Medicaid Program; Graduate Medical Education, 28930-28936 [07-2576]
Download as PDF
28930
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—CROP GROUP 13-07: SUBGROUP LISTING
Representative commodities
Commodities
Crop Subgroup 13-07-A. Caneberry
subgroup.
Blackberry; Raspberry, red and black; wild raspberry; loganberry; cultivars and/or hybrids of these.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-B. Bushberry
subgroup.
Aronia, berry; blueberry, highbush, and cultivars and/or hybrids of these; blueberry, lowbush; currant,
buffalo; Chilean,guava; currant, black; and currant, red; elderberry, European, barberry; gooseberry;
cranberry, highbush; Honeysuckle, edible; Huckleberry; jostaberry; Juneberry: lingonberry; Native, currant; salal; Sea, buckthorn.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-C. Large shrub/
tree berry subgroup.
Bayberry; Buffaloberry; che; chokecherry; elderberry; Juneberry; Mountain pepper, berries; mulberry;
Phalsa; pincherry; riberry; salal; serviceberry.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-D. Small fruit
vine climbing subgroup.
Amur river grape; gooseberry; grape; kiwifruit, fuzzy; kiwifruit, hardy; Maypop, Schisandra berry.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-E. Small fruit
vine climbing subgroup, except
grape.
Amur river grape; gooseberry; kiwifruit, fuzzy; kiwifruit, hardy; Maypop; schisandra berry.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-F. Small fruit
vine climbing subgroup except
fuzzy kiwifruit.
Amur river grape; grape, Kiwifruit, hardy; maypop; schisandra berry.
Crop Subgroup 13-07-G. Lowgrowing
berry subgroup.
Bearberry; bilberry; blueberry,lowbush; cloudberry; cranberry; lingonberry; muntries; partridgeberry;
strawberry
Crop Subgroup 13-07-H. Lowgrowing
berry subgroup, except strawberry.
Bearberry; bilberry; blueberry, lowbush; cloudberry; cranberry; lingonberry; muntries; partridgeberry.
*
*
*
*
(22) Crop Group 21. Edible fungi
Group.
(i) Representative commodities. White
button mushroom and any one oyster
mushroom or any Shiitake mushroom.
(ii) Table. The following is a list of all
the commodities in Crop Group 21.
There are no related subgroups.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
*
CROP GROUP 21: EDIBLE FUNGI
GROUP—COMMODITIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Blewitt, Lepista nuda (Tricholomataceae)
Bunashimeji,
Hypsizygus
marrmoreus
(Agaricaceae)
Chinese mushroom, Volvariella volvacea
(Bull.) Singer (Pluteaceae)
Enoki, Flammulina velutipes (Curt.) Singer
(Tricholomataceae)
Hime-Matsutake, Agaricus blazei Murill
(Agaricaeae)
Hirmeola,
Auricularia
auricular
(Auricularicaceae)
Maitake, Grifola frondosa (Polyporaceae)
Morel, Morchella spp. (Morchellaceae)
Nameko, Pholiota nameko, (Strophariaceae)
Net
Bearing
Dictyophora,
Dictyophora
indusiata (Phallaceae)
Oyster
mushroom,
Pleurotus
spp.
(Tricholomataceae)
Pom Pom, Hericium erinaceus (Hydnaceae)
Reishi mushroom, Ganoderma lucidum
(Leyss. Fr.) Karst. (Ganodermataceae)
Rodman’s agaricus, Agaricus bitorquis
(Quel.) Saccardo (Agaricaceae)
Shiitake mushroom, Lentinula edodes (Berk.)
Pegl. (Polyporaceae)
Shimeji,
Tricholoma
conglobatum,
(Tricholomataceae)
Stropharia, Stropharia spp. (Strophariaceae)
Truffle, Tuber spp. (Tuberaceae)
White button mushroom, Agaricus bisporous
(Lange) Imbach (Agaricaceae)
White Jelly Fungi, Tremella fuciformis
(Tremellaceae)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
[FR Doc. E7–9595 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42 CFR Parts 438 and 447
[CMS–2279–P]
RIN 0938–A095
Medicaid Program; Graduate Medical
Education
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
clarify that costs and payments
associated with Graduate Medical
Education programs are not
expenditures for medical assistance that
are federally reimbursable under the
Medicaid program.
DATES: Comment date: To be assured
consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses
provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
June 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–2279–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
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
in this regulation to https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click
on the link ‘‘Submit electronic
comments on CMS regulations with an
open comment period.’’ (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–2279–
P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244–
8016.
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–2279–
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–
7195 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. For
information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dianne Heffron, (410) 786–3247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
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. We post all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have
been received: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
eRulemaking. Click on the link
‘‘Electronic Comments on CMS
Regulations’’ on that Web site to view
public comments.
Comments received timely will be
also 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.
I. Background
Title XIX of the Social Security Act
(the Act) authorizes Federal grants to
States for Medicaid programs, operated
by the State under an approved State
plan, that provide medical assistance to
needy individuals including lowincome families, the elderly, and
persons with disabilities. Under section
1903(a)(1) of the Act, federal grant
funding, or federal financial
participation (FFP), is available to States
for a percentage of amounts ‘‘expended
* * * for medical assistance under the
State plan.’’ The care and services that
may (or in some cases, must) be
included within the scope of medical
assistance under a Medicaid State plan
are generally set forth in section 1905(a)
of the Act. Included in this list, for
example, in sections 1905(a)(1) and
1905(a)(2), are inpatient and outpatient
hospital services. Graduate medical
education (GME) is not included in this
list of care and services within the scope
of medical assistance.
Section 1902(a)(30) of the Act requires
States to develop payment
methodologies for services provided
under the Medicaid State Plan that are
consistent with economy, efficiency and
quality of care. CMS has previously
allowed States to include hospital GME
activities as a component of the cost of
Medicaid inpatient and outpatient
hospital services.
For the reasons we explain in more
detail below, we do not believe that it
is consistent with the Medicaid statute
to pay for GME activities either as a
component of hospital services or
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28931
separately. GME is not a health service
that is included in the authorized
coverage package. Nor is GME
recognized under the Medicaid statute
as a component of the cost of Medicaid
inpatient and outpatient hospital
services. GME is not a health service (in
contrast to the activities of
disproportionate share hospitals).
Therefore, we are proposing in this
issuance to preclude FFP in State
payments for GME.
Inpatient Hospital Rates
States are responsible for setting
inpatient hospital rates. Section
1902(a)(13) of the Act requires States to
develop rates for inpatient hospital
services in a public process. Section
1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act further
requires Medicaid service rates to be
consistent with economy, efficiency,
and quality of care. These provisions
afford States a great deal of flexibility in
determining their inpatient hospital
rates. States may use various
reimbursement systems including
diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), per
diem, case rates, cost or other payment
methodologies as long as the
methodologies meet the regulations at
42 CFR part 447 subpart C. An
important limitation States must adhere
to is the upper payment limit (UPL)
which describes a payment level above
which FFP is not available. The UPL
implements, in part, the statutory
requirement for payment rates that are,
‘‘consistent with efficiency, economy,
and quality of care’’ at section
1903(a)(30)(A) of the Act. The
regulations at 42 CFR 447.272 and
447.321 define the UPL for hospital
services. States must demonstrate that
the rates they have developed to
reimburse Medicaid hospital services do
not, in the aggregate, and within three
provider categories (government, nonState government, or private), exceed a
reasonable estimate of what Medicare
would have paid for the same services
using Medicare payment principles.
Unlike Medicaid, the Medicare
program has very specific and detailed
statutory requirements regarding
payments for hospital services. The
current payment system for hospitals
segregates payments made to hospitals
into two basic payments; operating costs
and capital costs of inpatient hospital
services. Prospective Hospital Payments
can be supplemented by direct medical
education (DME) or indirect medical
education (IME) payments. The
requirements are set forth in section
1886 of the Act. This section defines
costs, details the cost reporting process,
delineates a few categories of hospitals
that are paid directly on the basis of
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
28932
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
reported costs and provides for the use
of reported costs in the development of
Medicare’s prospective payment system
for most hospitals. In particular, in
section 1886(a)(4) of the Act, Medicare
defines ‘‘operating costs of inpatient
hospital services’’ as:
* * * All routine operating costs, ancillary
service operating costs, and special care unit
operating costs with respect to inpatient
hospital services as such costs are
determined on an average per admission or
per discharge basis (as determined by the
Secretary), and includes the costs of all
service for which payment may be made
under this title that are provided by the
hospital (or by an entity wholly owned or
operated by the hospital) to the patient.
* * * Such term does not include costs of
approved educational activities. * * *
Thus, Medicare expressly excludes
costs associated with educational
activities from the operating costs that
can be included in the cost base used to
develop the basic payment amounts
under Medicare’s prospective payment
system for inpatient hospital services.
Medicare and Graduate Medical
Education
With the creation in 1965 of the
Medicare program, in anticipation of a
need for additional physicians to treat a
newly insured, aged-patient population,
the costs associated with GME were
included as reimbursable Medicare
costs. The Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) issued a report in 1994
entitled A Study of Graduate Medical
Education Costs describing the origins
of Medicare policy regarding GME as
based on a physician shortage in the
U.S. that existed in the 1950s and 1960s.
Physician training was viewed as a
public good and,
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
* * * Congress decided that Medicare
should participate in educating physicians
until communities shouldered the costs in
some other fashion. Hence, it created
Medicare GME funding for teaching
hospitals.
By the 1980s, the U.S. had a surplus
of physicians and the alternative
community sources for GME funding
never materialized. The same OIG report
indicated that there were attempts by
the Congress and this agency to
substantially limit or eliminate
Medicare GME subsidies. Instead, the
Medicare payment system for inpatient
hospital services was completely altered
in 1983, moving from cost
reimbursement to a prospective
payment system (PPS). The PPS
included payments to hospitals for the
costs of GME. The new system created
two types of payments unique to
teaching hospitals. The direct graduate
medical education payment (DGME)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
compensates teaching hospitals for the
direct costs of their educational
activities, as measured by the number of
residents being trained and the historic
cost of training residents. Additionally,
qualifying teaching hospitals receive an
indirect medical education (IME)
adjustment to their per discharge
payment under the Medicare IPPS
(inpatient prospective payment system)
to account for additional costs (other
than the direct costs of the training
program) that teaching hospitals incur
in treating Medicare patients. This
additional payment reflects the costs of
providing care at teaching hospitals
generally due to the added costs of
‘‘learning by doing’’ treatment methods,
and is in addition to the basic
prospective payment for inpatient
services based on ‘‘operating costs of
inpatient hospital services’’.
Medicare recognizes direct costs of
approved educational programs in
sections 1886(h) and (k) of the Act.
Indirect medical education payments
are provided for at section 1886(d)(5) of
the Act. These sections address graduate
medical education activities separate
and apart from the other costs of
providing inpatient hospital services.
The statute provides specific
instructions regarding which
educational programs qualify a hospital
for the additional GME payments and
provides an explicit methodology to
calculate the Medicare payment to an
individual hospital for both its direct
graduate medical education program
and its indirect medical education
payments.
Regulations at 42 CFR part 412
describe the prospective payment
system. Again, direct medical education
costs are identified as excluded from the
other Medicare inpatient hospital
operating costs used to develop
Medicare’s prospective inpatient rates.
Direct graduate medical education is
specifically prohibited as part of the
inpatient PPS rate at § 412.2(2)(e).
Indirect medical education is separately
identified as a payment adjustment
based on a formula at § 412.105. The
costs that the IME adjustment
reimburses a qualifying hospital for are
included as inpatient hospital operating
costs on the Medicare cost report. IME
is an adjustment to the IPPS discharge
rate. The IPPS rate is an ‘‘average’’ rate
based on the efficient provision of
inpatient care at all hospitals. The IME
adjustment is intended to compensate
teaching hospitals for the additional
costs they incur when providing
hospital services versus non-teaching
hospitals.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Medicaid and Graduate Medical
Education Generally
In a 2003 state survey conducted by
the Association of American Medical
Colleges, 47 States and the District of
Columbia reported using Medicaid
funds to make GME payments under the
Medicaid State Plan. Of these, 35
indicated that the payments were
included in their per diem inpatient
hospital rates, and 15 stated using
supplemental or a combination of
supplemental and per diem payments to
make GME payments. This same report,
Medicaid Direct and Indirect Graduate
Medical Education Payment: A 50 State
Survey, indicates that while States view
these Medicaid GME payments as
critical to State GME policy
implementation, they generally do not
track these payments.
In large part, this inability to track
Medicaid GME payments is due to the
way in which these payments are made
(which we discuss in more detail
below). Basically, payments are made
through increases in the rates paid for
covered Medicaid services. This
methodology assures Federal
participation, but does not provide clear
accountability. Funding intended by the
States to support GME often becomes
subsumed within MCO or hospital rates
(including supplements to these rates)
or inpatient disproportionate share
hospital (DSH) payments. As a result, it
is difficult to quantify Medicaid GME
payments or monitor and measure the
effect of Medicaid payments on GME
programs.
Medicaid State Plan Payments
As previously stated, Medicaid law
does not dictate detailed payment
requirements for covered hospital
services. Rather, States are permitted
flexibility, subject to a reasonable
estimate of what Medicare would have
paid for the services, to develop their
own methods and standards to
determine the price they will pay for
Medicaid covered services. States are
required to include such payment
methodologies in their State plans, and
thus must submit their payment
methodologies to CMS for review and
approval. Once approved, States receive
FFP for the Medicaid payments they
make under the approved methodology.
Since there is no express authority in
the Medicaid statute for payments to
support GME programs, to receive FFP
for such payments, the payments must
be made under the guise of payments
made for covered Medicaid services
under the approved Medicaid State
plan. Usually the payments are part of
the inpatient hospital Medicaid rate
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
structure. This is because the Medicaid
inpatient UPL references Medicare
payment principles as an integral part of
the inpatient UPL calculation, and
Medicare makes GME payments as a
supplement to inpatient hospital service
payment rates.
States routinely make payments to
hospitals up to the maximum level
permitted under the UPL, using
methodologies that have a base payment
rate and provide for supplemental
payments to selected types of hospitals.
This is possible because the base
reimbursement rates are, in the
aggregate, below the UPL for the
particular category of provider. This
creates a ‘‘gap’’ beneath the UPL that
allows States to make the supplemental
payments for select providers. Some or
all of these supplemental payments may
be directed at hospitals which operate
GME programs.
There are limitations on the State’s
flexibility in designing their Medicaid
programs and reimbursement under
current regulations to provide funding
for GME programs stemming from the
absence of any direct authority to
reimburse GME under Title XIX.
Because this funding must be part of
payment for medical services (either
directly or included in comprehensive
capitation rates paid to MCOs), this
funding is not necessarily limited to
teaching hospitals, linked to educational
costs or measures, or coordinated with
other sources of GME funding.
Therefore, it is difficult for States to
design Medicaid payments to
correspond with the operation of GME
programs in the State. This is
particularly true in the case of GME
programs that include significant
training in non-hospital settings. As a
result, there is generally no assurance
that supplemental Medicaid payments
for GME are actually effective in
supporting these programs, or in
furnishing any benefit to Medicaid
program beneficiaries.
Under the Medicaid program,
beneficiaries receive a defined benefit
package consisting of a variety of
mandatory and optional services
provided to qualifying recipients. The
statute creates a Federal/State
partnership to share in the cost of
providing these health care services to
low-income populations. The current
program structure supports State
definition of eligible populations,
coverage options, and reimbursement
for covered services for these eligible
individuals. This structure does not
accommodate the State medical training
policy and goals. The Federal
government is also limited by its
statutory authority to only evaluate and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
monitor the efficiency and economy of
Medicaid spending as it relates to rates
paid for medical services and not for
GME as no such authority to do so exists
within current law.
This rule proposes to clarify that CMS
will not consider funding for GME as
expenditures for a covered Medicaid
service. We distinguish direct GME
payments from indirect medical
education (IME) payments because IME
payments (as defined under Medicare
payment principles) represent an
additional Medicare payment for health
care services provided to Medicare
beneficiaries in teaching hospitals. This
rule would clarify that GME is outside
the scope of medical assistance, and that
GME funding is not an allowable
component of payment methodologies
included in a State’s approved Medicaid
State Plan or in any Medicaid managed
care payment. This includes all
payments under attachments 4.19–A
and 4.19–B of a State’s Medicaid State
Plan. The rule would also provide that
when calculating an inpatient UPL,
States may not include additional
payments Medicare makes to a hospital
for direct educational costs as part of the
reasonable estimate of Medicare
payment. And the rule would provide
that States may, as part of their UPL
calculation, include Medicare payments
for indirect medical education as these
payments represent additional costs
associated with providing services in
teaching hospitals. CMS specifically
seeks comments on the propriety of
including Medicare IME adjustments as
part of the UPL calculation.
States may not make any educational
payments under the Medicaid State Plan
but are able to recognize, as part of the
inpatient hospital rate structure, the
additional Medicaid covered service
costs that teaching hospitals incur when
delivering Medicaid covered services.
States that currently include GME
payments as part of other services or
administrative costs under the Medicaid
State Plan must also cease claiming
Federal funds for these educational
program payments.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
The provisions of this rule propose to
clarify that, for purposes of Medicaid
reimbursement eligible for FFP, GME is
not an allowable cost or payment for
medical assistance under the approved
Medicaid State Plan. The provision
would apply to all Medicaid providers
and must be implemented in the first
full State fiscal year following the
effective date of the subsequent final
rule.
We are proposing to modify the
regulations at 42 CFR part 447.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28933
Currently the general instructions
regarding Medicaid State Plan
requirements for payment methods for
all Medicaid services are provided at
§ 447.201. We propose to add a new
§ 447.201(c) to indicate that GME cannot
be included as part of any payment
methodology in the Medicaid State
Plan. We have included this
clarification to address States that have
included GME as part of their rate
system for non-institutional services,
institutional services, or as an
administrative cost eligible for FFP.
We propose also to modify §§ 447.257
and 447.304 to address that FFP is no
longer available for any reimbursement
that includes or specifically pays for
GME. The current paragraph would be
redesignated as paragraph (a) and a new
paragraph (b) would be added providing
that no FFP would be available for GME
under the approved Medicaid State
Plan.
We propose to modify § 447.272(b)(1)
and 447.321(b)(1) to indicate that the
term ‘‘Medicare payment principles’’
must exclude any Medicare payments
associated with direct GME when
calculating the Medicaid UPL.
We propose to modify § 438.6(c)(5) by
removing paragraph (v) that addresses
the coordination of GME payments
under the State plan with capitated rates
paid to a Medicaid MCO.
We propose to modify § 438.60 to
provide that the limit on payment to
other providers would not include an
exception related to GME payments
made to providers outside the capitation
rate and under the Medicaid State Plan.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
This document does not impose any
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements.
Consequently, it need not be reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 35).
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public
comments we normally receive on
Federal Register documents, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them
individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and
time specified in the DATES section of
this preamble, and, when we proceed
with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the
preamble to that document.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
28934
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impact of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 (September 1993, Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19,
1980, Pub. L. 96–534), section 1102(b) of
the Social Security Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 (as amended
by Executive Order 13258, which
merely reassigns responsibility of
duties, and Executive Order 13422)
directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of all 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 ($100
million or more in any 1 year). This rule
would surpass the economic threshold
and is considered a major rule. This rule
is estimated to reduce Federal Medicaid
outlays by $140 million in FY 2008, by
$290 million in FY 2009, by $440
million in FY 2010, by $450 million in
FY 2011, and by $460 million in FY
2012.
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 $6.5 million to $31.5 million in any
1 year. Individuals and States are not
included in the definition of a small
entity. We are not preparing an analysis
for the RFA because the regulation
would not have a direct impact on small
entities. In this case, the regulation
would directly affect payments the
States receive from the Federal
government, and the impact on health
care facilities is a secondary impact.
States may choose to continue to fund
direct medical education programs
using State-only funding; this rule
simply eliminates the availability of
Federal Medicaid funding for such
direct education programs.
Additionally, most hospitals that would
qualify as small entities would likely be
unaffected by this rule as they are
unlikely to offer medical education
programs. Generally, medical education
programs are sponsored by large
hospitals offering a variety of medical
specialties and services. As we are
uncertain of the impact on small
entities, we specifically request public
comment on the impact of small health
care facilities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires us to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis if a 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 603 of the
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. We are not
preparing an analysis for section 1102(b)
of the Act because we have determined,
and the Secretary certifies, that this rule
would not have a direct impact on the
operations of a substantial number of
small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated
costs and benefits before issuing any
rule whose mandates require spending
in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation.
That threshold level is currently
approximately $120 million. This rule
would not result in expenditures in any
1 year by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $120 million. This rule
anticipates federal savings in excess of
$120 million but does not require States
to replace that federal funding with state
funding. There is no federal mandate to
fund GME programs with State funding.
Funding GME is not a required activity
or enforceable duty arising from
participation in Medicaid, thus any
reduction in federal funding will not
decrease the funding available for
required activities under the Medicaid
program.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement or cost on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132,
we find that this rule will not have a
substantial effect on State or local
government. While this regulation
would eliminate the ability of States to
claim Federal Medicaid funding for
direct GME, it would not impose any
requirement that States pay for such
GME. The rule would simply recognize
that GME is not authorized under the
Medicaid statute as an element of
medical assistance that is eligible for
Federal Medicaid funding.
B. Anticipated Effects
ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN FEDERAL MEDICAID OUTLAYS RESULTING FROM THE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION
PROPOSAL BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THIS PROPOSED RULE—ANNUAL EXPECTED SAVINGS
[Amounts in millions]
Reduction in Federal Medicaid outlays in million dollars by fiscal year
2008
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Graduate Medical Education Exclusion .......................................................................
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the table below, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provision of this proposed rule. This
table provides our best estimate of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
2009
2010
2011
2012
$140
$290
$440
$450
$460
reduction in Federal Medicaid outlays
for the years 2008 through 2012 as result
of the changes presented in this
proposed rule. This rule only affects
transfer payments between the Federal
government and State governments.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Direct Graduate Medical Education
(DGME)
1. Effects on State Medicaid Programs
Since Graduate Medical Education is
not a Medicaid service authorized in
Title XIX of the Act, States are not
required to report GME costs on the
form CMS–64–9. Instead, States that
claim Federal funding for GME
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
generally do so as a portion of their
inpatient hospital rates, inpatient
hospital supplemental payments, MCO
payments or, in limited instances, as
part of a supplemental, non-institutional
provider payment.
Because of the absence of a reporting
obligation, the amount actually
expended for Medicaid GME is not
readily determinable. The Federal
Government has no way to directly
determine the number of States making
GME payments, amounts States are
spending or claiming as GME or the
total number of hospitals receiving such
payments. Any GME funding claimed
would simply be reflected within total
outlays related to a particular service
category, such as inpatient hospital, on
the form CMS 64.9. In addition, the
impact of eliminating the Medicare
DGME payment as part of a State’s UPL
calculation is difficult to determine
because most states do not include their
UPL methodology as part of their
approved Medicaid State plan. States
have the option of including this
payment in their UPL calculation but it
is not a requirement.
Estimates of the impact of eliminating
Direct Graduate Medical Education as
an allowable program cost or payment
were derived from data on State GME
payments from a survey conducted by
the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) and published in
the Journal of Health Affairs in 2000.
The NCSL GME estimates were trended
forward by the Consumer Price Index to
establish a project baseline of GME
payments for FY 2008 through 2012.
CMS also estimates an offset applied to
these payments to account for
behavioral changes, including the
likelihood that States may replace a
portion of their GME payments with
other payments to hospitals to achieve
a similar Federal spending level. The
resulting net savings were calculated
using an average Federal matching rate
of 57 percent. CMS specifically seeks
comment on the amount States pay and
methods States use to pay for DME and
IME in their Medicaid programs.
States have several options to address
medical education funding. One option
is to replace funding provided as the
Federal share of a Medicaid GME
payment with State-only funding or
private sector funding. States may
increase other generally applicable taxes
to provide funding for general medical
education.
States could also work through a
better coordination of funding to more
effectively leverage and coordinate all
GME funding in a State, including
Federal funding available through Area
Health Education Centers (AHECs),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
Medicare funding, grant funding, and
State funding to more effectively
manage health education policy and
outcomes.
2. Effects on Other Providers
CMS currently cannot precisely
estimate the total number of providers
receiving Medicaid GME payments.
States are not required to report this
information nor are they required to
make such payments to only teaching
hospitals. The exclusion of the Medicare
DGME payment when calculating a
class of providers’ applicable UPL could
lower the ceiling for Medicaid payments
available to a provider within that class
but CMS cannot estimate the impact
since States are not required to include
the adjustment and CMS currently does
not have information on how many
currently do include it. However, States
may pay providers up to the UPL,
including the IME payment adjustment
made by Medicare to compensate
teaching hospitals for additional service
delivery costs associated with providing
care in teaching hospitals. Providers
will continue to receive payments for
covered Medicaid services, and
hospitals that serve a disproportionate
share of low-income patients will
continue to be eligible for additional
DSH payments. States may also provide
State-only funding for direct
educational costs thus alleviating any
revenue loss associated with the
Medicaid DGME exclusion.
C. Alternatives Considered
In developing this regulation, the
following alternatives were considered.
We considered the possibility of
providing stronger review of State Plan
reimbursement methodologies for
graduate medical education. In addition,
we considered developing standard
parameters applicable to all Medicaid
GME payments (for example, a
requirement that payment should not
exceed the unmet cost of the GME
program, counting all GME revenue
when determining unmet GME program
cost). These alternatives would address
our concern over the lack of oversight
and accountability for Medicaid GME
funding. They would also address
concerns that federal payments for GME
through three separate programs
(Medicare, Medicaid, and AHECs) are
not coordinated with overall program
goals.
In evaluating these alternatives,
however, we were limited by the
absence of any statutory authority in the
Medicaid program to make GME
payments. Absent such authority, we
believe we are limited in our ability to
regulate such payments because the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28935
payments have been made under some
other category. In other words, because
there is no direct statutory authority for
GME payments under a Medicaid State
Plan, there is little authority to regulate
or oversee such payments if allowed.
As discussed above, States make GME
payments through provider rates paid to
reimburse medical services delivered.
The existing statute and regulations
addressing these payments do not
provide CMS with the regulatory
authority to require payment
methodologies identified as GME to
detail specific program requirements or
apply any minimum program
parameters for their approval.
In short, CMS lacks any express
statutory authority to match Medicaid
GME payments as program costs and
therefore lacks clear regulatory authority
to manage Federal participation in GME
programs under current law.
OMB—STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
Annualized
monetized
transfers (in
millions per year)
Non-discounted ...............
3% ...................................
7% ...................................
$356
351
345
The savings reflect a reduction in payments
from the federal government to the States.
D. Conclusion
For these reasons, we are not
preparing an analysis for either the RFA
or section 1102(b) of the Act because we
have determined that this rule would
not have a direct significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities or a direct significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number
of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this regulation
was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 438
Grant programs—health, Medicaid,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 447
Accounting, Administrative practice
and procedure, Drugs, Grant programshealth, Health facilities, Health
professions, Medicaid, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rural
areas.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
28936
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules
PART 438—MANAGED CARE
1. The authority citation for part 438
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 438.6
2. Section 438.6 is amended by
removing paragraph (c)(5)(v).
Subpart B—State Responsibilities
3. Section 438.60 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 438.60 Limit on payment to other
providers.
The State agency must ensure that no
payment is made to a provider other
than the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP for
services available under the contract
between the State and the MCO, PIHP,
or PAHP, except when these payments
are provided for in title XIX of the Act
or in 42 CFR.
PART 447—PAYMENTS FOR
SERVICES
4. The authority citation for part 447
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
Subpart B—Payment Methods: General
Provisions
5. Section 447.201 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
set forth below.
State plan requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The plan must not include
payments for graduate medical
education to any provider or institution
or include costs of graduate medical
education as an allowable cost under
any cost-based payment system
(including costs or payments claimed as
administrative costs).
Subpart C—Payment for Inpatient
Hospital and Long-Term Care Facility
Services
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6. Section 447.257 is amended by:
A. Designating the existing paragraph
as paragraph (a).
B. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
§ 447.257 FFP: Conditions relating to
institutional reimbursement.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) FFP is not available in
expenditures for graduate medical
education in hospitals and long-term
care facilities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 447.272 Inpatient services: Application
of upper payment limits.
*
[Amended]
§ 447.201
7. Section 447.272 is amended by
republishing the heading to paragraph
(b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
*
*
*
*
(b) General rules. (1) ‘‘Upper payment
limit’’ refers to a reasonable estimate of
the amount that would be paid for the
services furnished by the groups of
facilities under Medicare payment
principles in subchapter B of this
chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid
upper payment limit calculation, direct
graduate medical education payments
are not an allowable component of a
Medicare payment and must be
excluded from the calculation.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—Payment Methods for
Other Institutional and NonInstitutional Services
8. Section 447.304 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 447.304
Adherence to upper limits; FFP.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) FFP is not available in
expenditures for graduate medical
education.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 447.321 is amended by
republishing the heading to paragraph
(b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 447.321 Outpatient hospital and clinical
services: Application of upper payment
limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) General rules. (1) ‘‘Upper payment
limit’’ refers to a reasonable estimate of
the amount that would be paid for the
services furnished by the groups of
facilities under Medicare payment
principles in subchapter B of this
chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid
upper payment limit calculation, direct
graduate medical education payments
are not an allowable component of a
Medicare payment and must be
excluded from the calculation.
*
*
*
*
*
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program)
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: May 11, 2007.
Leslie V. Norwalk,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Approved: May 17, 2007.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07–2576 Filed 5–18–07; 4:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96–
45, FCC 07–88]
High-Cost Universal Service Support;
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service’s recommendation that the
Commission adopt an interim cap on
support for competitive Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
June 6, 2007. Reply Comments are due
on or before June 13, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 05–337
and CC Docket No. 96–45, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted
Burmeister, Attorney, Wireline
Competition Bureau,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, (202) 418–7400, TTY (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28930-28936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2576]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 438 and 447
[CMS-2279-P]
RIN 0938-A095
Medicaid Program; Graduate Medical Education
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would clarify that costs and payments
associated with Graduate Medical Education programs are not
expenditures for medical assistance that are federally reimbursable
under the Medicaid program.
DATES: Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.
on June 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2279-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
[[Page 28931]]
in this regulation to https://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click on the
link ``Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open
comment period.'' (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-2279-P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD
21244-8016.
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-2279-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) 786-7195 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. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne Heffron, (410) 786-3247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting 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.
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. We post all comments
received before the close of the comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have been received: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click on the link ``Electronic Comments on
CMS Regulations'' on that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will be also 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.
I. Background
Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes Federal
grants to States for Medicaid programs, operated by the State under an
approved State plan, that provide medical assistance to needy
individuals including low-income families, the elderly, and persons
with disabilities. Under section 1903(a)(1) of the Act, federal grant
funding, or federal financial participation (FFP), is available to
States for a percentage of amounts ``expended * * * for medical
assistance under the State plan.'' The care and services that may (or
in some cases, must) be included within the scope of medical assistance
under a Medicaid State plan are generally set forth in section 1905(a)
of the Act. Included in this list, for example, in sections 1905(a)(1)
and 1905(a)(2), are inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
Graduate medical education (GME) is not included in this list of care
and services within the scope of medical assistance.
Section 1902(a)(30) of the Act requires States to develop payment
methodologies for services provided under the Medicaid State Plan that
are consistent with economy, efficiency and quality of care. CMS has
previously allowed States to include hospital GME activities as a
component of the cost of Medicaid inpatient and outpatient hospital
services.
For the reasons we explain in more detail below, we do not believe
that it is consistent with the Medicaid statute to pay for GME
activities either as a component of hospital services or separately.
GME is not a health service that is included in the authorized coverage
package. Nor is GME recognized under the Medicaid statute as a
component of the cost of Medicaid inpatient and outpatient hospital
services. GME is not a health service (in contrast to the activities of
disproportionate share hospitals). Therefore, we are proposing in this
issuance to preclude FFP in State payments for GME.
Inpatient Hospital Rates
States are responsible for setting inpatient hospital rates.
Section 1902(a)(13) of the Act requires States to develop rates for
inpatient hospital services in a public process. Section 1902(a)(30)(A)
of the Act further requires Medicaid service rates to be consistent
with economy, efficiency, and quality of care. These provisions afford
States a great deal of flexibility in determining their inpatient
hospital rates. States may use various reimbursement systems including
diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), per diem, case rates, cost or other
payment methodologies as long as the methodologies meet the regulations
at 42 CFR part 447 subpart C. An important limitation States must
adhere to is the upper payment limit (UPL) which describes a payment
level above which FFP is not available. The UPL implements, in part,
the statutory requirement for payment rates that are, ``consistent with
efficiency, economy, and quality of care'' at section 1903(a)(30)(A) of
the Act. The regulations at 42 CFR 447.272 and 447.321 define the UPL
for hospital services. States must demonstrate that the rates they have
developed to reimburse Medicaid hospital services do not, in the
aggregate, and within three provider categories (government, non-State
government, or private), exceed a reasonable estimate of what Medicare
would have paid for the same services using Medicare payment
principles.
Unlike Medicaid, the Medicare program has very specific and
detailed statutory requirements regarding payments for hospital
services. The current payment system for hospitals segregates payments
made to hospitals into two basic payments; operating costs and capital
costs of inpatient hospital services. Prospective Hospital Payments can
be supplemented by direct medical education (DME) or indirect medical
education (IME) payments. The requirements are set forth in section
1886 of the Act. This section defines costs, details the cost reporting
process, delineates a few categories of hospitals that are paid
directly on the basis of
[[Page 28932]]
reported costs and provides for the use of reported costs in the
development of Medicare's prospective payment system for most
hospitals. In particular, in section 1886(a)(4) of the Act, Medicare
defines ``operating costs of inpatient hospital services'' as:
* * * All routine operating costs, ancillary service operating
costs, and special care unit operating costs with respect to
inpatient hospital services as such costs are determined on an
average per admission or per discharge basis (as determined by the
Secretary), and includes the costs of all service for which payment
may be made under this title that are provided by the hospital (or
by an entity wholly owned or operated by the hospital) to the
patient. * * * Such term does not include costs of approved
educational activities. * * *
Thus, Medicare expressly excludes costs associated with educational
activities from the operating costs that can be included in the cost
base used to develop the basic payment amounts under Medicare's
prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services.
Medicare and Graduate Medical Education
With the creation in 1965 of the Medicare program, in anticipation
of a need for additional physicians to treat a newly insured, aged-
patient population, the costs associated with GME were included as
reimbursable Medicare costs. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
issued a report in 1994 entitled A Study of Graduate Medical Education
Costs describing the origins of Medicare policy regarding GME as based
on a physician shortage in the U.S. that existed in the 1950s and
1960s. Physician training was viewed as a public good and,
* * * Congress decided that Medicare should participate in educating
physicians until communities shouldered the costs in some other
fashion. Hence, it created Medicare GME funding for teaching
hospitals.
By the 1980s, the U.S. had a surplus of physicians and the
alternative community sources for GME funding never materialized. The
same OIG report indicated that there were attempts by the Congress and
this agency to substantially limit or eliminate Medicare GME subsidies.
Instead, the Medicare payment system for inpatient hospital services
was completely altered in 1983, moving from cost reimbursement to a
prospective payment system (PPS). The PPS included payments to
hospitals for the costs of GME. The new system created two types of
payments unique to teaching hospitals. The direct graduate medical
education payment (DGME) compensates teaching hospitals for the direct
costs of their educational activities, as measured by the number of
residents being trained and the historic cost of training residents.
Additionally, qualifying teaching hospitals receive an indirect medical
education (IME) adjustment to their per discharge payment under the
Medicare IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system) to account for
additional costs (other than the direct costs of the training program)
that teaching hospitals incur in treating Medicare patients. This
additional payment reflects the costs of providing care at teaching
hospitals generally due to the added costs of ``learning by doing''
treatment methods, and is in addition to the basic prospective payment
for inpatient services based on ``operating costs of inpatient hospital
services''.
Medicare recognizes direct costs of approved educational programs
in sections 1886(h) and (k) of the Act. Indirect medical education
payments are provided for at section 1886(d)(5) of the Act. These
sections address graduate medical education activities separate and
apart from the other costs of providing inpatient hospital services.
The statute provides specific instructions regarding which educational
programs qualify a hospital for the additional GME payments and
provides an explicit methodology to calculate the Medicare payment to
an individual hospital for both its direct graduate medical education
program and its indirect medical education payments.
Regulations at 42 CFR part 412 describe the prospective payment
system. Again, direct medical education costs are identified as
excluded from the other Medicare inpatient hospital operating costs
used to develop Medicare's prospective inpatient rates. Direct graduate
medical education is specifically prohibited as part of the inpatient
PPS rate at Sec. 412.2(2)(e). Indirect medical education is separately
identified as a payment adjustment based on a formula at Sec. 412.105.
The costs that the IME adjustment reimburses a qualifying hospital for
are included as inpatient hospital operating costs on the Medicare cost
report. IME is an adjustment to the IPPS discharge rate. The IPPS rate
is an ``average'' rate based on the efficient provision of inpatient
care at all hospitals. The IME adjustment is intended to compensate
teaching hospitals for the additional costs they incur when providing
hospital services versus non-teaching hospitals.
Medicaid and Graduate Medical Education Generally
In a 2003 state survey conducted by the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 47 States and the District of Columbia reported using
Medicaid funds to make GME payments under the Medicaid State Plan. Of
these, 35 indicated that the payments were included in their per diem
inpatient hospital rates, and 15 stated using supplemental or a
combination of supplemental and per diem payments to make GME payments.
This same report, Medicaid Direct and Indirect Graduate Medical
Education Payment: A 50 State Survey, indicates that while States view
these Medicaid GME payments as critical to State GME policy
implementation, they generally do not track these payments.
In large part, this inability to track Medicaid GME payments is due
to the way in which these payments are made (which we discuss in more
detail below). Basically, payments are made through increases in the
rates paid for covered Medicaid services. This methodology assures
Federal participation, but does not provide clear accountability.
Funding intended by the States to support GME often becomes subsumed
within MCO or hospital rates (including supplements to these rates) or
inpatient disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. As a result,
it is difficult to quantify Medicaid GME payments or monitor and
measure the effect of Medicaid payments on GME programs.
Medicaid State Plan Payments
As previously stated, Medicaid law does not dictate detailed
payment requirements for covered hospital services. Rather, States are
permitted flexibility, subject to a reasonable estimate of what
Medicare would have paid for the services, to develop their own methods
and standards to determine the price they will pay for Medicaid covered
services. States are required to include such payment methodologies in
their State plans, and thus must submit their payment methodologies to
CMS for review and approval. Once approved, States receive FFP for the
Medicaid payments they make under the approved methodology.
Since there is no express authority in the Medicaid statute for
payments to support GME programs, to receive FFP for such payments, the
payments must be made under the guise of payments made for covered
Medicaid services under the approved Medicaid State plan. Usually the
payments are part of the inpatient hospital Medicaid rate
[[Page 28933]]
structure. This is because the Medicaid inpatient UPL references
Medicare payment principles as an integral part of the inpatient UPL
calculation, and Medicare makes GME payments as a supplement to
inpatient hospital service payment rates.
States routinely make payments to hospitals up to the maximum level
permitted under the UPL, using methodologies that have a base payment
rate and provide for supplemental payments to selected types of
hospitals. This is possible because the base reimbursement rates are,
in the aggregate, below the UPL for the particular category of
provider. This creates a ``gap'' beneath the UPL that allows States to
make the supplemental payments for select providers. Some or all of
these supplemental payments may be directed at hospitals which operate
GME programs.
There are limitations on the State's flexibility in designing their
Medicaid programs and reimbursement under current regulations to
provide funding for GME programs stemming from the absence of any
direct authority to reimburse GME under Title XIX. Because this funding
must be part of payment for medical services (either directly or
included in comprehensive capitation rates paid to MCOs), this funding
is not necessarily limited to teaching hospitals, linked to educational
costs or measures, or coordinated with other sources of GME funding.
Therefore, it is difficult for States to design Medicaid payments to
correspond with the operation of GME programs in the State. This is
particularly true in the case of GME programs that include significant
training in non-hospital settings. As a result, there is generally no
assurance that supplemental Medicaid payments for GME are actually
effective in supporting these programs, or in furnishing any benefit to
Medicaid program beneficiaries.
Under the Medicaid program, beneficiaries receive a defined benefit
package consisting of a variety of mandatory and optional services
provided to qualifying recipients. The statute creates a Federal/State
partnership to share in the cost of providing these health care
services to low-income populations. The current program structure
supports State definition of eligible populations, coverage options,
and reimbursement for covered services for these eligible individuals.
This structure does not accommodate the State medical training policy
and goals. The Federal government is also limited by its statutory
authority to only evaluate and monitor the efficiency and economy of
Medicaid spending as it relates to rates paid for medical services and
not for GME as no such authority to do so exists within current law.
This rule proposes to clarify that CMS will not consider funding
for GME as expenditures for a covered Medicaid service. We distinguish
direct GME payments from indirect medical education (IME) payments
because IME payments (as defined under Medicare payment principles)
represent an additional Medicare payment for health care services
provided to Medicare beneficiaries in teaching hospitals. This rule
would clarify that GME is outside the scope of medical assistance, and
that GME funding is not an allowable component of payment methodologies
included in a State's approved Medicaid State Plan or in any Medicaid
managed care payment. This includes all payments under attachments
4.19-A and 4.19-B of a State's Medicaid State Plan. The rule would also
provide that when calculating an inpatient UPL, States may not include
additional payments Medicare makes to a hospital for direct educational
costs as part of the reasonable estimate of Medicare payment. And the
rule would provide that States may, as part of their UPL calculation,
include Medicare payments for indirect medical education as these
payments represent additional costs associated with providing services
in teaching hospitals. CMS specifically seeks comments on the propriety
of including Medicare IME adjustments as part of the UPL calculation.
States may not make any educational payments under the Medicaid
State Plan but are able to recognize, as part of the inpatient hospital
rate structure, the additional Medicaid covered service costs that
teaching hospitals incur when delivering Medicaid covered services.
States that currently include GME payments as part of other
services or administrative costs under the Medicaid State Plan must
also cease claiming Federal funds for these educational program
payments.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
The provisions of this rule propose to clarify that, for purposes
of Medicaid reimbursement eligible for FFP, GME is not an allowable
cost or payment for medical assistance under the approved Medicaid
State Plan. The provision would apply to all Medicaid providers and
must be implemented in the first full State fiscal year following the
effective date of the subsequent final rule.
We are proposing to modify the regulations at 42 CFR part 447.
Currently the general instructions regarding Medicaid State Plan
requirements for payment methods for all Medicaid services are provided
at Sec. 447.201. We propose to add a new Sec. 447.201(c) to indicate
that GME cannot be included as part of any payment methodology in the
Medicaid State Plan. We have included this clarification to address
States that have included GME as part of their rate system for non-
institutional services, institutional services, or as an administrative
cost eligible for FFP.
We propose also to modify Sec. Sec. 447.257 and 447.304 to address
that FFP is no longer available for any reimbursement that includes or
specifically pays for GME. The current paragraph would be redesignated
as paragraph (a) and a new paragraph (b) would be added providing that
no FFP would be available for GME under the approved Medicaid State
Plan.
We propose to modify Sec. 447.272(b)(1) and 447.321(b)(1) to
indicate that the term ``Medicare payment principles'' must exclude any
Medicare payments associated with direct GME when calculating the
Medicaid UPL.
We propose to modify Sec. 438.6(c)(5) by removing paragraph (v)
that addresses the coordination of GME payments under the State plan
with capitated rates paid to a Medicaid MCO.
We propose to modify Sec. 438.60 to provide that the limit on
payment to other providers would not include an exception related to
GME payments made to providers outside the capitation rate and under
the Medicaid State Plan.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose any information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive
on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or
respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive
by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble,
and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the
comments in the preamble to that document.
[[Page 28934]]
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-534), section 1102(b) of the Social
Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4),
and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which
merely reassigns responsibility of duties, and Executive Order 13422)
directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of all 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 ($100 million or
more in any 1 year). This rule would surpass the economic threshold and
is considered a major rule. This rule is estimated to reduce Federal
Medicaid outlays by $140 million in FY 2008, by $290 million in FY
2009, by $440 million in FY 2010, by $450 million in FY 2011, and by
$460 million in FY 2012.
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
$6.5 million to $31.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are
not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing
an analysis for the RFA because the regulation would not have a direct
impact on small entities. In this case, the regulation would directly
affect payments the States receive from the Federal government, and the
impact on health care facilities is a secondary impact. States may
choose to continue to fund direct medical education programs using
State-only funding; this rule simply eliminates the availability of
Federal Medicaid funding for such direct education programs.
Additionally, most hospitals that would qualify as small entities would
likely be unaffected by this rule as they are unlikely to offer medical
education programs. Generally, medical education programs are sponsored
by large hospitals offering a variety of medical specialties and
services. As we are uncertain of the impact on small entities, we
specifically request public comment on the impact of small health care
facilities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis if a 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 603 of the 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. We are not preparing an
analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and
the Secretary certifies, that this rule would not have a direct impact
on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold
level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule would not
result in expenditures in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120
million. This rule anticipates federal savings in excess of $120
million but does not require States to replace that federal funding
with state funding. There is no federal mandate to fund GME programs
with State funding. Funding GME is not a required activity or
enforceable duty arising from participation in Medicaid, thus any
reduction in federal funding will not decrease the funding available
for required activities under the Medicaid program.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement or cost on
State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has
Federalism implications. For purposes of Executive Order 13132, we find
that this rule will not have a substantial effect on State or local
government. While this regulation would eliminate the ability of States
to claim Federal Medicaid funding for direct GME, it would not impose
any requirement that States pay for such GME. The rule would simply
recognize that GME is not authorized under the Medicaid statute as an
element of medical assistance that is eligible for Federal Medicaid
funding.
B. Anticipated Effects
Estimated Reduction in Federal Medicaid Outlays Resulting From the Graduate Medical Education Proposal Being
Implemented by This Proposed Rule--Annual Expected Savings
[Amounts in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in Federal Medicaid outlays in million dollars by fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate Medical Education Exclusion.......... $140 $290 $440 $450 $460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the table below, we
have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the provision of this proposed rule. This
table provides our best estimate of the reduction in Federal Medicaid
outlays for the years 2008 through 2012 as result of the changes
presented in this proposed rule. This rule only affects transfer
payments between the Federal government and State governments.
Direct Graduate Medical Education (DGME)
1. Effects on State Medicaid Programs
Since Graduate Medical Education is not a Medicaid service
authorized in Title XIX of the Act, States are not required to report
GME costs on the form CMS-64-9. Instead, States that claim Federal
funding for GME
[[Page 28935]]
generally do so as a portion of their inpatient hospital rates,
inpatient hospital supplemental payments, MCO payments or, in limited
instances, as part of a supplemental, non-institutional provider
payment.
Because of the absence of a reporting obligation, the amount
actually expended for Medicaid GME is not readily determinable. The
Federal Government has no way to directly determine the number of
States making GME payments, amounts States are spending or claiming as
GME or the total number of hospitals receiving such payments. Any GME
funding claimed would simply be reflected within total outlays related
to a particular service category, such as inpatient hospital, on the
form CMS 64.9. In addition, the impact of eliminating the Medicare DGME
payment as part of a State's UPL calculation is difficult to determine
because most states do not include their UPL methodology as part of
their approved Medicaid State plan. States have the option of including
this payment in their UPL calculation but it is not a requirement.
Estimates of the impact of eliminating Direct Graduate Medical
Education as an allowable program cost or payment were derived from
data on State GME payments from a survey conducted by the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and published in the Journal of
Health Affairs in 2000. The NCSL GME estimates were trended forward by
the Consumer Price Index to establish a project baseline of GME
payments for FY 2008 through 2012. CMS also estimates an offset applied
to these payments to account for behavioral changes, including the
likelihood that States may replace a portion of their GME payments with
other payments to hospitals to achieve a similar Federal spending
level. The resulting net savings were calculated using an average
Federal matching rate of 57 percent. CMS specifically seeks comment on
the amount States pay and methods States use to pay for DME and IME in
their Medicaid programs.
States have several options to address medical education funding.
One option is to replace funding provided as the Federal share of a
Medicaid GME payment with State-only funding or private sector funding.
States may increase other generally applicable taxes to provide funding
for general medical education.
States could also work through a better coordination of funding to
more effectively leverage and coordinate all GME funding in a State,
including Federal funding available through Area Health Education
Centers (AHECs), Medicare funding, grant funding, and State funding to
more effectively manage health education policy and outcomes.
2. Effects on Other Providers
CMS currently cannot precisely estimate the total number of
providers receiving Medicaid GME payments. States are not required to
report this information nor are they required to make such payments to
only teaching hospitals. The exclusion of the Medicare DGME payment
when calculating a class of providers' applicable UPL could lower the
ceiling for Medicaid payments available to a provider within that class
but CMS cannot estimate the impact since States are not required to
include the adjustment and CMS currently does not have information on
how many currently do include it. However, States may pay providers up
to the UPL, including the IME payment adjustment made by Medicare to
compensate teaching hospitals for additional service delivery costs
associated with providing care in teaching hospitals. Providers will
continue to receive payments for covered Medicaid services, and
hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients
will continue to be eligible for additional DSH payments. States may
also provide State-only funding for direct educational costs thus
alleviating any revenue loss associated with the Medicaid DGME
exclusion.
C. Alternatives Considered
In developing this regulation, the following alternatives were
considered. We considered the possibility of providing stronger review
of State Plan reimbursement methodologies for graduate medical
education. In addition, we considered developing standard parameters
applicable to all Medicaid GME payments (for example, a requirement
that payment should not exceed the unmet cost of the GME program,
counting all GME revenue when determining unmet GME program cost).
These alternatives would address our concern over the lack of oversight
and accountability for Medicaid GME funding. They would also address
concerns that federal payments for GME through three separate programs
(Medicare, Medicaid, and AHECs) are not coordinated with overall
program goals.
In evaluating these alternatives, however, we were limited by the
absence of any statutory authority in the Medicaid program to make GME
payments. Absent such authority, we believe we are limited in our
ability to regulate such payments because the payments have been made
under some other category. In other words, because there is no direct
statutory authority for GME payments under a Medicaid State Plan, there
is little authority to regulate or oversee such payments if allowed.
As discussed above, States make GME payments through provider rates
paid to reimburse medical services delivered. The existing statute and
regulations addressing these payments do not provide CMS with the
regulatory authority to require payment methodologies identified as GME
to detail specific program requirements or apply any minimum program
parameters for their approval.
In short, CMS lacks any express statutory authority to match
Medicaid GME payments as program costs and therefore lacks clear
regulatory authority to manage Federal participation in GME programs
under current law.
OMB--Statement of Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
monetized
transfers (in
millions per
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-discounted....................................... $356
3%................................................... 351
7%................................................... 345
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The savings reflect a reduction in payments from the federal government
to the States.
D. Conclusion
For these reasons, we are not preparing an analysis for either the
RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this
rule would not have a direct significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities or a direct significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 438
Grant programs--health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 447
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Drugs, Grant
programs-health, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicaid,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth
below:
[[Page 28936]]
PART 438--MANAGED CARE
1. The authority citation for part 438 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 438.6 [Amended]
2. Section 438.6 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(5)(v).
Subpart B--State Responsibilities
3. Section 438.60 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 438.60 Limit on payment to other providers.
The State agency must ensure that no payment is made to a provider
other than the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP for services available under the
contract between the State and the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP, except when
these payments are provided for in title XIX of the Act or in 42 CFR.
PART 447--PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES
4. The authority citation for part 447 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
Subpart B--Payment Methods: General Provisions
5. Section 447.201 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read
as set forth below.
Sec. 447.201 State plan requirements.
* * * * *
(c) The plan must not include payments for graduate medical
education to any provider or institution or include costs of graduate
medical education as an allowable cost under any cost-based payment
system (including costs or payments claimed as administrative costs).
Subpart C--Payment for Inpatient Hospital and Long-Term Care
Facility Services
6. Section 447.257 is amended by:
A. Designating the existing paragraph as paragraph (a).
B. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 447.257 FFP: Conditions relating to institutional reimbursement.
* * * * *
(b) FFP is not available in expenditures for graduate medical
education in hospitals and long-term care facilities.
7. Section 447.272 is amended by republishing the heading to
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 447.272 Inpatient services: Application of upper payment limits.
* * * * *
(b) General rules. (1) ``Upper payment limit'' refers to a
reasonable estimate of the amount that would be paid for the services
furnished by the groups of facilities under Medicare payment principles
in subchapter B of this chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid upper
payment limit calculation, direct graduate medical education payments
are not an allowable component of a Medicare payment and must be
excluded from the calculation.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Payment Methods for Other Institutional and Non-
Institutional Services
8. Section 447.304 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 447.304 Adherence to upper limits; FFP.
* * * * *
(b) FFP is not available in expenditures for graduate medical
education.
* * * * *
9. Section 447.321 is amended by republishing the heading to
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 447.321 Outpatient hospital and clinical services: Application
of upper payment limits.
* * * * *
(b) General rules. (1) ``Upper payment limit'' refers to a
reasonable estimate of the amount that would be paid for the services
furnished by the groups of facilities under Medicare payment principles
in subchapter B of this chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid upper
payment limit calculation, direct graduate medical education payments
are not an allowable component of a Medicare payment and must be
excluded from the calculation.
* * * * *
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical
Assistance Program)
Dated: May 11, 2007.
Leslie V. Norwalk,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Approved: May 17, 2007.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-2576 Filed 5-18-07; 4:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P