9322
0.9153
0.8971
0.8628
0.8285
0.9018
0.8691
0.8364
1.0283
1.0377
1.0471
0.9749
0.9666
0.9582
1.0128
1.0171
1.0214
0.9366
0.9155
0.8944
1.0617
1.0822
1.1028
1.0093
1.0124
1.0155
0.6645
0.5526
0.4408
0.9608
0.9478
0.9347
0.9162
0.8882
0.8603
1.0553
1.0737
1.0921
0.9476
0.9301
0.9126
1 As discussed in section IV.D.1.d. of the preamble of this proposed rule, because there will no longer be any LTCHs in their cost reporting periods that began during FYs 2003 or 2004 (the first and second years of the 5-year wage index phase-in, respectively), we are no longer showing the 1⁄5 and 2⁄5 wage index value. For further details on the 5-year phase-in of the wage index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
2 Three-fifths of the proposed full wage index value, applicable for a LTCH’s cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2004
through September 30, 2005 (Federal FY 2005). That is, for a LTCH’s cost reporting period that begins during Federal FY 2005 and located in
Chicago, Illinois (CBSA 16974), the proposed 3⁄5 wage index value is computed as ((3*1.0790) + 2))/5 = 1.0474. For further details on the 5-year
phase-in of the wage index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4770
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
3 Four-fifths of the proposed full wage index value, applicable for a LTCH’s cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2005 through
September 30, 2006 (Federal FY 2006). That is, for a LTCH’s cost reporting period that begins during Federal FY 2006 and located in Chicago,
Illinois (CBSA 16974), the proposed 4⁄5 wage index value is computed as ((4*1.0790) + 1))/5 = 1.0632. For further details on the 5-year phase-in
of the wage index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
4 The proposed wage index values are calculated using the same wage data used to compute the wage index used by acute care hospitals
under the IPPS for Federal FY 2006 (that is, fiscal year 2002 audited acute care hospital inpatient wage data without regard to reclassification
under section 1886(d)(8) or section 1886(d)(10) of the Act).
TABLE 2.—PROPOSED LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FOR RURAL AREAS FOR DISCHARGES OCCURRING
FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 1
Nonurban Area
3⁄5
Wage
Index 2
4⁄5
Wage
Index 3
Full
Wage
Index 4
Alabama .........................................................................................................................................................
Alaska ............................................................................................................................................................
Arizona ...........................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas ........................................................................................................................................................
California ........................................................................................................................................................
Colorado .........................................................................................................................................................
Connecticut ....................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ........................................................................................................................................................
Florida ............................................................................................................................................................
Georgia ..........................................................................................................................................................
Hawaii ............................................................................................................................................................
Idaho ..............................................................................................................................................................
Illinois .............................................................................................................................................................
Indiana ...........................................................................................................................................................
Iowa ................................................................................................................................................................
Kansas ...........................................................................................................................................................
Kentucky ........................................................................................................................................................
Louisiana ........................................................................................................................................................
Maine .............................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ........................................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts 5 .............................................................................................................................................
Michigan .........................................................................................................................................................
Minnesota .......................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi ......................................................................................................................................................
Missouri ..........................................................................................................................................................
Montana .........................................................................................................................................................
Nebraska ........................................................................................................................................................
Nevada ...........................................................................................................................................................
New Hampshire .............................................................................................................................................
New Jersey 5 ..................................................................................................................................................
New Mexico ...................................................................................................................................................
New York .......................................................................................................................................................
North Carolina ................................................................................................................................................
North Dakota ..................................................................................................................................................
Ohio ................................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .......................................................................................................................................................
Oregon ...........................................................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ..................................................................................................................................................
Puerto Rico 5 ..................................................................................................................................................
Rhode Island 5 ................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina ...............................................................................................................................................
South Dakota .................................................................................................................................................
Tennessee .....................................................................................................................................................
Texas .............................................................................................................................................................
Utah ................................................................................................................................................................
Vermont ..........................................................................................................................................................
Virginia ...........................................................................................................................................................
Washington ....................................................................................................................................................
West Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin .......................................................................................................................................................
Wyoming ........................................................................................................................................................
0.8468
1.1186
0.9261
0.8480
1.0632
0.9628
1.1038
0.9747
0.9141
0.8597
1.0331
0.8822
0.8963
0.9174
0.9105
0.8821
0.8660
0.8447
0.9306
0.9612
............
0.9337
0.9479
0.8604
0.8740
0.9257
0.9194
0.9439
1.0490
............
0.9181
0.8892
0.9124
0.8357
0.9296
0.8549
0.9896
0.8975
............
............
0.9183
0.9136
0.8737
0.8802
0.8871
0.9898
0.8808
1.0306
0.8630
0.9705
0.9554
0.7957
1.1582
0.9014
0.7973
1.0843
0.9504
1.1384
0.9663
0.8854
0.8130
1.0441
0.8430
0.8617
0.8899
0.8807
0.8428
0.8213
0.7929
0.9074
0.9482
............
0.9116
0.9306
0.8139
0.8320
0.9010
0.8926
0.9252
1.0654
............
0.8908
0.8523
0.8832
0.7809
0.9061
0.8065
0.9861
0.8633
............
............
0.8910
0.8848
0.8316
0.8402
0.8494
0.9864
0.8410
1.0408
0.8174
0.9607
0.9406
0.7446
1.1977
0.8768
0.7466
1.1054
0.9380
1.1730
0.9579
0.8568
0.7662
1.0551
0.8037
0.8271
0.8624
0.8509
0.8035
0.7766
0.7411
0.8843
0.9353
............
0.8895
0.9132
0.7674
0.7900
0.8762
0.8657
0.9065
1.0817
............
0.8635
0.8154
0.8540
0.7261
0.8826
0.7581
0.9826
0.8291
............
............
0.8638
0.8560
0.7895
0.8003
0.8118
0.9830
0.8013
1.0510
0.7717
0.9509
0.9257
CBSA
Code
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
1 As discussed in section IV.D.1.d. of the preamble of this proposed rule, because there are no longer any LTCHs in their cost reporting periods that began during FYs 2003 and 2004 (the first and second years of the 5-year wage index phase-in, respectively), we are no longer showing the 1⁄5 and 2⁄5 wage index value. For further details on the 5-year phase-in of the wage index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
2 The proposed wage index values are calculated using the same wage data used to compute the wage index used by acute care hospitals
under the IPPS for Federal FY 2006 (that is, fiscal year 2002 audited acute care hospital inpatient wage data without regard to reclassification
under section 1886(d)(8) or section 1886(d)(10) of the Act).
3 Three-fifths of the proposed full wage index value, applicable for a LTCH’s cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2004
through September 30, 2005 (Federal FY 2005). That is, for a LTCH’s cost reporting period that begins during Federal FY 2005 and located in
rural Illinois, the proposed 3⁄5 wage index value is computed as ((3*0.8271) + 2))/5 = 0.8963. For further details on the 5-year phase-in of the
wage index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
4771
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
4 Four-fifths of the proposed full wage index value, applicable for a LTCH’s cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2005 through
September 30, 2006 (Federal FY 2006). That is, for a LTCH’s cost reporting period that begins during Federal FY 2006 and located in rural Illinois, the proposed 4⁄5 wage index value is computed as ((3*0.9271) + 2))/5 = 0.8617. For further details on the 5-year phase-in of the wage
index, see section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
5 All counties within the State are classified as urban.
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
1 ..........
2 ..........
3 ..........
6 ..........
7 ..........
8 ..........
9 ..........
10 ........
11 ........
12 ........
13 ........
14 ........
15 ........
16 ........
17 ........
18 ........
19 ........
20 ........
21 ........
22 ........
23 ........
24 ........
25 ........
26 ........
27 ........
28 ........
29 ........
30 ........
31 ........
32 ........
33 ........
34 ........
35 ........
36 ........
37 ........
38 ........
39 ........
40 ........
41 ........
42 ........
43 ........
44 ........
45 ........
46 ........
47 ........
48 ........
49 ........
50 ........
51 ........
52 ........
53 ........
54 ........
55 ........
56 ........
57 ........
58 ........
59 ........
60 ........
61 ........
62 ........
63 ........
64 ........
Relative
Weight
Description
5 CRANIOTOMY
AGE >17 W CC ......................................................................................................................
AGE > 17 W/O CC .................................................................................................................
7 CRANIOTOMY AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................................................................
7 CARPAL TUNNEL RELEASE .........................................................................................................................
PERIPH & CRANIAL NERVE & OTHER NERV SYST PROC W CC ..............................................................
3 PERIPH & CRANIAL NERVE & OTHER NERV SYST PROC W/O CC ........................................................
SPINAL DISORDERS & INJURIES ...................................................................................................................
NERVOUS SYSTEM NEOPLASMS W CC .......................................................................................................
2 NERVOUS SYSTEM NEOPLASMS W/O CC .................................................................................................
DEGENERATIVE NERVOUS SYSTEM DISORDERS .....................................................................................
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS & CEREBELLAR ATAXIA .........................................................................................
INTERCRANIAL HEMORRHAGE OR STROKE WITH INFARCT ....................................................................
NONSPECIFIC CVA & PRECEREBRAL OCCULUSION WITHOUT INFARCT ..............................................
NONSPECIFIC CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDERS W CC ...........................................................................
1 NONSPECIFIC CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDERS W/O CC .....................................................................
CRANIAL & PERIPHERAL NERVE DISORDERS W CC .................................................................................
CRANIAL & PERIPHERAL NERVE DISORDERS W/O CC .............................................................................
NERVOUS SYSTEM INFECTION EXCEPT VIRAL MENINGITIS ...................................................................
3 VIRAL MENINGITIS ........................................................................................................................................
4 HYPERTENSIVE ENCEPHALOPATHY ..........................................................................................................
NONTRAUMATIC STUPOR & COMA ..............................................................................................................
SEIZURE & HEADACHE AGE >17 W CC ........................................................................................................
1 SEIZURE & HEADACHE AGE >17 W/O CC ..................................................................................................
7 SEIZURE & HEADACHE AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................................................
TRAUMATIC STUPOR & COMA, COMA >1 HR ..............................................................................................
TRAUMATIC STUPOR & COMA, COMA <1 HR AGE >17 W CC ...................................................................
2 TRAUMATIC STUPOR & COMA, COMA <1 HR AGE >17 W/O CC .............................................................
7 TRAUMATIC STUPOR & COMA, COMA <1 HR AGE 0–17 ..........................................................................
3 CONCUSSION AGE >17 W CC ......................................................................................................................
7 CONCUSSION AGE >17 W/O CC ..................................................................................................................
7 CONCUSSION AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................................................................
OTHER DISORDERS OF NERVOUS SYSTEM W CC ....................................................................................
OTHER DISORDERS OF NERVOUS SYSTEM W/O CC ................................................................................
7 RETINAL PROCEDURES ...............................................................................................................................
7 ORBITAL PROCEDURES ...............................................................................................................................
7 PRIMARY IRIS PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................................
7 LENS PROCEDURES WITH OR WITHOUT VITRECTOMY .........................................................................
4 EXTRAOCULAR PROCEDURES EXCEPT ORBIT AGE >17 ........................................................................
7 EXTRAOCULAR PROCEDURES EXCEPT ORBIT AGE 0–17 ......................................................................
7 INTRAOCULAR PROCEDURES EXCEPT RETINA, IRIS & LENS ...............................................................
7 HYPHEMA .......................................................................................................................................................
2 ACUTE MAJOR EYE INFECTIONS ................................................................................................................
7 NEUROLOGICAL EYE DISORDERS .............................................................................................................
2 OTHER DISORDERS OF THE EYE AGE >17 W CC ....................................................................................
7 OTHER DISORDERS OF THE EYE AGE >17 W/O CC ................................................................................
7 OTHER DISORDERS OF THE EYE AGE 0–17 .............................................................................................
7 MAJOR HEAD & NECK PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................
S7 IALOADENECTOMY ....................................................................................................................................
7 SALIVARY GLAND PROCEDURES EXCEPT SIALOADENECTOMY ..........................................................
7 CLEFT LIP & PALATE REPAIR ......................................................................................................................
7 SINUS & MASTOID PROCEDURES AGE >17 ..............................................................................................
7 SINUS & MASTOID PROCEDURES AGE 0–17 ............................................................................................
7 MISCELLANEOUS EAR, NOSE, MOUTH & THROAT PROCEDURES ........................................................
7 RHINOPLASTY ................................................................................................................................................
7 T&A PROC, EXCEPT TONSILLECTOMY &/OR ADENOIDECTOMY ONLY, AGE >17 ...............................
7 T&A PROC, EXCEPT TONSILLECTOMY &/OR ADENOIDECTOMY ONLY, AGE 0–17 .............................
7 TONSILLECTOMY &/OR ADENOIDECTOMY ONLY, AGE >17 ....................................................................
7 TONSILLECTOMY &/OR ADENOIDECTOMY ONLY, AGE 0–17 ..................................................................
3 MYRINGOTOMY W TUBE INSERTION AGE >17 .........................................................................................
7 MYRINGOTOMY W TUBE INSERTION AGE 0–17 .......................................................................................
4 OTHER EAR, NOSE, MOUTH & THROAT O.R. PROCEDURES .................................................................
EAR, NOSE, MOUTH & THROAT MALIGNANCY ...........................................................................................
7 CRANIOTOMY
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
0.4499
1.3984
0.7637
0.9720
0.7554
0.5837
0.6851
0.6531
0.7783
0.7314
0.7471
0.4499
0.7197
0.4773
1.0277
0.7637
1.1820
0.8054
0.6251
0.4499
0.4499
0.9444
0.8890
0.5837
0.5837
0.7637
0.4499
0.4499
0.8004
0.5698
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
0.5837
1.1820
0.5837
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
0.7637
0.4499
1.1820
1.1480
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
38.5
38.5
38.5
19.0
37.7
24.8
33.7
24.5
21.3
25.5
23.1
26.0
26.8
23.5
19.0
23.6
21.2
27.2
24.8
29.6
25.4
22.6
19.0
19.0
27.1
30.2
21.3
21.3
24.8
19.0
19.0
25.3
24.2
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
21.3
29.6
21.3
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
24.8
19.0
29.6
26.2
4772
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
65 ........
66 ........
67 ........
68 ........
69 ........
70 ........
71 ........
72 ........
73 ........
74 ........
75 ........
76 ........
77 ........
78 ........
79 ........
80 ........
81 ........
82 ........
83 ........
84 ........
85 ........
86 ........
87 ........
88 ........
89 ........
90 ........
91 ........
92 ........
93 ........
94 ........
95 ........
96 ........
97 ........
98 ........
99 ........
100 ......
101 ......
102 ......
103 ......
104 ......
105 ......
106 ......
108 ......
110 ......
111 ......
113 ......
114 ......
117 ......
118 ......
119 ......
120 ......
121 ......
122 ......
123 ......
124 ......
125 ......
126 ......
127 ......
128 ......
129 ......
130 ......
131 ......
132 ......
133 ......
134 ......
135 ......
136 ......
137 ......
Relative
Weight
Description
1 DYSEQUILIBRIUM
..........................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
OTITIS MEDIA & URI AGE >17 W CC .............................................................................................................
1 OTITIS MEDIA & URI AGE >17 W/O CC .......................................................................................................
7 OTITIS MEDIA & URI AGE 0–17 ....................................................................................................................
7 LARYNGOTRACHEITIS ..................................................................................................................................
7 NASAL TRAUMA & DEFORMITY ...................................................................................................................
OTHER EAR, NOSE, MOUTH & THROAT DIAGNOSES AGE >17 ................................................................
7 OTHER EAR, NOSE, MOUTH & THROAT DIAGNOSES AGE 0–17 ............................................................
5 MAJOR CHEST PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................
OTHER RESP SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES W CC .....................................................................................
5 OTHER RESP SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES W/O CC ...............................................................................
PULMONARY EMBOLISM ................................................................................................................................
RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS & INFLAMMATIONS AGE >17 W CC .............................................................
RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS & INFLAMMATIONS AGE >17 W/O CC .........................................................
7 RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS & INFLAMMATIONS AGE 0–17 ....................................................................
RESPIRATORY NEOPLASMS ..........................................................................................................................
2 MAJOR CHEST TRAUMA W CC ....................................................................................................................
7 MAJOR CHEST TRAUMA W/O CC ................................................................................................................
PLEURAL EFFUSION W CC ............................................................................................................................
1 PLEURAL EFFUSION W/O CC ......................................................................................................................
PULMONARY EDEMA & RESPIRATORY FAILURE .......................................................................................
CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE .......................................................................................
SIMPLE PNEUMONIA & PLEURISY AGE >17 W CC .....................................................................................
SIMPLE PNEUMONIA & PLEURISY AGE >17 W/O CC ..................................................................................
7 SIMPLE PNEUMONIA & PLEURISY AGE 0–17 ............................................................................................
INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE W CC ............................................................................................................
2 INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE W/O CC ......................................................................................................
PNEUMOTHORAX W CC .................................................................................................................................
1 PNEUMOTHORAX W/O CC ...........................................................................................................................
BRONCHITIS & ASTHMA AGE >17 W CC ......................................................................................................
2 BRONCHITIS & ASTHMA AGE >17 W/O CC ................................................................................................
7 BRONCHITIS & ASTHMA AGE 0–17 .............................................................................................................
RESPIRATORY SIGNS & SYMPTOMS W CC .................................................................................................
3 RESPIRATORY SIGNS & SYMPTOMS W/O CC ...........................................................................................
OTHER RESPIRATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSES W CC ..................................................................................
1 OTHER RESPIRATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSES W/O CC ............................................................................
6 HEART TRANSPLANT OR IMPLANT OF HEART ASSIST SYSTEM ...........................................................
7 CARDIAC VALVE & OTHER MAJOR CARDIOTHORACIC PROC W CARDIAC CATH ..............................
7 CARDIAC VALVE & OTHER MAJOR CARDIOTHORACIC PROC W/O CARDIAC CATH ...........................
7 CORONARY BYPASS W PTCA .....................................................................................................................
7 OTHER CARDIOTHORACIC PROCEDURES ................................................................................................
3 MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURES W CC ....................................................................................
7 MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURES W/O CC ................................................................................
AMPUTATION FOR CIRC SYSTEM DISORDERS EXCEPT UPPER LIMB & TOE .......................................
UPPER LIMB & TOE AMPUTATION FOR CIRC SYSTEM DISORDERS .......................................................
4 CARDIAC PACEMAKER REVISION EXCEPT DEVICE REPLACEMENT ....................................................
4 CARDIAC PACEMAKER DEVICE REPLACEMENT ......................................................................................
3 VEIN LIGATION & STRIPPING ......................................................................................................................
OTHER CIRCULATORY SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES ................................................................................
CIRCULATORY DISORDERS W AMI & MAJOR COMP, DISCHARGED ALIVE ............................................
2 CIRCULATORY DISORDERS W AMI W/O MAJOR COMP, DISCHARGED ALIVE .....................................
CIRCULATORY DISORDERS W AMI, EXPIRED .............................................................................................
4 CIRCULATORY DISORDERS EXCEPT AMI, W CARD CATH & COMPLEX DIAG .....................................
3 CIRCULATORY DISORDERS EXCEPT AMI, W CARD CATH W/O COMPLEX DIAG ................................
ACUTE & SUBACUTE ENDOCARDITIS ..........................................................................................................
HEART FAILURE & SHOCK .............................................................................................................................
2 DEEP VEIN THROMBOPHLEBITIS ................................................................................................................
7 CARDIAC ARREST, UNEXPLAINED .............................................................................................................
PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISORDERS W CC ..............................................................................................
PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISORDERS W/O CC ..........................................................................................
ATHEROSCLEROSIS W CC .............................................................................................................................
1 ATHEROSCLEROSIS W/O CC .......................................................................................................................
HYPERTENSION ...............................................................................................................................................
CARDIAC CONGENITAL & VALVULAR DISORDERS AGE >17 W CC .........................................................
2 CARDIAC CONGENITAL & VALVULAR DISORDERS AGE >17 W/O CC ...................................................
7 CARDIAC CONGENITAL & VALVULAR DISORDERS AGE 0–17 ................................................................
7 EPISTAXIS
3 EPIGLOTTITIS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.4499
0.4499
0.7637
0.5111
0.4499
0.4499
0.5837
0.7637
0.7535
0.4499
1.7034
2.5523
1.7034
0.6900
0.8280
0.5986
0.4499
0.7174
0.5837
0.5837
0.7264
0.4499
1.0816
0.6585
0.6987
0.4970
0.4499
0.6704
0.5837
0.5880
0.4499
0.6417
0.5837
0.5837
0.9219
0.7637
0.8147
0.4499
0.0000
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
1.4887
1.2389
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
1.0979
0.8429
0.5837
1.1811
1.1820
0.7637
0.8386
0.6857
0.5837
0.7637
0.6741
0.4675
0.6565
0.4499
0.6354
0.7211
0.5837
0.5837
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
19.0
19.0
24.8
18.0
19.0
19.0
21.3
24.8
21.9
19.0
38.5
43.9
38.5
21.9
22.9
21.7
19.0
20.1
21.3
21.3
21.2
19.0
25.4
19.6
20.8
17.8
19.0
20.2
21.3
17.0
19.0
19.4
21.3
21.3
23.2
24.8
21.1
19.0
0.0
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
39.3
33.2
29.6
29.6
24.8
31.7
23.2
21.3
20.4
29.6
24.8
25.3
21.2
21.3
24.8
23.2
20.4
21.8
19.0
24.8
23.7
21.3
21.3
4773
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Relative
Weight
Description
CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIA & CONDUCTION DISORDERS W CC ...................................................................
ARRHYTHMIA & CONDUCTION DISORDERS W/O CC .............................................................
PECTORIS ........................................................................................................................................
8 SYNCOPE & COLLAPSE W CC .....................................................................................................................
8 SYNCOPE & COLLAPSE W/O CC .................................................................................................................
1 CHEST PAIN ...................................................................................................................................................
OTHER CIRCULATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSES W CC ..................................................................................
OTHER CIRCULATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSES W/O CC ..............................................................................
7 RECTAL RESECTION W CC ..........................................................................................................................
7 RECTAL RESECTION W/O CC ......................................................................................................................
MAJOR SMALL & LARGE BOWEL PROCEDURES W CC .............................................................................
7 MAJOR SMALL & LARGE BOWEL PROCEDURES W/O CC .......................................................................
4 PERITONEAL ADHESIOLYSIS W CC ............................................................................................................
2 PERITONEAL ADHESIOLYSIS W/O CC ........................................................................................................
3 MINOR SMALL & LARGE BOWEL PROCEDURES W CC ...........................................................................
7 MINOR SMALL & LARGE BOWEL PROCEDURES W/O CC .......................................................................
5 STOMACH, ESOPHAGEAL & DUODENAL PROCEDURES AGE >17 W CC ..............................................
7 STOMACH, ESOPHAGEAL & DUODENAL PROCEDURES AGE >17 W/O CC ..........................................
7 STOMACH, ESOPHAGEAL & DUODENAL PROCEDURES AGE 0–17 .......................................................
4 ANAL & STOMAL PROCEDURES W CC ......................................................................................................
7 ANAL & STOMAL PROCEDURES W/O CC ...................................................................................................
7 HERNIA PROCEDURES EXCEPT INGUINAL & FEMORAL AGE >17 W CC ..............................................
7 HERNIA PROCEDURES EXCEPT INGUINAL & FEMORAL AGE >17 W/O CC ..........................................
5 INGUINAL & FEMORAL HERNIA PROCEDURES AGE >17 W CC .............................................................
7 INGUINAL & FEMORAL HERNIA PROCEDURES AGE >17 W/O CC ..........................................................
7 HERNIA PROCEDURES AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................................................
1 APPENDECTOMY W COMPLICATED PRINCIPAL DIAG W CC ..................................................................
7 APPENDECTOMY W COMPLICATED PRINCIPAL DIAG W/O CC ..............................................................
7 APPENDECTOMY W/O COMPLICATED PRINCIPAL DIAG W CC ..............................................................
7 APPENDECTOMY W/O COMPLICATED PRINCIPAL DIAG W/O CC ..........................................................
4 MOUTH PROCEDURES W CC ......................................................................................................................
7 MOUTH PROCEDURES W/O CC ..................................................................................................................
OTHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES W CC ............................................................................
1 OTHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES W/O CC ......................................................................
DIGESTIVE MALIGNANCY W CC ....................................................................................................................
2 DIGESTIVE MALIGNANCY W/O CC ..............................................................................................................
G.I. HEMORRHAGE W CC ...............................................................................................................................
1 G.I. HEMORRHAGE W/O CC .........................................................................................................................
COMPLICATED PEPTIC ULCER ......................................................................................................................
3 UNCOMPLICATED PEPTIC ULCER W CC ...................................................................................................
3 UNCOMPLICATED PEPTIC ULCER W/O CC ...............................................................................................
INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE ................................................................................................................
G.I. OBSTRUCTION W CC ...............................................................................................................................
3 G.I. OBSTRUCTION W/O CC .........................................................................................................................
ESOPHAGITIS, GASTROENT & MISC DIGEST DISORDERS AGE >17 W CC ............................................
ESOPHAGITIS, GASTROENT & MISC DIGEST DISORDERS AGE >17 W/O CC ........................................
7 ESOPHAGITIS, GASTROENT & MISC DIGEST DISORDERS AGE 0–17 ...................................................
3 DENTAL & ORAL DIS EXCEPT EXTRACTIONS & RESTORATIONS, AGE >17 ........................................
7 DENTAL & ORAL DIS EXCEPT EXTRACTIONS & RESTORATIONS, AGE 0–17 .......................................
7 DENTAL EXTRACTIONS & RESTORATIONS ...............................................................................................
OTHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM DIAGNOSES AGE >17 W CC .........................................................................
OTHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM DIAGNOSES AGE >17 W/O CC .....................................................................
7 OTHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM DIAGNOSES AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................
4 PANCREAS, LIVER & SHUNT PROCEDURES W CC ..................................................................................
7 PANCREAS, LIVER & SHUNT PROCEDURES W/O CC ..............................................................................
3 BILIARY TRACT PROC EXCEPT ONLY CHOLECYST W OR W/O C.D.E. W CC ......................................
7 BILIARY TRACT PROC EXCEPT ONLY CHOLECYST W OR W/O C.D.E. W/O CC ...................................
3 CHOLECYSTECTOMY W C.D.E. W CC ........................................................................................................
7 CHOLECYSTECTOMY W C.D.E. W/O CC ....................................................................................................
3 CHOLECYSTECTOMY EXCEPT BY LAPAROSCOPE W/O C.D.E. W CC ...................................................
7 CHOLECYSTECTOMY EXCEPT BY LAPAROSCOPE W/O C.D.E. W/O CC ...............................................
7 HEPATOBILIARY DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE FOR MALIGNANCY ...........................................................
5 HEPATOBILIARY DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE FOR NON-MALIGNANCY ..................................................
OTHER HEPATOBILIARY OR PANCREAS O.R. PROCEDURES ..................................................................
CIRRHOSIS & ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS ..........................................................................................................
MALIGNANCY OF HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM OR PANCREAS ....................................................................
DISORDERS OF PANCREAS EXCEPT MALIGNANCY ..................................................................................
DISORDERS OF LIVER EXCEPT MALIG, CIRR, ALC HEPA W CC ..............................................................
2 CARDIAC
1 ANGINA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.6201
0.5837
0.4499
0.4271
0.4271
0.4499
0.7413
0.4568
1.7034
1.7034
1.8616
0.7637
1.1820
0.5837
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.1820
0.7637
1.6271
0.4499
0.8553
0.5837
0.7119
0.4499
0.8426
0.7637
0.7637
0.9675
0.9375
0.7637
0.7745
0.3870
0.4499
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.9952
0.4707
0.4499
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.7034
2.0371
0.6610
0.7896
0.9441
0.6642
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
20.5
21.3
19.0
18.3
18.3
19.0
21.7
18.2
38.5
38.5
40.9
24.8
29.6
21.3
24.8
24.8
38.5
38.5
38.5
29.6
29.6
24.8
24.8
38.5
24.8
24.8
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
29.6
24.8
35.9
19.0
21.8
21.3
22.2
19.0
21.5
24.8
24.8
24.0
23.5
24.8
22.6
16.8
19.0
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.0
18.2
19.0
29.6
29.6
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
38.5
38.5
36.1
20.6
19.5
22.7
20.5
4774
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
206
207
208
210
211
212
213
216
217
218
219
220
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Relative
Weight
Description
2 DISORDERS
OF LIVER EXCEPT MALIG, CIRR, ALC HEPA W/O CC ........................................................
DISORDERS OF THE BILIARY TRACT W CC ................................................................................................
OF THE BILIARY TRACT W/O CC ..........................................................................................
5 HIP & FEMUR PROCEDURES EXCEPT MAJOR JOINT AGE >17 W CC ...................................................
4 HIP & FEMUR PROCEDURES EXCEPT MAJOR JOINT AGE >17 W/O CC ...............................................
7 HIP & FEMUR PROCEDURES EXCEPT MAJOR JOINT AGE 0–17 ............................................................
AMPUTATION FOR MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM & CONN TISSUE DISORDERS .................................
4 BIOPSIES OF MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM & CONNECTIVE TISSUE ..................................................
WND DEBRID & SKN GRFT EXCEPT HAND, FOR MUSCSKELET & CONN TISS DIS ..............................
5 LOWER EXTREM & HUMER PROC EXCEPT HIP, FOOT, FEMUR AGE >17 W CC .................................
1 LOWER EXTREM & HUMER PROC EXCEPT HIP, FOOT, FEMUR AGE >17 W/O CC .............................
7 LOWER EXTREM & HUMER PROC EXCEPT HIP, FOOT, FEMUR AGE 0–17 ..........................................
3 MAJOR SHOULDER/ELBOW PROC, OR OTHER UPPER EXTREMITY PROC W CC ..............................
7 SHOULDER, ELBOW OR FOREARM PROC, EXC MAJOR JOINT PROC, W/O CC ..................................
FOOT PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................................................
SOFT TISSUE PROCEDURES W CC ..............................................................................................................
3 SOFT TISSUE PROCEDURES W/O CC ........................................................................................................
4 MAJOR THUMB OR JOINT PROC, OR OTH HAND OR WRIST PROC W CC ...........................................
7 HAND OR WRIST PROC, EXCEPT MAJOR JOINT PROC, W/O CC ...........................................................
5 LOCAL EXCISION & REMOVAL OF INT FIX DEVICES OF HIP & FEMUR .................................................
7 ARTHROSCOPY .............................................................................................................................................
OTHER MUSCULOSKELET SYS & CONN TISS O.R. PROC W CC .............................................................
7 OTHER MUSCULOSKELET SYS & CONN TISS O.R. PROC W/O CC ........................................................
3 FRACTURES OF FEMUR ...............................................................................................................................
FRACTURES OF HIP & PELVIS ......................................................................................................................
1 SPRAINS, STRAINS, & DISLOCATIONS OF HIP, PELVIS & THIGH ...........................................................
OSTEOMYELITIS ..............................................................................................................................................
PATHOLOGICAL FRACTURES & MUSCULOSKELETAL & CONN TISS MALIGNANCY .............................
CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISORDERS W CC ....................................................................................................
1 CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISORDERS W/O CC ..............................................................................................
SEPTIC ARTHRITIS ..........................................................................................................................................
MEDICAL BACK PROBLEMS ...........................................................................................................................
BONE DISEASES & SPECIFIC ARTHROPATHIES W CC ..............................................................................
BONE DISEASES & SPECIFIC ARTHROPATHIES W/O CC ..........................................................................
1 NON-SPECIFIC ARTHROPATHIES ...............................................................................................................
SIGNS & SYMPTOMS OF MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM & CONN TISSUE .............................................
TENDONITIS, MYOSITIS & BURSITIS .............................................................................................................
AFTERCARE, MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM & CONNECTIVE TISSUE ....................................................
2 FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF FOREARM, HAND, FOOT AGE >17 W CC ..................................................
1 FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF FOREARM, HAND, FOOT AGE >17 W/O CC ...............................................
7 FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF FOREARM, HAND, FOOT AGE 0–17 ............................................................
FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF UPARM, LOWLEG EX FOOT AGE >17 W CC ...............................................
2 FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF UPARM, LOWLEG EX FOOT AGE >17 W/O CC .........................................
7 FX, SPRN, STRN & DISL OF UPARM, LOWLEG EX FOOT AGE 0–17 ......................................................
OTHER MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM & CONNECTIVE TISSUE DIAGNOSES ........................................
7 TOTAL MASTECTOMY FOR MALIGNANCY W CC ......................................................................................
7 TOTAL MASTECTOMY FOR MALIGNANCY W/O CC ..................................................................................
2 SUBTOTAL MASTECTOMY FOR MALIGNANCY W CC ...............................................................................
7 SUBTOTAL MASTECTOMY FOR MALIGNANCY W/O CC ...........................................................................
7 BREAST PROC FOR NON-MALIGNANCY EXCEPT BIOPSY & LOCAL EXCISION ...................................
1 BREAST BIOPSY & LOCAL EXCISION FOR NON-MALIGNANCY ..............................................................
SKIN GRAFT &/OR DEBRID FOR SKN ULCER OR CELLULITIS W CC .......................................................
SKIN GRAFT &/OR DEBRID FOR SKN ULCER OR CELLULITIS W/O CC ...................................................
SKIN GRAFT &/OR DEBRID EXCEPT FOR SKIN ULCER OR CELLULITIS W CC ......................................
3 SKIN GRAFT &/OR DEBRID EXCEPT FOR SKIN ULCER OR CELLULITIS W/O CC ................................
7 PERIANAL & PILONIDAL PROCEDURES .....................................................................................................
5 SKIN, SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE & BREAST PLASTIC PROCEDURES ....................................................
OTHER SKIN, SUBCUT TISS & BREAST PROC W CC .................................................................................
3 OTHER SKIN, SUBCUT TISS & BREAST PROC W/O CC ...........................................................................
SKIN ULCERS ...................................................................................................................................................
MAJOR SKIN DISORDERS W CC ...................................................................................................................
1 MAJOR SKIN DISORDERS W/O CC .............................................................................................................
3 MALIGNANT BREAST DISORDERS W CC ...................................................................................................
7 MALIGNANT BREAST DISORDERS W/O CC ...............................................................................................
2 NON-MALIGANT BREAST DISORDERS .......................................................................................................
CELLULITIS AGE >17 W CC ............................................................................................................................
CELLULITIS AGE >17 W/O CC ........................................................................................................................
7 CELLULITIS AGE 0–17 ...................................................................................................................................
2 DISORDERS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.5837
0.7570
0.5837
1.7034
1.1820
1.7034
1.1948
1.1820
1.2927
1.7034
0.4499
1.7034
0.7637
0.7637
0.9869
0.9443
0.7637
1.1820
0.4499
1.7034
0.4499
1.3522
0.4499
0.7637
0.6531
0.4499
0.8278
0.6935
0.7310
0.4499
0.7864
0.6061
0.5259
0.4635
0.4499
0.5548
0.6574
0.6577
0.5837
0.4499
0.7637
0.6802
0.5837
0.7637
0.7924
0.7637
0.7637
0.5837
0.7637
0.7637
0.4499
1.3222
0.9584
1.0398
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.3037
0.7637
0.8720
0.7420
0.4499
0.7637
0.7637
0.5837
0.6264
0.4420
0.4499
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
21.3
21.5
21.3
38.5
29.6
38.5
34.0
29.6
38.0
38.5
19.0
38.5
24.8
24.8
28.4
29.5
24.8
29.6
19.0
38.5
19.0
34.6
19.0
24.8
25.2
19.0
28.3
23.6
24.8
19.0
26.5
23.4
22.2
20.4
19.0
21.9
22.6
24.7
21.3
19.0
24.8
26.3
21.3
24.8
25.3
24.8
24.8
21.3
24.8
24.8
19.0
39.5
32.0
33.1
24.8
24.8
38.5
36.1
24.8
27.7
22.6
19.0
24.8
24.8
21.3
21.0
17.8
19.0
4775
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Relative
Weight
Description
TRAUMA TO THE SKIN, SUBCUT TISS & BREAST AGE >17 W CC ...........................................................
TO THE SKIN, SUBCUT TISS & BREAST AGE >17 W/O CC .....................................................
TO THE SKIN, SUBCUT TISS & BREAST AGE 0–17 ..................................................................
MINOR SKIN DISORDERS W CC ....................................................................................................................
1 MINOR SKIN DISORDERS W/O CC ..............................................................................................................
AMPUTAT OF LOWER LIMB FOR ENDOCRINE, NUTRIT, & METABOL DISORDERS ...............................
7 ADRENAL & PITUITARY PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................
SKIN GRAFTS & WOUND DEBRID FOR ENDOC, NUTRIT & METAB DISORDERS ...................................
4 O.R. PROCEDURES FOR OBESITY .............................................................................................................
7 PARATHYROID PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................
5 THYROID PROCEDURES ..............................................................................................................................
7 THYROGLOSSAL PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................
OTHER ENDOCRINE, NUTRIT & METAB O.R. PROC W CC ........................................................................
2 OTHER ENDOCRINE, NUTRIT & METAB O.R. PROC W/O CC ..................................................................
DIABETES AGE >35 .........................................................................................................................................
3 DIABETES AGE 0–35 .....................................................................................................................................
NUTRITIONAL & MISC METABOLIC DISORDERS AGE >17 W CC ..............................................................
NUTRITIONAL & MISC METABOLIC DISORDERS AGE >17 W/O CC ..........................................................
7 NUTRITIONAL & MISC METABOLIC DISORDERS AGE 0–17 .....................................................................
4 INBORN ERRORS OF METABOLISM ...........................................................................................................
ENDOCRINE DISORDERS W CC ....................................................................................................................
1 ENDOCRINE DISORDERS W/O CC ..............................................................................................................
6 KIDNEY TRANSPLANT ...................................................................................................................................
4 KIDNEY, URETER & MAJOR BLADDER PROCEDURES FOR NEOPLASM ...............................................
5 KIDNEY, URETER & MAJOR BLADDER PROC FOR NON-NEOPL W CC .................................................
1 KIDNEY, URETER & MAJOR BLADDER PROC FOR NON-NEOPL W/O CC .............................................
2 PROSTATECTOMY W CC ..............................................................................................................................
7 PROSTATECTOMY W/O CC ..........................................................................................................................
3 MINOR BLADDER PROCEDURES W CC .....................................................................................................
7 MINOR BLADDER PROCEDURES W/O CC .................................................................................................
4 TRANSURETHRAL PROCEDURES W CC ....................................................................................................
7 TRANSURETHRAL PROCEDURES W/O CC ................................................................................................
1 URETHRAL PROCEDURES, AGE >17 W CC ...............................................................................................
7 URETHRAL PROCEDURES, AGE >17 W/O CC ...........................................................................................
7 URETHRAL PROCEDURES, AGE 0–17 ........................................................................................................
OTHER KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT O.R. PROCEDURES ...........................................................................
RENAL FAILURE ...............................................................................................................................................
ADMIT FOR RENAL DIALYSIS .........................................................................................................................
KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT NEOPLASMS W CC .........................................................................................
1 KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT NEOPLASMS W/O CC ...................................................................................
KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS AGE >17 W CC ..........................................................................
KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS AGE >17 W/O CC ......................................................................
7 KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS AGE 0–17 ................................................................................
4 URINARY STONES W CC, &/OR ESW LITHOTRIPSY .................................................................................
7 URINARY STONES W/O CC ..........................................................................................................................
2 KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT SIGNS & SYMPTOMS AGE >17 W CC .........................................................
7 KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT SIGNS & SYMPTOMS AGE >17 W/O CC .....................................................
7 KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT SIGNS & SYMPTOMS AGE 0–17 ..................................................................
1 URETHRAL STRICTURE AGE >17 W CC .....................................................................................................
7 URETHRAL STRICTURE AGE >17 W/O CC .................................................................................................
7 URETHRAL STRICTURE AGE 0–17 ..............................................................................................................
OTHER KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT DIAGNOSES AGE >17 W CC ............................................................
2 OTHER KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT DIAGNOSES AGE >17 W/O CC ......................................................
7 OTHER KIDNEY & URINARY TRACT DIAGNOSES AGE 0–17 ...................................................................
2 MAJOR MALE PELVIC PROCEDURES W CC ..............................................................................................
7 MAJOR MALE PELVIC PROCEDURES W/O CC ..........................................................................................
2 TRANSURETHRAL PROSTATECTOMY W CC .............................................................................................
7 TRANSURETHRAL PROSTATECTOMY W/O CC .........................................................................................
7 TESTES PROCEDURES, FOR MALIGNANCY ..............................................................................................
4 TESTES PROCEDURES, NON-MALIGNANCY AGE >17 .............................................................................
7 TESTES PROCEDURES, NON-MALIGNANCY AGE 0–17 ...........................................................................
4 PENIS PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................................
7 CIRCUMCISION AGE >17 ..............................................................................................................................
7 CIRCUMCISION AGE 0–17 ............................................................................................................................
1 OTHER MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES FOR MALIGNANCY ...............................
5 OTHER MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM O.R. PROC EXCEPT FOR MALIGNANCY ..............................
MALIGNANCY, MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, W CC ..............................................................................
2 MALIGNANCY, MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, W/O CC ........................................................................
1 TRAUMA
7 TRAUMA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.6698
0.4499
0.4499
0.6935
0.4499
1.3501
1.7034
1.1387
1.1820
1.1820
1.7034
1.1820
1.3409
0.5837
0.7293
0.7637
0.7212
0.5227
0.5837
1.1820
0.6376
0.4499
0.0000
1.1820
1.7034
0.4499
0.5837
0.5837
0.7637
0.7637
1.1820
1.1820
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
1.4055
0.8219
0.9852
0.7586
0.4499
0.6179
0.4792
0.4499
1.1820
0.4499
0.5837
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
0.4499
0.8010
0.5837
0.5837
0.5837
1.7034
0.5837
0.5837
0.5837
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
0.4499
1.7034
0.6060
0.5837
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
24.3
19.0
19.0
23.9
19.0
35.6
38.5
33.9
29.6
29.6
38.5
29.6
31.7
21.3
25.0
24.8
23.1
18.4
21.3
29.6
21.2
19.0
0.0
29.6
38.5
19.0
21.3
21.3
24.8
24.8
29.6
29.6
19.0
19.0
19.0
31.6
22.7
25.2
20.2
19.0
22.2
19.0
19.0
29.6
19.0
21.3
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
23.1
21.3
21.3
21.3
38.5
21.3
21.3
21.3
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
19.0
38.5
20.6
21.3
4776
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Relative
Weight
Description
2 BENIGN
PROSTATIC HYPERTROPHY W CC ..............................................................................................
PROSTATIC HYPERTROPHY W/O CC ..........................................................................................
INFLAMMATION OF THE MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM .........................................................................
7 STERILIZATION, MALE ..................................................................................................................................
OTHER MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM DIAGNOSES ...............................................................................
7 PELVIC EVISCERATION, RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY & RADICAL VULVECTOMY .................................
7 UTERINE,ADNEXA PROC FOR NON-OVARIAN/ADNEXAL MALIG W CC .................................................
7 UTERINE,ADNEXA PROC FOR NON-OVARIAN/ADNEXAL MALIG W/O CC ..............................................
7 FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTIVE PROCEDURES ................................................
7 UTERINE & ADNEXA PROC FOR OVARIAN OR ADNEXAL MALIGNANCY ..............................................
7 UTERINE & ADNEXA PROC FOR NON-MALIGNANCY W CC ....................................................................
7 UTERINE & ADNEXA PROC FOR NON-MALIGNANCY W/O CC ................................................................
4 VAGINA, CERVIX & VULVA PROCEDURES .................................................................................................
7 LAPAROSCOPY & INCISIONAL TUBAL INTERRUPTION ............................................................................
7 ENDOSCOPIC TUBAL INTERRUPTION ........................................................................................................
7 D&C, CONIZATION & RADIO-IMPLANT, FOR MALIGNANCY .....................................................................
5 D&C, CONIZATION EXCEPT FOR MALIGNANCY ........................................................................................
5 OTHER FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM O.R. PROCEDURES ............................................................
MALIGNANCY, FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM W CC ..........................................................................
7 MALIGNANCY, FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM W/O CC ....................................................................
INFECTIONS, FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM .......................................................................................
3 MENSTRUAL & OTHER FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM DISORDERS ..............................................
7 CESAREAN SECTION W CC .........................................................................................................................
7 CESAREAN SECTION W/O CC .....................................................................................................................
7 VAGINAL DELIVERY W COMPLICATING DIAGNOSES ...............................................................................
7 VAGINAL DELIVERY W/O COMPLICATING DIAGNOSES ...........................................................................
7 VAGINAL DELIVERY W STERILIZATION &/OR D&C ...................................................................................
7 VAGINAL DELIVERY W O.R. PROC EXCEPT STERIL &/OR D&C .............................................................
7 POSTPARTUM & POST ABORTION DIAGNOSES W/O O.R. PROCEDURE ..............................................
7 POSTPARTUM & POST ABORTION DIAGNOSES W O.R. PROCEDURE ..................................................
7 ECTOPIC PREGNANCY .................................................................................................................................
7 THREATENED ABORTION .............................................................................................................................
7 ABORTION W/O D&C .....................................................................................................................................
7 ABORTION W D&C, ASPIRATION CURETTAGE OR HYSTEROTOMY ......................................................
7 FALSE LABOR ................................................................................................................................................
7 OTHER ANTEPARTUM DIAGNOSES W MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS .......................................................
7 OTHER ANTEPARTUM DIAGNOSES W/O MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS ...................................................
7 NEONATES, DIED OR TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ACUTE CARE FACILITY .....................................
7 EXTREME IMMATURITY ................................................................................................................................
7 PREMATURITY W MAJOR PROBLEMS ........................................................................................................
7 PREMATURITY W/O MAJOR PROBLEMS ....................................................................................................
7 FULL TERM NEONATE W MAJOR PROBLEMS ...........................................................................................
7 NEONATE W OTHER SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS ........................................................................................
7 NORMAL NEWBORN ......................................................................................................................................
7 SPLENECTOMY AGE >17 ..............................................................................................................................
7 SPLENECTOMY AGE 0–17 ............................................................................................................................
5 OTHER O.R. PROCEDURES OF THE BLOOD AND BLOOD FORMING ORGANS ...................................
RED BLOOD CELL DISORDERS AGE >17 .....................................................................................................
7 RED BLOOD CELL DISORDERS AGE 0–17 .................................................................................................
COAGULATION DISORDERS ..........................................................................................................................
RETICULOENDOTHELIAL & IMMUNITY DISORDERS W CC ........................................................................
2 RETICULOENDOTHELIAL & IMMUNITY DISORDERS W/O CC ..................................................................
5 LYMPHOMA & NON-ACUTE LEUKEMIA W OTHER O.R. PROC W CC .....................................................
7 LYMPHOMA & NON-ACUTE LEUKEMIA W OTHER O.R. PROC W/O CC ..................................................
LYMPHOMA & NON-ACUTE LEUKEMIA W CC ..............................................................................................
2 LYMPHOMA & NON-ACUTE LEUKEMIA W/O CC ........................................................................................
7 ACUTE LEUKEMIA W/O MAJOR O.R. PROCEDURE AGE 0–17 ................................................................
4 MYELOPROLIF DISORD OR POORLY DIFF NEOPL W MAJ O.R. PROC W CC .......................................
7 MYELOPROLIF DISORD OR POORLY DIFF NEOPL W MAJ O.R. PROC W/O CC ...................................
4 MYELOPROLIF DISORD OR POORLY DIFF NEOPL W OTHER O.R. PROC ............................................
RADIOTHERAPY ...............................................................................................................................................
CHEMOTHERAPY W/O ACUTE LEUKEMIA AS SECONDARY DIAGNOSIS ................................................
7 HISTORY OF MALIGNANCY W/O ENDOSCOPY .........................................................................................
7 HISTORY OF MALIGNANCY W ENDOSCOPY .............................................................................................
OTHER MYELOPROLIF DIS OR POORLY DIFF NEOPL DIAG W CC ..........................................................
7 OTHER MYELOPROLIF DIS OR POORLY DIFF NEOPL DIAG W/O CC ....................................................
O.R. PROCEDURE FOR INFECTIOUS & PARASITIC DISEASES .................................................................
SEPTICEMIA AGE >17 .....................................................................................................................................
7 BENIGN
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.5837
1.1820
0.6798
1.1820
0.6375
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.7034
0.7072
0.7637
0.6416
0.7637
0.7637
0.5837
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
1.1820
1.1820
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
0.6581
0.5837
0.8675
0.8240
0.5837
1.7034
0.5837
0.8757
0.5837
0.5837
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
0.8642
1.1684
0.7637
0.7637
0.8920
0.5837
1.4251
0.8241
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
21.3
29.6
21.9
29.6
23.4
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
24.8
24.8
24.8
38.5
38.5
20.3
24.8
20.7
24.8
24.8
21.3
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
29.6
29.6
24.8
29.6
29.6
24.8
24.8
24.8
38.5
22.0
21.3
22.9
23.7
21.3
38.5
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
29.6
29.6
29.6
23.5
26.4
24.8
24.8
20.5
21.3
35.6
23.5
4777
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
LTC–
DRG
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
473
475
476
477
479
480
481
482
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Relative
Weight
Description
7 SEPTICEMIA
AGE 0–17 .................................................................................................................................
POSTOPERATIVE & POST-TRAUMATIC INFECTIONS .................................................................................
OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN AGE >17 W CC ..........................................................................................
7 FEVER OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN AGE >17 W/O CC ......................................................................................
VIRAL ILLNESS AGE >17 .................................................................................................................................
7 VIRAL ILLNESS & FEVER OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN AGE 0–17 ...................................................................
OTHER INFECTIOUS & PARASITIC DISEASES DIAGNOSES ......................................................................
3 O.R. PROCEDURE W PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSES OF MENTAL ILLNESS ....................................................
2 ACUTE ADJUSTMENT REACTION & PSYCHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION .................................................
DEPRESSIVE NEUROSES ...............................................................................................................................
NEUROSES EXCEPT DEPRESSIVE ...............................................................................................................
1 DISORDERS OF PERSONALITY & IMPULSE CONTROL ............................................................................
ORGANIC DISTURBANCES & MENTAL RETARDATION ...............................................................................
PSYCHOSES .....................................................................................................................................................
1 CHILDHOOD MENTAL DISORDERS .............................................................................................................
2 OTHER MENTAL DISORDER DIAGNOSES ..................................................................................................
2 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE OR DEPENDENCE, LEFT AMA ..........................................................................
SKIN GRAFTS FOR INJURIES .........................................................................................................................
WOUND DEBRIDEMENTS FOR INJURIES .....................................................................................................
1 HAND PROCEDURES FOR INJURIES ..........................................................................................................
OTHER O.R. PROCEDURES FOR INJURIES W CC ......................................................................................
3 OTHER O.R. PROCEDURES FOR INJURIES W/O CC ................................................................................
TRAUMATIC INJURY AGE >17 W CC .............................................................................................................
1 TRAUMATIC INJURY AGE >17 W/O CC .......................................................................................................
7 TRAUMATIC INJURY AGE 0–17 ....................................................................................................................
2 ALLERGIC REACTIONS AGE >17 .................................................................................................................
7 ALLERGIC REACTIONS AGE 0–17 ...............................................................................................................
3 POISONING & TOXIC EFFECTS OF DRUGS AGE >17 W CC ....................................................................
7 POISONING & TOXIC EFFECTS OF DRUGS AGE >17 W/O CC ................................................................
7 POISONING & TOXIC EFFECTS OF DRUGS AGE 0–17 .............................................................................
COMPLICATIONS OF TREATMENT W CC .....................................................................................................
COMPLICATIONS OF TREATMENT W/O CC .................................................................................................
3 OTHER INJURY, POISONING & TOXIC EFFECT DIAG W CC ....................................................................
7 OTHER INJURY, POISONING & TOXIC EFFECT DIAG W/O CC ................................................................
O.R. PROC W DIAGNOSES OF OTHER CONTACT W HEALTH SERVICES ...............................................
REHABILITATION ..............................................................................................................................................
SIGNS & SYMPTOMS W CC ............................................................................................................................
SIGNS & SYMPTOMS W/O CC ........................................................................................................................
AFTERCARE W HISTORY OF MALIGNANCY AS SECONDARY DIAGNOSIS .............................................
AFTERCARE W/O HISTORY OF MALIGNANCY AS SECONDARY DIAGNOSIS .........................................
3 OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING HEALTH STATUS ..................................................................................
EXTENSIVE O.R. PROCEDURE UNRELATED TO PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS ................................................
6 PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS INVALID AS DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS ................................................................
6 UNGROUPABLE .............................................................................................................................................
5 BILATERAL OR MULTIPLE MAJOR JOINT PROCS OF LOWER EXTREMITY ...........................................
ACUTE LEUKEMIA W/O MAJOR O.R. PROCEDURE AGE >17 .....................................................................
RESPIRATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSIS WITH VENTILATOR SUPPORT .......................................................
4 PROSTATIC O.R. PROCEDURE UNRELATED TO PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS .............................................
NON-EXTENSIVE O.R. PROCEDURE UNRELATED TO PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS ......................................
7 OTHER VASCULAR PROCEDURES W/O CC ..............................................................................................
6 LIVER TRANSPLANT ......................................................................................................................................
7 BONE MARROW TRANSPLANT ....................................................................................................................
5 TRACHEOSTOMY FOR FACE,MOUTH & NECK DIAGNOSES ...................................................................
2 CRANIOTOMY FOR MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA .............................................................................
7 LIMB REATTACHMENT, HIP AND FEMUR PROC FOR MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TR ..............................
5 OTHER O.R. PROCEDURES FOR MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA .....................................................
OTHER MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA ...................................................................................................
5 HIV W EXTENSIVE O.R. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................
HIV W MAJOR RELATED CONDITION ............................................................................................................
HIV W OR W/O OTHER RELATED CONDITION .............................................................................................
5 MAJOR JOINT & LIMB REATTACHMENT PROCEDURES OF UPPER EXTREMITY .................................
7 CHEMOTHERAPY W ACUTE LEUKEMIA AS SECONDARY DIAGNOSIS ..................................................
5 LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY W/O C.D.E. W CC .......................................................................
7 LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY W/O C.D.E. W/O CC ...................................................................
6 LUNG TRANSPLANT ......................................................................................................................................
7 COMBINED ANTERIOR/POSTERIOR SPINAL FUSION ...............................................................................
4 SPINAL FUSION W CC ..................................................................................................................................
7 SPINAL FUSION W/O CC ...............................................................................................................................
4 FEVER
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
0.7637
0.8252
1.1820
1.1820
0.9441
0.4499
0.9505
0.7637
0.5837
0.4113
0.4653
0.4499
0.5813
0.4330
0.4499
0.5837
0.5837
1.3677
1.3442
0.4499
1.3937
0.7637
0.7584
0.4499
0.4499
0.5837
0.5837
0.7637
0.7637
0.7637
0.9265
0.5871
0.7637
0.7637
1.2245
0.5787
0.6258
0.5554
0.6958
0.6667
0.7637
2.1478
0.0000
0.0000
1.7034
0.8537
2.0831
1.1820
1.5836
0.7637
0.0000
1.7034
1.7034
0.5837
1.1820
1.7034
0.8992
1.7034
0.8535
0.4919
1.7034
1.1820
1.7034
1.7034
0.0000
1.1820
1.1820
1.1820
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
24.8
24.7
29.6
29.6
27.3
19.0
21.8
24.8
21.3
20.7
23.8
19.0
26.8
24.2
19.0
21.3
21.3
35.6
36.1
19.0
33.4
24.8
26.3
19.0
19.0
21.3
21.3
24.8
24.8
24.8
25.3
23.8
24.8
24.8
34.0
22.4
23.8
24.1
21.9
21.9
24.8
40.2
0.0
0.0
38.5
20.0
34.6
29.6
35.3
24.8
0.0
38.5
38.5
21.3
29.6
38.5
26.0
38.5
21.4
16.6
38.5
29.6
38.5
38.5
0.0
29.6
29.6
29.6
4778
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—FY 2006 LTC–DRGS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND GEOMETRIC AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY—Continued
[Effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006]
LTC–
DRG
499
500
501
502
503
504
......
......
......
......
......
......
505 ......
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
515
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
538 ......
539 ......
540 ......
541 ......
542 ......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
552
553
554
555
556
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
......
......
......
......
......
557 ......
558 ......
559 ......
Relative
Weight
Description
5 BACK
& NECK PROCEDURES EXCEPT SPINAL FUSION W CC ..............................................................
& NECK PROCEDURES EXCEPT SPINAL FUSION W/O CC ...........................................................
PROCEDURES W PDX OF INFECTION W CC ..................................................................................
4 KNEE PROCEDURES W PDX OF INFECTION W/O CC ..............................................................................
2 KNEE PROCEDURES W/O PDX OF INFECTION .........................................................................................
7 EXTENSIVE BURN OR FULL THICKNESS BURNS WITH MECH VENT 96+ HOURS WITH SKIN
GRAFT.
4 EXTENSIVE BURN OR FULL THICKNESS BURNS WITH MECH VENT 96+ HOURS WITHOUT SKIN
GRAFT.
4 FULL THICKNESS BURN W SKIN GRAFT OR INHAL INJ W CC OR SIG TRAUMA .................................
3 FULL THICKNESS BURN W SKIN GRFT OR INHAL INJ W/O CC OR SIG TRAUMA ................................
FULL THICKNESS BURN W/O SKIN GRFT OR INHAL INJ W CC OR SIG TRAUMA ..................................
1 FULL THICKNESS BURN W/O SKIN GRFT OR INH INJ W/O CC OR SIG TRAUMA ................................
NON-EXTENSIVE BURNS W CC OR SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA ......................................................................
1 NON-EXTENSIVE BURNS W/O CC OR SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA ................................................................
6 SIMULTANEOUS PANCREAS/KIDNEY TRANSPLANT ................................................................................
6 PANCREAS TRANSPLANT ............................................................................................................................
5 CARDIAC DEFIBRILATOR IMPLANT W/O CARDIAC CATH ........................................................................
7 PERCUTANEOUS CARDIVASCULAR PROC W/O CORONARY ARTERY STENT OR AMI ......................
5 CERVICAL SPINAL FUSION W CC ...............................................................................................................
7 CERVICAL SPINAL FUSION W/O CC ...........................................................................................................
ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE OR DEPENDENCE W CC .....................................................................................
7 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE OR DEPENDENCE W REHABILITATION THERAPY W/O CC ..........................
7 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE OR DEPENDENCE W/O REHABILITATION THERAPY W/O CC ......................
TRANSIENT ISCHEMIA ....................................................................................................................................
7 OTHER HEART ASSIST SYSTEM IMPLANT ................................................................................................
7 INTRACRANIAL VASCULAR PROC W PDX HEMORRHAGE ......................................................................
5 VENTRICULAR SHUNT PROCEDURES W CC ............................................................................................
7 VENTRICULAR SHUNT PROCEDURES W/O CC .........................................................................................
3 SPINAL PROCEDURES WITH CC .................................................................................................................
3 SPINAL PROCEDURES WITHOUT CC .........................................................................................................
5 EXTRACRANIAL VASCULAR PROCEDURES WITH CC .............................................................................
7 EXTRACRANIAL VASCULAR PROCEDURES WITHOUT CC ......................................................................
7 CARDIAC DEFIB IMPLANT W CARDIAC CATH W AMI/HF/SHOCK ............................................................
7 CARDIAC DEFIB IMPLANT W CARDIAC CATH W/O AMI/HF/SHOCK ........................................................
LOCAL EXCISION AND REMOVAL OF INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES EXCEPT HIP AND FEMUR
WITH CC.
7 LOCAL EXCISION AND REMOVAL OF INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES EXCEPT HIP AND FEMUR
WITHOUT CC.
4 LYMPHOMA AND LEUKEMIA WITH MAJOR O.R. PROCEDURE WITH CC ...............................................
7 LYMPHOMA AND LEUKEMIA WITH MAJOR O.R. PROCEDURE WITHOUT CC .......................................
ECMO OR TRACH W MECH VENT 96+ HRS OR PDX EXCEPT FACE, MOUTH & NECK DIAG WITH
MAJOR OR.
TRACH W MECH VENT 96+ HRS OR PDX EXCEPT FACE, MOUTH & NECK DIAG WITHOUT MAJOR
OR.
5 CRANIOTOMY W IMPLANT OF CHEMO AGENT OR ACUTE COMPLEX CNS PDX .................................
5 MAJOR JOINT REPLACEMENT OR REATTACHMENT OF LOWER EXTREMITY .....................................
5 REVISION OF HIP OR KNEE REPLACEMENT .............................................................................................
7 SPINAL FUSION EXCEPT CERVICAL WITH CURVATURE OF SPINE OR MALIGNANCY .......................
7 CORONARY BYPASS WITH CARDIAC CATH WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS ..........................................
7 CORONARY BYPASS WITH CARDIAC CATH WITHOUT MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS ...................................
7 CORONARY BYPASS WITHOUT CARDIAC CATH WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS ...................................
7 CORONARY BYPASS WITHOUT CARDIAC CATH WITHOUT MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS ...........................
4 PERMANENT CARDIAC PACEMAKER IMPLANT WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS OR AICD LEAD OR
GNRTR.
4 OTHER PERMANENT CARDIAC PACEMAKER IMPLANT WITHOUT MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS ................
8 OTHER VASCULAR PROCEDURES WITH CC WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS .........................................
8 OTHER VASCULAR PROCEDURES WITH CC WITHOUT MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS .................................
4 PERCUTANEOUS CARDIOVASCULAR PROC WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS .........................................
8 PERCUTANEOUS CARDIOVASCULAR PROC WITH NON-DRUG-ELUTING STENT WITHOUT MAJOR
CV DIAGNOSIS.
8 PERCUTANEOUS CARDIOVASCULAR PROC WITH DRUG-ELUTING STENT WITH MAJOR CV DIAGNOSIS.
7 PERCUTANEOUS CARDIOVASCULAR PROC WITH DRUG-ELUTING STENT WITHOUT MAJOR CV
DIAGNOSIS.
7 ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE WITH USE OF THROMBOLYTIC AGENT ......................................................
4 BACK
5 KNEE
1 Relative
weights for these LTC-DRGs were determined by assigning these cases to low-volume quintile 1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Geometric
Average
Length of
Stay
1.7034
1.1820
1.7034
1.1820
0.5837
1.7034
38.5
29.6
38.5
29.6
21.3
38.5
1.1820
29.6
1.1820
0.7637
0.8367
0.4499
0.7709
0.4499
0.0000
0.0000
1.7034
0.7637
1.7034
1.1820
0.4457
0.4499
0.4499
0.5043
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
0.7637
0.7637
1.7034
1.1820
1.7034
1.7034
1.1615
29.6
24.8
29.4
19.0
24.6
19.0
0.0
0.0
38.5
24.8
38.5
29.6
19.4
19.0
19.0
21.1
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
24.8
24.8
38.5
29.6
38.5
38.5
34.7
1.1820
29.6
1.1820
0.5837
4.2287
29.6
21.3
65.6
3.1869
48.2
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.7034
1.1820
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
29.6
1.1820
1.3255
1.3255
1.1820
1.1820
29.6
30.6
30.6
29.6
29.6
1.1820
29.6
1.1820
29.6
0.7637
24.8
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
2 Relative
weights for these LTC-DRGs were
weights for these LTC-DRGs were
weights for these LTC-DRGs were
5 Relative weights for these LTC-DRGs were
6 Relative weights for these LTC-DRGs were
7 Relative weights for these LTC-DRGs were
LTCH cases in the FY 2004 MedPAR file.
8 Relative weights for these LTC-DRGs were
3 Relative
4 Relative
determined by assigning these cases to low-volume quintile 2.
determined by assigning these cases to low-volume quintile 3.
determined by assigning these cases to low-volume quintile 4.
determined by assigning these cases to low-volume quintile 5.
assigned a value of 0.0000.
determined by assigning these cases to the appropriate low volume quintile because there are no
determined after adjusting to account for nonmonotonicity.
[FR Doc. 06–665 Filed 1–19–06; 4:05 pm]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 Jan 26, 2006
Jkt 205001
4779
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JAP2.SGM
27JAP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4648-4779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-665]
[[Page 4647]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Part 412
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care
Hospitals RY 2007: Proposed Annual Payment Rate Updates, Policy
Changes, and Clarification; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 4648]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 412
[CMS-1485-P]
RIN 0938-AO06
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care
Hospitals RY 2007: Proposed Annual Payment Rate Updates, Policy
Changes, and Clarification
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would update the annual payment rates for
the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital
services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The proposed
payment amounts and factors used to determine the updated Federal rates
that are described in this proposed rule were determined based on the
LTCH PPS rate year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The annual
update of the long-term care diagnosis-related group (LTC-DRG)
classifications and relative weights remains linked to the annual
adjustments of the acute care hospital inpatient diagnosis-related
group system, and would continue to be effective each October 1. The
proposed outlier threshold for July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007,
would also be derived from the LTCH PPS rate year calculations. We are
also proposing to make policy changes and clarifications.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1485-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates,
please):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific
issues in this regulation to https://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking/.
(Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel;
however, we prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and
two copies) to the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-1485-P, P.O. Box 8012, Baltimore, MD
21244-8012.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one
original and two copies) to the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-1485-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the
close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you
intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call
telephone number (410) 786-7197 in advance to schedule your arrival
with one of our staff members.
Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily
available to persons without Federal Government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is
available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping
in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
Submission of comments on paperwork requirements. You may submit
comments on this document's paperwork requirements by mailing your
comments to the addresses provided at the end of the ``Collection of
Information Requirements'' section in this document.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tzvi Hefter, (410) 786-4487 (General information).
Judy Richter, (410) 786-2590 (General information, payment adjustments
for special cases, and onsite discharges and readmissions, interrupted
stays, co-located providers, and short-stay outliers).
Michele Hudson, (410) 786-5490 (Calculation of the payment rates, LTC-
DRGs, relative weights and case-mix index, market basket, wage index,
budget neutrality, and other payment adjustments).
Ann Fagan, (410) 786-5662 (Patient classification system).
Miechal Lefkowitz, (410) 786-5316 (High-cost outliers and cost-to-
charge ratios).
Linda McKenna, (410) 786-4537 (Payment adjustments, interrupted stay,
and transition period).
Nancy Kenly, (410) 786-7792 (Federal rate update and case-mix index).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Public Comments: We welcome comments from the public
on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering
issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the
file code [CMS-1485-P] and the specific ``issue identifier'' that
precedes the section on which you choose to comment.
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the
close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public,
including any personally identifiable or confidential business
information that is included in a comment. CMS posts all comments
received before the close of the comment period on its public website
as soon as possible after they are received. Comments received timely
will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally
beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the
headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of
each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view
public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative and Regulatory Authority
B. Criteria for Classification as a LTCH
1. Classification as a LTCH
2. Hospitals Excluded From the LTCH PPS
C. Transition Period for Implementation of the LTCH PPS
D. Limitation on Charges to Beneficiaries
E. Administrative Simplification Compliance Act (ASCA) and
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
Compliance
II. Summary of Major Contents of This Proposed Rule
III. Long-Term Care Diagnosis-Related Group (LTC-DRG)
Classifications and Relative Weights
A. Background
B. Patient Classifications Into DRGs
C. Organization of DRGs
D. Update of LTC-DRGs
E. ICD-9-CM Coding System
1. Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) Definitions
[[Page 4649]]
2. Maintenance of the ICD-9-CM Coding System
3. Coding Rules and Use of ICD-9-CM Codes in LTCHs
F. Method for Updating the LTC-DRG Relative Weights
IV. Proposed Changes to the LTCH PPS Payment Rates for the 2007 LTCH
PPS Rate Year
A. Overview of the Development of the Payment Rates
B. Proposed LTCH PPS Market Basket
1. Overview of the RPL Market Basket
2. Proposed Methodology for Determining the Operating Portion of
the RPL LTCH PPS Market Basket
3. Proposed Methodology for Determining the Capital Portion of
the RPL Market Basket
4. Proposed Market Basket Estimate for the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate
Year
C. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate
Year
1. Background
2. Description of a Preliminary Model of an Update Framework
Under the LTCH PPS
3. Proposed Update to the Standard Federal Rate for the 2007
LTCH PPS Rate Year
4. Proposed Standard Federal Rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate
Year
D. Calculation of Proposed LTCH Prospective Payments for the
2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
1. Proposed Adjustment for Area Wage Levels
a. Background
b. Geographic Classifications/Labor Market Area Definitions
c. Proposed Labor-Related Share
d. Proposed Wage Index Data
2. Proposed Adjustment for Cost-of-Living in Alaska and Hawaii
3. Proposed Adjustment for High-Cost Outliers
a. Background
b. Cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs)
c. Establishment of the Proposed Fixed-Loss Amount
d. Reconciliation of Outlier Payments Upon Cost Report
Settlement
e. Application of Outlier Policy to Short-Stay Outlier Cases
4. Other Payment Adjustments
5. Proposed Budget Neutrality Offset To Account for the
Transition Methodology
6. One-time Prospective Adjustment to the Standard Federal Rate.
V. Other Proposed Policy Changes for the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
A. Proposed Adjustments for Special Cases
1. Adjustment of Short-Stay Outlier Cases
a. Proposed Changes to the Method for Determining the Payment
Amount for Short-Stay Outlier Cases
b. Proposed Changes to the Determination for Cost-to-Charge
Ratios (CCRs) and Reconciliation of Short-Stay Outlier Cases
2. The 3-Day or Less Interruption of Stay
B. Special payment provisions for LTCH Hospitals Within
Hospitals (HwHs) and LTCH Satellites
VI. Computing the Proposed Adjusted Federal Prospective Payments for
the 2007 LTCH PPS Rate Year
VII. Transition Period
VIII. Payments to New LTCHs
IX. Method of Payment
X. Monitoring
XI. RTI Report on MedPAC June 2004 LTCH Recommendations
A. Overview of the Issues
B. Describing the LTCH Universe Since FY 2003
C. Patient, Facility, and Alternative Treatment Site Analysis
D. Specific Findings From Claims Analysis
XII. Collection of Information Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum--Tables
Appendix A--Description of a Preliminary Model of an Update
Framework Under the LTCH PPS
Acronyms
Because of the many terms to which we refer by acronym in this
proposed rule, we are listing the acronyms used and their corresponding
terms in alphabetical order below:
3M 3M Health Information Systems
AHA American Hospital Association
AHIMA American Health Information Management Association
ALOS Average length of stay
APR All patient refined
ASCA Administrative Simplification Compliance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-
105)
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33)
BBRA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance
Program] Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-113)
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance
Program] Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-
554)
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBSA Core-based statistical area
CC Complications and comorbidities
CCR Cost-to-charge ratio
C&M Coordination and maintenance
CMI Case-mix index
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CMSA Consolidated metropolitan statistical area
COLA Cost of living adjustment
COPS Medicare conditions of participation
CPI Consumer Price Indexes
DSH Disproportionate share of low-income patients
DRGs Diagnosis-related groups
ECI Employment Cost Indexes
FI Fiscal intermediary
FY Federal fiscal year
HCRIS Hospital cost report information system
HHA Home health agency
HHS (Department of) Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
191)
HIPC Health Information Policy Council
HwHs Hospitals Within Hospitals
ICD-9-CM International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
Clinical Modification (codes)
IME Indirect medical education
I-O Input-Output
IPF Inpatient psychiatric facility
IPPS Acute Care Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System
IRF Inpatient rehabilitation facility
LOS Length of stay
LTC-DRG Long-term care diagnosis-related group
LTCH Long-term care hospital
MCE Medicare code editor
MDC Major diagnostic categories
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
MedPAR Medicare provider analysis and review file
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)
MSA Metropolitan statistical area
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NECMA New England County metropolitan area
OPM U.S. Office of Personnel Management
O.R. Operating room
OSCAR Online Survey Certification and Reporting (System)
PIP Periodic interim payment
PLI Professional liability insurance
PMSA Primary metropolitan statistical area
PPI Producer Price Indexes
PPS Prospective payment system
QIO Quality Improvement Organization (formerly Peer Review organization
(PRO))
RPL Rehabilitation psychiatric long-term care (hospital)
RTI Research Triangle Institute, International
RY Rate year (July 1 through June 30)
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SSO Short-stay outlier
TEFRA Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248)
UHDDS Uniform hospital discharge data set
I. Background
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``BACKGROUND'' at the beginning of your comments.]
A. Legislative and Regulatory Authority
Section 123 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP (State Children's
[[Page 4650]]
Health Insurance Program] Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA)
(Pub. L. 106-113) as amended by section 307(b) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000
(BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554) provide for payment for both the operating and
capital-related costs of hospital inpatient stays in long-term care
hospitals (LTCHs) under Medicare Part A based on prospectively set
rates. The Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for LTCHs applies
to hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social
Security Act (the Act), effective for cost reporting periods beginning
on or after October 1, 2002.
Section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of the Act defines a LTCH as ``a
hospital which has an average inpatient length of stay (as determined
by the Secretary) of greater than 25 days.'' Section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II) of the Act also provides an alternative
definition of LTCHs: specifically, a hospital that first received
payment under section 1886(d) of the Act in 1986 and has an average
inpatient length of stay (LOS) (as determined by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the Secretary)) of greater than 20 days and
has 80 percent or more of its annual Medicare inpatient discharges with
a principal diagnosis that reflects a finding of neoplastic disease in
the 12-month cost reporting period ending in FY 1997.
Section 123 of the BBRA requires the PPS for LTCHs to be a per
discharge system with a diagnosis-related group (DRG) based patient
classification system that reflects the differences in patient
resources and costs in LTCHs while maintaining budget neutrality.
Section 307(b)(1) of BIPA, among other things, mandates that the
Secretary shall examine, and may provide for, adjustments to payments
under the LTCH PPS, including adjustments to DRG weights, area wage
adjustments, geographic reclassification, outliers, updates, and a
disproportionate share adjustment.
In a Federal Register document issued on August 30, 2002, we
implemented the LTCH PPS authorized under BBRA and BIPA (67 FR 55954).
This system uses information from LTCH patient records to classify
patients into distinct long-term care diagnosis-related groups (LTC-
DRGs) based on clinical characteristics and expected resource needs.
Payments are calculated for each LTC-DRG and provisions are made for
appropriate payment adjustments. Payment rates under the LTCH PPS are
updated annually and published in the Federal Register.
The LTCH PPS replaced the reasonable cost-based payment system
under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA)
(Pub. L. 97-248) for payments for inpatient services provided by a LTCH
with a cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2002.
(The regulations implementing the TEFRA reasonable cost-based payment
provisions are located at 42 CFR Part 413.) With the implementation of
the PPS for acute care hospitals authorized by the Social Security
Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), which added section 1886(d) to the
Act, certain hospitals, including LTCHs, were excluded from the PPS for
acute care hospitals and were paid their reasonable costs for inpatient
services subject to a per discharge limitation or target amount under
the TEFRA system. For each cost reporting period, a hospital-specific
ceiling on payments was determined by multiplying the hospital's
updated target amount by the number of total current year Medicare
discharges. The August 30, 2002 final rule further details the payment
policy under the TEFRA system (67 FR 55954).
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we also presented an in-depth
discussion of the LTCH PPS, including the patient classification
system, relative weights, payment rates, additional payments, and the
budget neutrality requirements mandated by section 123 of the BBRA. The
same final rule that established regulations for the LTCH PPS under 42
CFR part 412, subpart O, also contained LTCH provisions related to
covered inpatient services, limitation on charges to beneficiaries,
medical review requirements, furnishing of inpatient hospital services
directly or under arrangement, and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. We refer readers to the August 30, 2002 final rule for a
comprehensive discussion of the research and data that supported the
establishment of the LTCH PPS (67 FR 55954).
On June 6, 2003, we published a final rule in the Federal Register
(68 FR 34122) that set forth the 2004 annual update of the payment
rates for the Medicare PPS for inpatient hospital services furnished by
LTCHs. It also changed the annual period for which the payment rates
are effective. The annual updated rates are now effective from July 1
through June 30 instead of from October 1 through September 30. We
refer to the July through June time period as a ``long-term care
hospital rate year'' (LTCH PPS rate year). In addition, we changed the
publication schedule for the annual update to allow for an effective
date of July 1. The payment amounts and factors used to determine the
annual update of the LTCH PPS Federal rate is based on a LTCH PPS rate
year. While the LTCH payment rate update is effective July 1, the
annual update of the LTC-DRG classifications and relative weights are
linked to the annual adjustments of the acute care hospital inpatient
DRGs and are effective each October 1.
On May 6, 2005, we published the Prospective Payment System for
Long-Term Care Hospitals: Annual Payment Rate Updates, Policy Changes,
and Clarifications final rule (70 FR 24168) (hereinafter referred to as
the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule). In this rule, we set forth the 2006
LTCH PPS rate year annual update of the payment rates for the Medicare
PPS for inpatient hospital services provided by LTCHs. We also
discussed clarification of the notification policy for colocated LTCHs
and satellite facilities. The RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule also included
a provision to extend the surgical DRG exception in the 3-day or less
interruption of stay policy at Sec. 412.531 as well as a provision
that clarified and modified existing notification requirements for the
purpose of implementing Sec. 412.532.
B. Criteria for Classification as a LTCH
1. Classification as a LTCH
Under the existing regulations at Sec. 412.23(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i),
which implement section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of the Act, to qualify to
be paid under the LTCH PPS, a hospital must have a provider agreement
with Medicare and must have an average Medicare inpatient LOS of
greater than 25 days. Alternatively, Sec. 412.23(e)(2)(ii) states that
for cost reporting periods beginning on or after August 5, 1997, a
hospital that was first excluded from the PPS in 1986 and can
demonstrate that at least 80 percent of its annual Medicare inpatient
discharges in the 12-month cost reporting period ending in FY 1997 have
a principal diagnosis that reflects a finding of neoplastic disease
must have an average inpatient LOS for all patients, including both
Medicare and non-Medicare inpatients, of greater than 20 days.
Section 412.23(e)(3) provides that, subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(iv) of this section, the average
Medicare inpatient LOS, specified under Sec. 412.23(e)(2)(i) is
calculated by dividing the total number of covered and noncovered days
of stay of Medicare inpatients (less leave or pass days) by the number
of total Medicare discharges for the hospital's most recent complete
cost reporting
[[Page 4651]]
period. Section 412.23 also provides that subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(iv) of this section, the average
inpatient LOS specified under Sec. 412.23(e)(2)(ii) is calculated by
dividing the total number of days for all patients, including both
Medicare and non-Medicare inpatients (less leave or pass days) by the
number of total discharges for the hospital's most recent complete cost
reporting period.
In the RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule (69 FR 25674), we specified the
procedure for calculating a hospital's inpatient average length of stay
(ALOS) for purposes of classification as a LTCH. That is, if a
patient's stay includes days of care furnished during two or more
separate consecutive cost reporting periods, the total days of a
patient's stay would be reported in the cost reporting period during
which the patient is discharged (69 FR 25705). Therefore, we revised
the regulations at Sec. 412.23(e)(3)(ii) to specify that, effective
for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2004, in
calculating a hospital's ALOS, if the days of an inpatient stay involve
days of care furnished during two or more separate consecutive cost
reporting periods, the total number of days of the stay are considered
to have occurred in the cost reporting period during which the
inpatient was discharged.
Fiscal intermediaries (FIs) verify that LTCHs meet the ALOS
requirements. We note that the inpatient days of a patient who is
admitted to a LTCH without any remaining Medicare days of coverage,
regardless of the fact that the patient is a Medicare beneficiary, will
not be included in the above calculation. Because Medicare would not be
paying for any of the patient's treatment, data on the patient's stay
would not be included in the Medicare claims processing systems. As
described in Sec. 409.61, in order for both covered and noncovered
days of a LTCH hospitalization to be included, a patient admitted to
the LTCH must have at least one remaining benefit day (68 FR 34123).
The FI's determination of whether or not a hospital qualified as an
LTCH is based on the hospital's discharge data from the hospital's most
recent complete cost reporting period (Sec. 412.23(e)(3)) and is
effective at the start of the hospital's next cost reporting period
(Sec. 412.22(d)). However, if the hospital does not meet the ALOS
requirement as specified in Sec. 412.23(e)(2)(i) and (ii), the
hospital may provide the intermediary with data indicating a change in
the ALOS by the same method for the period of at least 5 months of the
immediately preceding 6-month period (69 FR 25676). Our interpretation
of the current regulations at Sec. 412.23(e)(3) was to allow hospitals
to submit data using a period of at least 5 months of the most recent
data from the immediately preceding 6-month period.
As we stated in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS)
final rule, published August 1, 2003, prior to the implementation of
the LTCH PPS, we did rely on data from the most recently submitted cost
report for purposes of calculating the ALOS. The calculation to
determine whether an acute care hospital qualifies for LTCH status was
based on total days and discharges for LTCH inpatients. However, with
the implementation of the LTCH PPS, for the ALOS specified under Sec.
412.23(e)(2)(i), we revised Sec. 412.23(e)(3)(i) to only count total
days and discharges for Medicare inpatients (67 FR 55970 through
55974). In addition, the ALOS specified under Sec. 412.23(e)(2)(ii) is
calculated by dividing the total number of days for all patients,
including both Medicare and non-Medicare inpatients (less leave or pass
days) by the number of total discharges for the hospital's most recent
complete cost reporting period. As we discussed in the August 1, 2003
IPPS final rule, we are unable to capture the necessary data from our
present cost reporting forms. Therefore, we have notified FIs and LTCHs
that until the cost reporting forms are revised, for purposes of
calculating the ALOS, we will be relying upon census data extracted
from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) files that reflect
each LTCH's cost reporting period (68 FR 45464). Requirements for
hospitals seeking classification as LTCHs that have undergone a change
in ownership, as described in Sec. 489.18, are set forth in Sec.
412.23(e)(3)(iv).
2. Hospitals Excluded From the LTCH PPS
The following hospitals are paid under special payment provisions,
as described in Sec. 412.22(c) and, therefore, are not subject to the
LTCH PPS rules:
Veterans Administration hospitals.
Hospitals that are reimbursed under State cost control
systems approved under 42 CFR part 403.
Hospitals that are reimbursed in accordance with
demonstration projects authorized under section 402(a) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-248) (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1) or
section 222(a) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-
603) (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1 (note)) (Statewide all-payer systems, subject
to the rate-of-increase test at section 1814(b) of the Act).
Nonparticipating hospitals furnishing emergency services
to Medicare beneficiaries.
C. Transition Period for Implementation of the LTCH PPS
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we provided for a 5-year
transition period from reasonable cost-based reimbursement to a full
Federal prospective payment based on 100 percent of the Federal rate
for LTCHs (67 FR 56038). However, existing LTCHs and LTCHs that are not
defined as new in Sec. 412.533(d) have the option to elect to be paid
based on 100 percent of the Federal prospective payment. During the 5-
year period, two payment percentages are to be used to determine a
LTCH's total payment under the PPS. The blend percentages are as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable cost-
Cost reporting periods beginning Prospective based
on or after payment federal reimbursement
rate percentage rate percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2002................... 20 80
October 1, 2003................... 40 60
October 1, 2004................... 60 40
October 1, 2005................... 80 20
October 1, 2006................... 100 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4652]]
D. Limitation on Charges to Beneficiaries
In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we presented an in-depth
discussion of beneficiary liability under the LTCH PPS (67 FR 55974
through 55975). In the RY 2005 LTCH PPS final rule (69 FR 25676), we
clarified that the discussion of beneficiary liability in the August
30, 2002 final rule was not meant to establish rates or payments for,
or define Medicare-eligible expenses. Under Sec. 412.507, as
consistent with other established hospital prospective payment systems,
a LTCH may not bill a Medicare beneficiary for more than the deductible
and coinsurance amounts as specified under Sec. 409.82, Sec. 409.83,
and Sec. 409.87 and for items and services as specified under Sec.
489.30(a), if the Medicare payment to the LTCH is the full LTC-DRG
payment amount. However, under the LTCH PPS, Medicare will only pay for
days for which the beneficiary has coverage until the short-stay
outlier (SSO) threshold is exceeded. (See section V.A.1.a. of this
preamble.) Therefore, if the Medicare payment was for a SSO case (Sec.
412.529) that was less than the full LTC-DRG payment amount because the
beneficiary had insufficient remaining Medicare days, the LTCH could
also charge the beneficiary for services delivered on those uncovered
days (Sec. 412.507).
E. Administrative Simplification Compliance Act and Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act Compliance
Claims submitted to Medicare must comply with both the
Administrative Simplification Compliance Act (ASCA) (Pub. L. 107-105),
and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Pub.
L. 104-191). Section 3 of ASCA requires the Medicare Program, to deny
payment under Part A or Part B for any expenses for items or services
``for which a claim is submitted other than in an electronic form
specified by the Secretary.'' Section 1862(h) of the Act (as added by
section 3(a) of ASCA) provides that the Secretary shall waive such
denial in two types of cases and may also waive such denial ``in such
unusual cases as the Secretary finds appropriate.'' (Also, see 68 FR
48805, August 15, 2003, implementing section 3 of ASCA.) Section 3 of
ASCA operates in the context of the Administrative Simplification
provisions of HIPAA, which include, among other provisions, the
transactions and code sets standards requirements codified as 45 CFR
parts 160 and 162, subparts A and I through R (generally known as the
Transactions Rule). The Transactions Rule requires covered entities,
including covered providers, to conduct covered electronic transactions
according to the applicable transactions and code sets standards.
II. Summary of the Major Contents of This Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, we are setting forth the proposed annual
update to the payment rates for the Medicare LTCH PPS, as well as,
proposing other policy changes. The following is a summary of the major
areas that we are addressing in this proposed rule:
In section III of this preamble, we discuss the LTCH PPS patient
classification and the relative weights which remain linked to the
annual adjustments of the acute care hospital inpatient DRG system, and
are based on the annual revisions to the International Classification
of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes
effective each October 1.
In section IV.B. of this preamble, we propose to adopt the
``Rehabilitation, Psychiatric, Long Term Care (RPL)'' market basket
under the LTCH PPS in place of the excluded hospital with capital
market basket.
As discussed in section IV.C. of this preamble, we are proposing a
zero percent update to the LTCH PPS Federal rate for the 2007 LTCH PPS
rate year instead of the most recent estimate of the LTCH PPS market
basket.
Also in section IV.C. of this preamble, we discuss the proposed
prospective payment rate for RY 2007, and in section IV.D. we discuss
the applicable adjustments to the proposed payment rates, including the
proposed revisions to the wage index, the proposed cost-of-living
adjustment factors, the proposed outlier threshold, and the proposed
transition period budget neutrality factor for the 2007 LTCH PPS rate
year. We are also proposing revisions to the cost-to-charge ratio and
reconciliation provisions as they apply to LTCH outlier payment
policies.
In section IV.D.1.c. of this preamble, we also discuss our proposal
to revise the LTCH PPS labor-related share based on RPL market basket.
Also in section IV.D. of this preamble, we are proposing to postpone
the deadline for making the one-time prospective adjustment for the
Federal rate at Sec. 412.523(d)(3).
In section V.A. of this preamble, we are proposing to revise the
existing payment adjustment for SSO cases by reducing the part of the
current payment formula that is based on costs and adding a fourth
component to the current payment formula. Also in section V.A. of this
preamble, we are proposing to sunset the surgical DRG exception to the
payment policy established under the 3-day or less interruption of stay
regulations at Sec. 412.531(a)(1).
In section V.B. of this preamble, for LTCH hospitals within
hospitals (HwHs) and LTCH satellites, we are proposing to clarify at
Sec. 412.534(c) that under the policy for adjusting the LTCH PPS
payment based on the amount that would be determined under the IPPS
payment methodology, we calculate the LTCH PPS payment amount that is
equivalent to what would otherwise be paid under the IPPS. We are also
proposing to codify in regulations the general formula we currently use
to give affect to the regulations as they pertain to calculating an
amount under subpart O that is equivalent to an amount that would be
determined under Sec. 412.1(a).
In section X. of this preamble, we will discuss our on-going
monitoring protocols under the LTCH PPS.
In section XI of this preamble, we will discuss the recommendations
made by the Research Triangle Institute, International's (RTI)
evaluation of the feasibility of adopting recommendations made in the
June 2004 MedPAC Report.
In section XIII of this preamble, we analyze the impact of the
proposed changes presented in this proposed rule on Medicare
expenditures, Medicare-participating LTCHs, and Medicare beneficiaries.
In Appendix A of this proposed rule, we present a description of a
preliminary model of an update framework under the LTCH PPS that we may
propose to use in the future for purposes of the annual updating of the
LTCH PPS Federal rate in future years.
III. Long-Term Care Diagnosis-Related Group (LTC-DRG) Classifications
and Relative Weights
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``LTC-DRG CLASSIFICATIONS AND RELATIVE WEIGHTS'' at the
beginning of your comments.]
A. Background
Section 123 of the BBRA specifically requires that the PPS for
LTCHs be a per discharge system with a DRG-based patient classification
system reflecting the differences in patient resources and costs in
LTCHs while maintaining budget neutrality. Section 307(b)(1) of BIPA
modified the requirements of section 123 of the BBRA by specifically
requiring that the Secretary examine ``the feasibility and the impact
of basing payment under such a system [the LTCH PPS] on the use of
existing (or refined) hospital DRGs that have been modified to account
for different
[[Page 4653]]
resource use of LTCH patients as well as the use of the most recently
available hospital discharge data.''
In accordance with section 123 of the BBRA as amended by section
307(b)(1) of BIPA and Sec. 412.515, we use information derived from
LTCH PPS patient records to classify these cases into distinct LTC-DRGs
based on clinical characteristics and estimated resource needs. The
LTC-DRGs used as the patient classification component of the LTCH PPS
correspond to the hospital inpatient DRGs in the IPPS. We assign an
appropriate weight to the LTC-DRGs to account for the difference in
resource use by patients exhibiting the case complexity and multiple
medical problems characteristic of LTCHs.
In a departure from the IPPS, we use low volume LTC-DRGs (less than
25 LTCH cases) in determining the LTC-DRG weights, since LTCHs do not
typically treat the full range of diagnoses as do acute care hospitals.
In order to manage the large number of low volume DRGs (all DRGs with
fewer than 25 cases), we group low volume DRGs into 5 quintiles based
on average charge per discharge. (A listing of the current composition
of low volume quintiles used in determining the FY 2006 LTC-DRG
relative weights appears in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47329
through 47332).) We also account for adjustments to payments for cases
in which the stay at the LTCH is less than or equal to five-sixths of
the geometric ALOS and classify these cases as SSO cases. (A detailed
discussion of the application of the Lewin Group model that was used to
develop the LTC-DRGs appears in the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final rule
(67 FR 55978).)
B. Patient Classifications Into DRGs
Generally, under the LTCH PPS, Medicare payment is made at a
predetermined specific rate for each discharge; that payment varies by
the LTC-DRG to which a beneficiary's stay is assigned. Cases are
classified into LTC-DRGs for payment based on the following six data
elements:
(1) Principal diagnosis.
(2) Up to eight additional diagnoses.
(3) Up to six procedures performed.
(4) Age.
(5) Sex.
(6) Discharge status of the patient.
As indicated in the August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final rule, upon the
discharge of the patient from a LTCH, the LTCH must assign appropriate
diagnosis and procedure codes from the most current version of the ICD-
9-CM. HIPAA transactions and code sets standards regulations (45 CFR
parts 160 and 162) require that no later than October 16, 2003, all
covered entities must comply with the applicable requirements of
subparts A and I through R of part 162. Among other requirements, those
provisions direct covered entities that electronically transmit
institutional health care claim or equivalent encounter information,
for instance, to use the ASC X12N 837 Health Care Claim: Institutional,
Volumes 1 and 2, version 4010, and the applicable standard medical data
code sets. (See 45 CFR 162.1002 and 45 CFR 162.1102).
Medicare FIs enter the clinical and demographic information into
their claims processing systems and subject this information to a
series of automated screening processes called the Medicare Code Editor
(MCE). These screens are designed to identify cases that require
further review before assignment into a DRG can be made. During this
process, the following types of cases are selected for further
development:
Cases that are improperly coded. (For example, diagnoses
are shown that are inappropriate, given the sex of the patient. Code
68.6, Radical abdominal hysterectomy, would be an inappropriate code
for a male.)
Cases including surgical procedures not covered under
Medicare. (For example, organ transplant in a non-approved transplant
center.)
Cases requiring more information. (For example, ICD-9-CM
codes are required to be entered at their highest level of specificity.
There are valid 3-digit, 4-digit, and 5-digit codes. That is, code 262,
Other severe protein-calorie malnutrition, contains all appropriate
digits, but if it is reported with either fewer or more than 3 digits,
the claim will be rejected by the MCE as invalid.)
Cases with principal diagnoses that do not usually justify
admission to the hospital. (For example, code 437.9, unspecified
cerebrovascular disease. While this code is valid according to the ICD-
9-CM coding scheme, a more precise code should be used for the
principal diagnosis.)
After screening through the MCE, each claim will be classified into
the appropriate LTC-DRG by the Medicare LTCH GROUPER software. As
indicated in August 30, 2002 LTCH PPS final rule, the Medicare GROUPER
software, which is used under the LTCH PPS, is specialized computer
software, and is the same GROUPER software program used under the IPPS.
The GROUPER software was developed as a means of classifying each case
into a DRG on the basis of diagnosis and procedure codes and other
demographic information (age, sex, and discharge status). Following the
LTC-DRG assignment, the Medicare FI determines the prospective payment
by using the Medicare PRICER program, which accounts for hospital-
specific adjustments. Under the LTCH PPS, we provide an opportunity for
the LTCH to review the LTC-DRG assignments made by the FI and to submit
additional information within a specified timeframe as specified in
Sec. 412.513(c).
The GROUPER software is used both to classify past cases in order
to measure relative hospital resource consumption to establish the DRG
weights and to classify current cases for purposes of determining
payment. The records for all Medicare hospital inpatient discharges are
maintained in the MedPAR file. The data in this file are used to
evaluate possible DRG classification changes and to recalibrate the DRG
weights during our annual update under both the IPPS (Sec. 412.60(e))
and the LTCH PPS (Sec. 412.517). As discussed in greater detail in
sections III.D. and E. of this preamble, with the implementation of
section 503(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173), there is the
possibility that one feature of the GROUPER software program may be
updated twice during a Federal fiscal year (FY) (October 1 and April 1)
as required by the statute for the IPPS (69 FR 48954 through 48957).
Specifically, as we discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, ICD-9
diagnosis and procedure codes for new medical technology may be created
and added to existing DRGs in the middle of the Federal FY on April 1
(70 FR 47323). However, this policy change will have no effect on the
LTC-DRG relative weights, which will continue to be updated only once a
year (October 1), nor will there be any impact on Medicare payments
under the LTCH PPS. The use of the ICD-9-CM code set is also compliant
with the current requirements of the Transactions and Code Sets
Standards regulations at 45 CFR parts 160 and 162, published in
accordance with HIPAA.
C. Organization of DRGs
The DRGs are organized into 25 major diagnostic categories (MDCs),
most of which are based on a particular organ system of the body; the
remainder involve multiple organ systems (such as MDC 22, Burns).
Accordingly, the principal diagnosis determines MDC assignment. Within
most MDCs, cases are then divided into surgical DRGs and medical DRGs.
Surgical DRGs are assigned based on a surgical hierarchy that orders
operating room (O.R.) procedures or groups of O.R. procedures
[[Page 4654]]
by resource intensity. The GROUPER software program does not recognize
all ICD-9-CM procedure codes as procedures that affect DRG assignment,
that is, procedures which are not surgical (for example, EKG), or minor
surgical procedures (for example, 86.11, Biopsy of skin and
subcutaneous tissue).
The medical DRGs are generally differentiated on the basis of
diagnosis. Both medical and surgical DRGs may be further differentiated
based on age, sex, discharge status, and presence or absence of
complications or comorbidities (CC). We note that CCs are defined by
certain secondary diagnoses not related to, or not inherently a part
of, the disease process identified by the principal diagnosis. (For
example, the GROUPER software would not recognize a code from the
800.0x series, Skull fracture, as a CC when combined with principal
diagnosis 850.4, Concussion with prolonged loss of consciousness,
without return to preexisting conscious level.) In addition, we note
that the presence of additional diagnoses does not automatically
generate a CC, as not all DRGs recognize a comorbid or complicating
condition in their definition. (For example, DRG 466, Aftercare without
History of Malignancy as Secondary Diagnosis, is based solely on the
principal diagnosis, without consideration of additional diagnoses for
DRG determination.)
In its June 2000, Report to Congress, MedPAC recommended that the
Secretary ``* * * improve the hospital inpatient prospective payment
system by adopting, as soon as practicable, diagnosis-related group
refinements that more fully capture differences in severity of illness
among patients,'' (Recommendation 3A, p. 63). In response to that
recommendation, we determined at that time that it was not practical to
develop a refinement to inpatient hospital DRGs based on severity due
to time and resource requirements. However, this does not preclude us
from development of a severity-adjusted DRG refinement in the future.
That is, a refinement to the list of CCs could be incorporated into the
existing DRG structure. It is also possible that a more comprehensive
severity adjusted structure may be created if a new code set is
adopted. That is, if ICD-9-CM is replaced by ICD-10-CM (for diagnostic
coding) and ICD-10-PCS (for procedure coding) or by other code sets, a
severity concept may be built into the resulting DRG assignments. Of
course, any change to the code set would be adopted through the process
established in the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Standards
provisions.
In its March 2005 Report to Congress, ``Physician-Owned Specialty
Hospitals,'' MedPAC recommended that the Secretary improve payment
accuracy in the hospital IPPS by, among other things, ``refining the
current DRGs to more fully capture differences in severity of illness
among patients.'' (Recommendation 1, p. 93.) In the FY 2006 IPPS final
rule (70 FR 47474 through 47479), we stated that we expected to make
changes to the DRGs to better reflect severity of illness and we
indicated that we plan to conduct a comprehensive review of the CCs
list for FY 2007. We also indicated that we are considering the
possibility of proposing to use the All Patient Refined (APR) DRGs
under the IPPS for FY 2007. We explained that we did not propose to
adopt the APR-DRGS under the IPPS for FY 2006 because it would
represent a significant undertaking that could have a substantial
effect on all hospitals and there was insufficient time to fully
analyze a change of that magnitude. However, as an interim step to
better recognize severity in the DRG system for FY 2006, until we can
complete a more comprehensive analysis of the APR-DRG system and CC
list as part of a complete analysis of the MedPAC recommendations that
we plan to perform over the next year, we established cardiovascular
DRGs 547 through 558 as described in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR
47474 through 47478).
D. Update of LTC-DRGs
For FY 2006, the LTC-DRG patient classification system was based on
LTCH data from the FY 2004 MedPAR file, which contained hospital bills
data from the March 2005 update. The patient classification system
consists of 526 DRGs that formed the basis of the FY 2006 LTCH PPS
GROUPER program. The 526 LTC-DRGs included two ``error DRGs.'' As in
the IPPS, we included two error DRGs in which cases that cannot be
assigned to valid DRGs will be grouped. These two error DRGs are DRG
469 (Principal Diagnosis Invalid as a Discharge Diagnosis) and DRG 470
(Ungroupable). (See the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47323 through
47341)). The other 524 LTC-DRGs are the same DRGs used in the IPPS
GROUPER program for FY 2006 (Version 23.0).
In the past, the annual update to the CMS DRGs was based on the
annual revisions to the ICD-9-CM codes and was effective each October
1. Recently, the ICD-9-CM coding update process was revised as
discussed in greater detail in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 48954
through 48957). Specifically, section 503(a) of the MMA includes a
requirement for updating ICD-9-CM codes twice a year instead of the
current process of annual updates on October 1 of each year. This
requirement is included as part of the amendments to the Act relating
to recognition of new medical technology under the IPPS. (For
additional information on this provision, including its implementation
and its impact on the LTCH PPS, refer to the FY 2005 IPPS final rule
(69 FR 48952 through 48957) and the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule (70 FR
24172 through 24177).)
As discussed in the RY 2006 LTCH PPS final rule, with the
implementation of section 503(a) of the MMA, there is the possibility
that one feature of the GROUPER software program may be updated twice
during a Federal FY (October 1 and April 1) as required by the statute
for the IPPS (70 FR 24173 through 24175). Specifically, ICD-9-CM
diagnosis and procedure codes for new medical technology may be created
and added to existing DRGs in the middle of the Federal FY on April 1.
No new LTC-DRGs will be created or deleted. Consistent with our current
practice, any changes to the DRGs or relative weights will be made at
the beginning of the next Federal FY (October 1). Therefore, there will
not be any impact on Medicare payments under the LTCH PPS. The use of
the ICD-9-CM code set is also compliant with the current requirements
of the Transactions and Code Sets Standards regulations at 45 CFR parts
160 and 162, issued under HIPAA.
As we explained in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, in the health care
industry, historically annual changes to the ICD-9-CM codes were
effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1 each year (70
FR 47323). Thus, the manual and electronic versions of the GROUPER
software, which are based on the ICD-9-CM codes, were also revised
annually and effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1
each year. The patient classification system used under the LTCH PPS
(LTC-DRGs) is based on the DRG patient classification system used under
the IPPS, which historically had been updated annually and effective
for discharges occurring on or after October 1 through September 30
each year. As we also mentioned, the ICD-9-CM coding update process was
revised as a result of the implementation of section 503(a) of the MMA,
which includes a requirement for updating ICD-9-CM codes as often as
twice a year instead of the current process of annual updates on
October 1 of each year. As discussed
[[Page 4655]]
in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule, this requirement is included as part of
the amendments to the Act relating to recognition of new medical
technology under the IPPS (69 FR 48954 through 48957). Section 503(a)
of the MMA amended section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the Act by adding a new
paragraph (vii) which states that ``the Secretary shall provide for the
addition of new diagnosis and procedure codes in [sic] April 1 of each
year, but the addition of such codes shall not require the Secretary to
adjust the payment (or diagnosis-related group classification) * * *
until the FY that begins after such date.'' This requirement will
improve the recognition of new technologies under the IPPS by
accounting for those ICD-9-CM codes in the MedPAR claims data at an
earlier date.
Despite the fact that aspects of the GROUPER software may be
updated to recognize any new technology ICD-9-CM codes, there will be
no impact on either LTC-DRG assignments or payments under the LTCH PPS
at that time. That is, changes to the LTC-DRGs (such as the creation or
deletion of LTC-DRGs) and the relative weights will continue to be
updated in the manner and timing (October 1) as they are now.
Updates to the GROUPER software for both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS
(for relative weights and the creation or deletion of DRGs) are made in
the annual IPPS proposed and final rules and are effective each October
1. We also explained that since we do not publish a midyear IPPS rule,
April 1 code updates will not be published in a midyear IPPS rule.
Rather, we will assign any new diagnosis or procedure codes to the same
DRG in which its predecessor code was assigned, so that there will be
no impact on the DRG assignments. Any coding updates will be available
through the Web sites provided in section III.E. of this preamble and
through the Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM. Publishers and software vendors
currently obtain code changes through these sources in order to update
their code books and software system. If new codes are implemented on
April 1, revised code books and software systems, including the GROUPER
software program, will be necessary because we must use current ICD-9-
CM codes. Therefore, for purposes of the LTCH PPS, because each ICD-9-
CM code must be included in the GROUPER algorithm to classify each case
into a LTC-DRG, the GROUPER software program used under the LTCH PPS
would need to be revised to accommodate any new codes.
In implementing section 503(a) of the MMA, there will only be an
April 1 update if new technology codes are requested and approved. We
note that any new codes created for April 1 implementation will be
limited to those diagnosis and procedure code revisions primarily
needed to describe new technologies and medical services. However, we
reiterate that the process of discussing updates to the ICD-9-CM has
been an open process through the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance
Committee since 1995. Requestors will be given the opportunity to
present the merits for a new code and make a clear and convincing case
for the need to update ICD-9-CM codes for purposes of the IPPS new
technology add-on payment process through an April 1 update.
Discharges between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006,
(Federal FY 2006) are using Version 23.0 of the GROUPER software for
both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS. Consistent with our current practice,
any changes to the DRGs or relative weights will be made at the
beginning of the Federal FY (October 1). We will notify LTCHs of any
revised LTC-DRG relative weights based on the final DRGs and the
applicable version of the GROUPER software program that will be
effective October 1, 2006, in the annual IPPS proposed and final rules.
At the September 2005 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee
meeting, there were no requests for an April 1, 2006 implementation of
ICD-9-CM codes, and therefore, the next update to the ICD-9-CM coding
system will not occur until October 1, 2006 (FY 2007). Presently, as
there were no coding changes suggested for an April 1, 2006 update, the
ICD-9-CM coding set implemented on October 1, 2005, will continue
through September 30, 2006 (FY 2006). The next update to the LTC-DRGs
and relative weights for FY 2007 will be presented in the FY 2007 IPPS
proposed and final rules. Furthermore, we would notify LTCHs of any
revisions to the GROUPER software used under the IPPS and LTCH PPS that
would be implemented April 1, 2007.
E. ICD-9-CM Coding System
1. Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) Definitions
Because the assignment of a case to a particular LTC-DRG will help
determine the amount that will be paid for the case, it is important
that the coding is accurate. Classifications and terminology used in
the LTCH PPS are consistent with the ICD-9-CM and the UHDDS, as
recommended to the Secretary by the National Committee on Vital and
Health Statistics (``Uniform Hospital Discharge Data: Minimum Data Set,
National Center for Health Statistics, April 1980'') and as revised in
1984 by the Health Information Policy Council (HIPC) of HHS.
We note that the ICD-9-CM coding terminology and the definitions of
principal and other diagnoses of the UHDDS are consistent with the
requirements of the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Act of 1996 (45
CFR part 162). Furthermore, the UHDDS was used as a standard for the
development of policies and programs related to hospital discharge
statistics by both governmental and nongovernmental sectors for over 30
years. In addition, the following definitions (as described in the 1984
Revision of the UHDDS, approved by the Secretary for use starting
January 1986) are requirements of the ICD-9-CM coding system, and have
been used as a standard for the development of the CMS DRGs:
Diagnoses are defined to include all diagnoses that affect
the current hospital stay.
Principal diagnosis is defined as the condition
established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the
admission of the patient to the hospital for care.
Other diagnoses (also called secondary diagnoses or
additional diagnoses) are defined as all conditions that coexist at the
time of admission, that develop subsequently, or that affect the
treatment received or the LOS or both. Diagnoses that relate to an
earlier episode of care that have no bearing on the current hospital
stay are excluded.
All procedures performed will be reported. This includes
those that are surgical in nature, carry a procedural risk, carry an
anesthetic risk, or require specialized training.
We provide LTCHs with a 60-day window after the date of the notice
of the initial LTC-DRG assignment to request review of that assignment.
Additional information may be provided by the LTCH to the FI as part of
that review.
2. Maintenance of the ICD-9-CM Coding System
The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a
Federal interdepartmental committee, co-chaired by the National Center
for Health Statistics (NCHS) and CMS, that is charged with maintaining
and updating the ICD-9-CM system. The C&M Committee is jointly
responsible for approving coding changes, and developing errata,
addenda, and other modifications to the ICD-9-CM to
[[Page 4656]]
reflect newly developed procedures and technologies and newly
identified diseases. The C&M Committee is also responsible for
promoting the use of Federal and non-Federal educational programs and
other communication techniques with a view toward standardizing coding
applications and upgrading the quality of the classification system.
The NCHS has lead responsibility for the ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes
included in the Tabular List and Alphabetic Index for Diseases, while
we have the lead responsibility for the ICD-9-CM procedure codes
included in the Tabular List and Alphabetic Index for Procedures. The
C&M Committee encourages participation by health-related organizations
in this process and holds public meetings for discussion of educational
issues and proposed coding changes twice a year at the CMS Central
Office located in Baltimore, Maryland. The agenda and dates of the
meetings can be accessed on our Web site at: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes.
As discussed previously in this section of the preamble, section
503(a) of the MMA includes a requirement for updating ICD-9-CM codes
twice a year instead of the current process of annual updates on
October 1 of each year. This requirement will improve the recognition
of new technologies under the IPPS by accounting for them in the
GROUPER software at an earlier date. Because this new statutory
requirement could have a significant impact on health care providers,
coding staff, publishers, system maintainers, and software systems,
among others, we solicited comments on our proposed provisions to
implement this requirement as part of the FY 2005 IPPS proposed rule
(69 FR 28220 through 28221). We responded to comments and published our
new policy regarding the updating of ICD-9-CM codes in the FY 2005 IPPS
final rule (69 FR 48954 through 48957).
While this new requirement states that the Secretary shall not
adjust the payment of the DRG classification for any codes created for
use on April 1, DRG software and other systems will have to be updated
in order to recognize and accept the new codes. If any coding changes
were implemented on April 1, the Medicare GROUPER software program used
under both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS would need to be revised to
reflect the new ICD-9-CM codes because the LTC-DRGs are the same DRGs
used under the IPPS. Furthermore, although the GROUPER software used
under both the IPPS and the LTCH PPS would need to be revised to
accommodate the new codes effective April 1, there would be no
additions or deletions of DRGs nor would the relative weights used
under the IPPS and the LTCH PPS, respectively, be changed until the
annual update October 1 (to the extent that those changes are
warranted), just as they are historically updated. As the LTCH PPS is
based on the IPPS, we adopted the same approach used under the IPPS for
potential April 1 ICD-9-CM coding changes. That is, we will assign any
new diagnosis codes or procedure codes to the same DRG in which its
predecessor code was assigned, so there will be no DRG impact in terms
of potential DRG assignment until the following October 1. We will
maintain the current method of publicizing any new code changes, as
noted below. Current addendum and code title information is published
on the CMS Web page at: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9Provider
DiagnosticCodes/04--addendum.asp. Summary tables showing new, revised,
and deleted code titles are also posted on the following CMS Web page:
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/07_
summarytables.asp. Information on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes can be found
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/. Information on
new, revised, and deleted ICD-9-CM codes is also available in the
American Hospital Association (AHA) publication Coding Clinic for ICD-
9-CM. AHA also distributes information to publishers and software
vendors. We also send copies of all ICD-9-CM coding changes to our
contractors for use in updating their systems and providing education
to providers.
If the April 1 changes are made to ICD-9-CM diagnosis or procedure
codes, LTCHs will be required to obtain the new codes, coding books, or
encoder updates, and make other system changes in order to capture and
report the new codes. When we implemented section 503(a) of the MMA in
the FY 2005 IPPS final rule, we indicated that we were aware of the
additional burden this will have on health care providers.
It should be noted that any new codes created for April 1
implementation will be limited to those diagnosis and procedure code
revisions primarily needed to describe new technologies and medical
services. However, we reiterate that the process for discussing updates
to the ICD-9-CM has been an open process through the ICD-9-CM C&M
Committee since 1995. Any requestor who makes a clear and convincing
case for the need to update ICD-9-CM codes for purposes of the IPPS new
technology add-on payment process through an April 1 update will be
given the opportunity to present the merits of their proposed new code.
At the September 2005 C&M Committee meeting, no new codes were
proposed for update on April 1, 2006. While no DRG additions or
deletions or changes to relative weights will occur prior to the usual
October 1 update, in the event any new codes were created to describe
new technologies and medical services through an April 1, 2006 update,
under our policy established in the RY 2006 final rule (70 FR 24176),
LTCH systems would be expected to recognize and report those new codes
through the channels as described in this section.
The ICD-9-CM coding changes that have been adopted by the C&M
Committee would become effective either at the beginning of each
Federal FY (October 1) or, in the case of codes created to capture new
technology, April 1 of each year. Coders will be expected to use the
most current ICD-9-CM codes, as updated. Because we do not publish a
mid-year IPPS rule, the currently accepted avenues of information
dissemination will be used to inform all ICD-9-CM code users of any
changes to the coding system. These avenues were described in section
III.D. of this preamble and were discussed at length in the FY 2005
IPPS final rule (69 FR 48956). Coders in LTCHs using the updated ICD-9-
CM coding system will be on the same schedule as the rest of the health
care industry. In the past, the updated ICD-9-CM was not available for
use until October 1 of each year.
Therefore, because the LT