Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2009, 25918-25960 [08-1214]
Download as PDF
25918
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 413
[CMS–1534–P]
RIN 0938–AP11
Medicare Program; Prospective
Payment System and Consolidated
Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for
FY 2009
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
update the payment rates used under
the prospective payment system (PPS)
for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), for
fiscal year (FY) 2009. In addition, it
would recalibrate the case-mix indexes
so that they more accurately reflect
parity in expenditures related to the
implementation of case-mix refinements
in January 2006. It also discusses our
ongoing analysis of nursing home staff
time measurement data collected in the
Staff Time and Resource Intensity
Verification (STRIVE) project. Finally,
the proposed rule would make technical
corrections in the regulations text with
respect to Medicare bad debt payments
to SNFs and the reference to the
definition of urban and rural as applied
to SNFs.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–1534–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.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for ‘‘Comment or
Submission’’ and enter the file code to
find the document accepting comments.
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–1534–
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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–1534–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.
a. Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey
Building, 200 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20201
(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.
b. 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the address
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:
Ellen Berry, (410) 786–4528 (for
information related to clinical issues).
Jeanette Kranacs, (410) 786–9385 (for
information related to the development
of the payment rates and case-mix
indexes). Bill Ullman, (410) 786–5667
(for information related to level of care
determinations, consolidated billing,
and general information).
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. You can assist us by
referencing the file code CMS–1534–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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 also
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.
To assist readers in referencing
sections contained in this document, we
are providing the following Table of
Contents.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Current System for Payment of SNF
Services Under Part A of the Medicare
Program
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (BBA) for Updating the
Prospective Payment System for Skilled
Nursing Facilities
C. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999
(BBRA)
D. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection
Act of 2000 (BIPA)
E. The Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA)
F. Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective
Payment—General Overview
1. Payment Provisions—Federal Rate
2. Rate Updates Using the Skilled Nursing
Facility Market Basket Index
II. Annual Update of Payment Rates Under
the Prospective Payment System for
Skilled Nursing Facilities
A. Federal Prospective Payment System
1. Costs and Services Covered by the
Federal Rates
2. Methodology Used for the Calculation of
the Federal Rates
B. Case-Mix Adjustments
1. Background
2. Development of the Case-Mix Indexes
C. Wage Index Adjustment to Federal Rates
1. Clarification of New England Deemed
Counties
2. Multi-Campus Hospital Wage Index Data
D. Updates to Federal Rates
E. Relationship of RUG–III Classification
System to Existing Skilled Nursing
Facility Level-of-Care Criteria
F. Example of Computation of Adjusted
PPS Rates and SNF Payment
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
G. Other Issues
1. Staff Time and Resource Intensity
Verification (STRIVE) Project
2. Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0
3. Integrated Post Acute Care Payment
H. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections
and Clarifications
1. Bad Debt Payments
2. Additional Clarifications
III. The Skilled Nursing Facility Market
Basket Index
A. Use of the Skilled Nursing Facility
Market Basket Percentage
B. Market Basket Forecast Error
Adjustment
C. Federal Rate Update Factor
IV. Consolidated Billing
V. Application of the SNF PPS to SNF
Services Furnished by Swing-Bed
Hospitals
VI. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
VII. Collection of Information Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
B. Anticipated Effects
C. Alternatives Considered
D. Accounting Statement
E. Conclusion
Regulation Text
Addendum: FY 2009 CBSA-Based Wage
Index Tables (Tables 8 & 9)
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Abbreviations
In addition, because of the many
terms to which we refer by abbreviation
in this proposed rule, we are listing
these abbreviations and their
corresponding terms in alphabetical
order below:
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
ARD Assessment Reference Date
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L.
105–33
BBRA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999,
Pub. L. 106–113
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000, Pub. L. 106–554
CAH Critical Access Hospital
CARE Continuity Assessment Record and
Evaluation
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMI Case-Mix Index
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L.
109–171
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center
FR Federal Register
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
HAC Hospital-Acquired Condition
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System
HIPPS Health Insurance Prospective
Payment System
HIT Health Information Technology
IFC Interim Final Rule with Comment
Period
IPPS Hospital Inpatient Prospective
Payment System
MDS Minimum Data Set
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003, Pub.L. 108–173
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MS–DRG Medicare Severity DiagnosisRelated Group
NRST Non-Resident Specific Time
NTA Non-Therapy Ancillary
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OMRA Other Medicare Required
Assessment
PAC–PRD Post-Acute Care Payment Reform
Demonstration
PPS Prospective Payment System
RAI Resident Assessment Instrument
RAP Resident Assessment Protocol
RAVEN Resident Assessment Validation
Entry
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96–
354
RHC Rural Health Clinic
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RUG–III Resource Utilization Groups,
Version III
RUG–53 Refined 53–Group RUG–III CaseMix Classification System
RST Resident Specific Time
SCHIP State Children’s Health Insurance
Program
SNF Skilled Nursing Facility
STM Staff Time Measurement
STRIVE Staff Time and Resource Intensity
Verification
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
Pub. L. 104–4
VBP Value-Based Purchasing
I. Background
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘BACKGROUND’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
Annual updates to the prospective
payment system (PPS) rates for skilled
nursing facilities (SNFs) are required by
section 1888(e) of the Social Security
Act (the Act), as added by section 4432
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(BBA), and amended by the Medicare,
Medicaid, and State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA),
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection
Act of 2000 (BIPA), and the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). Our
most recent annual update occurred in
a final rule (72 FR 43412, August 3,
2007) that set forth updates to the SNF
PPS payment rates for fiscal year (FY)
2008. We subsequently published two
correction notices (72 FR 55085,
September 28, 2007, and 72 FR 67652,
November 30, 2007) with respect to
those payment rate updates.
A. Current System for Payment of
Skilled Nursing Facility Services Under
Part A of the Medicare Program
Section 4432 of the BBA amended
section 1888 of the Act to provide for
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25919
the implementation of a per diem PPS
for SNFs, covering all costs (routine,
ancillary, and capital-related) of covered
SNF services furnished to beneficiaries
under Part A of the Medicare program,
effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after July 1, 1998. In
this proposed rule, we propose to
update the per diem payment rates for
SNFs for FY 2009. Major elements of the
SNF PPS include:
• Rates. As discussed in section I.F.1.
of this proposed rule, we established per
diem Federal rates for urban and rural
areas using allowable costs from FY
1995 cost reports. These rates also
included an estimate of the cost of
services that, before July 1, 1998, had
been paid under Part B but were
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in a
SNF during a Part A covered stay. We
adjust the rates annually using a SNF
market basket index, and we adjust
them by the hospital inpatient wage
index to account for geographic
variation in wages. We also apply a
case-mix adjustment to account for the
relative resource utilization of different
patient types. This adjustment utilizes a
refined, 53-group version of the
Resource Utilization Groups, version III
(RUG–III) case-mix classification
system, based on information obtained
from the required resident assessments
using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0.
Additionally, as noted in the August 4,
2005 final rule (70 FR 45028), the
payment rates at various times have also
reflected specific legislative provisions,
including section 101 of the BBRA,
sections 311, 312, and 314 of the BIPA,
and section 511 of the MMA.
• Transition. Under sections
1888(e)(1)(A) and (e)(11) of the Act, the
SNF PPS included an initial, threephase transition that blended a facilityspecific rate (reflecting the individual
facility’s historical cost experience) with
the Federal case-mix adjusted rate. The
transition extended through the
facility’s first three cost reporting
periods under the PPS, up to and
including the one that began in FY
2001. Thus, the SNF PPS is no longer
operating under the transition, as all
facilities have been paid at the full
Federal rate effective with cost reporting
periods beginning in FY 2002. As we
now base payments entirely on the
adjusted Federal per diem rates, we no
longer include adjustment factors
related to facility-specific rates for the
coming FY.
• Coverage. The establishment of the
SNF PPS did not change Medicare’s
fundamental requirements for SNF
coverage. However, because the RUG–III
classification is based, in part, on the
beneficiary’s need for skilled nursing
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25920
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
care and therapy, we have attempted,
where possible, to coordinate claims
review procedures with the output of
beneficiary assessment and RUG–III
classifying activities. This approach
includes an administrative presumption
that utilizes a beneficiary’s initial
classification in one of the upper 35
RUGs of the refined 53-group system to
assist in making certain SNF level of
care determinations, as discussed in
greater detail in section II.E. of this
proposed rule.
• Consolidated Billing. The SNF PPS
includes a consolidated billing
provision that requires a SNF to submit
consolidated Medicare bills to its fiscal
intermediary or Medicare
Administrative Contractor for almost all
of the services that its residents receive
during the course of a covered Part A
stay. In addition, this provision places
with the SNF the Medicare billing
responsibility for physical,
occupational, and speech-language
therapy that the resident receives during
a noncovered stay. The statute excludes
a small list of services from the
consolidated billing provision
(primarily those of physicians and
certain other types of practitioners),
which remain separately billable under
Part B when furnished to a SNF’s Part
A resident. A more detailed discussion
of this provision appears in section IV.
of this proposed rule.
• Application of the SNF PPS to SNF
services furnished by swing-bed
hospitals. Section 1883 of the Act
permits certain small, rural hospitals to
enter into a Medicare swing-bed
agreement, under which the hospital
can use its beds to provide either acute
or SNF care, as needed. For critical
access hospitals (CAHs), Part A pays on
a reasonable cost basis for SNF services
furnished under a swing-bed agreement.
However, in accordance with section
1888(e)(7) of the Act, these services
furnished by non-CAH rural hospitals
are paid under the SNF PPS, effective
with cost reporting periods beginning
on or after July 1, 2002. A more detailed
discussion of this provision appears in
section V. of this proposed rule.
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (BBA) for Updating the
Prospective Payment System for Skilled
Nursing Facilities
Section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act
requires that we publish annually in the
Federal Register:
1. The unadjusted Federal per diem
rates to be applied to days of covered
SNF services furnished during the FY.
2. The case-mix classification system
to be applied with respect to these
services during the FY.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
3. The factors to be applied in making
the area wage adjustment with respect
to these services.
In the July 30, 1999 final rule (64 FR
41670), we indicated that we would
announce any changes to the guidelines
for Medicare level of care
determinations related to modifications
in the RUG–III classification structure
(see section II.E. of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the relationship
between the case-mix classification
system and SNF level of care
determinations).
Along with other revisions proposed
later in this preamble, this proposed
rule provides the annual updates to the
Federal rates as mandated by the Act.
C. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of
1999 (BBRA)
There were several provisions in the
BBRA that resulted in adjustments to
the SNF PPS. We described these
provisions in detail in the final rule that
we published in the Federal Register on
July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46770). In
particular, section 101(a) of the BBRA
provided for a temporary 20 percent
increase in the per diem adjusted
payment rates for 15 specified RUG–III
groups. In accordance with section
101(c)(2) of the BBRA, this temporary
payment adjustment expired on January
1, 2006, upon the implementation of
case-mix refinements (see section I.F.1.
of this proposed rule). We included
further information on BBRA provisions
that affected the SNF PPS in Program
Memorandums A–99–53 and A–99–61
(December 1999).
Also, section 103 of the BBRA
designated certain additional services
for exclusion from the consolidated
billing requirement, as discussed in
section IV. of this proposed rule.
Further, for swing-bed hospitals with
more than 49 (but less than 100) beds,
section 408 of the BBRA provided for
the repeal of certain statutory
restrictions on length of stay and
aggregate payment for patient days,
effective with the end of the SNF PPS
transition period described in section
1888(e)(2)(E) of the Act. In the July 31,
2001 final rule (66 FR 39562), we made
conforming changes to the regulations at
§ 413.114(d), effective for services
furnished in cost reporting periods
beginning on or after July 1, 2002, to
reflect section 408 of the BBRA.
D. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection
Act of 2000 (BIPA)
The BIPA also included several
provisions that resulted in adjustments
to the SNF PPS. We described these
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
provisions in detail in the final rule that
we published in the Federal Register on
July 31, 2001 (66 FR 39562). In
particular:
• Section 203 of the BIPA exempted
CAH swing-beds from the SNF PPS. We
included further information on this
provision in Program Memorandum A–
01–09 (Change Request #1509), issued
January 16, 2001, which is available
online at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
transmittals/downloads/a0109.pdf.
• Section 311 of the BIPA revised the
statutory update formula for the SNF
market basket, and also directed us to
conduct a study of alternative case-mix
classification systems for the SNF PPS.
In 2006, we submitted a report to the
Congress on this study, which is
available online at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/SNFPPS/Downloads/
RC__2006_PC__PPSSNF.pdf.
• Section 312 of the BIPA provided
for a temporary increase of 16.66
percent in the nursing component of the
case-mix adjusted Federal rate for
services furnished on or after April 1,
2001, and before October 1, 2002. The
add-on is no longer in effect. This
section also directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct
an audit of SNF nursing staff ratios and
submit a report to the Congress on
whether the temporary increase in the
nursing component should be
continued. The report (GAO–03–176),
which GAO issued in November 2002,
is available online at https://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d03176.pdf.
• Section 313 of the BIPA repealed
the consolidated billing requirement for
services (other than physical,
occupational, and speech-language
therapy) furnished to SNF residents
during noncovered stays, effective
January 1, 2001. (A more detailed
discussion of this provision appears in
section IV. of this proposed rule.)
• Section 314 of the BIPA corrected
an anomaly involving three of the RUGs
that the BBRA had designated to receive
the temporary payment adjustment
discussed above in section I.C. of this
proposed rule. (As noted previously, in
accordance with section 101(c)(2) of the
BBRA, this temporary payment
adjustment expired upon the
implementation of case-mix refinements
on January 1, 2006.)
• Section 315 of the BIPA authorized
us to establish a geographic
reclassification procedure that is
specific to SNFs, but only after
collecting the data necessary to establish
a SNF wage index that is based on wage
data from nursing homes. To date, this
has proven to be infeasible due to the
volatility of existing SNF wage data and
the significant amount of resources that
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
would be required to improve the
quality of that data.
We included further information on
several of the BIPA provisions in
Program Memorandum A–01–08
(Change Request #1510), issued January
16, 2001, which is available online at
www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/
downloads/a0108.pdf.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
E. The Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA)
The MMA included a provision that
results in a further adjustment to the
SNF PPS. Specifically, section 511 of
the MMA amended section 1888(e)(12)
of the Act, to provide for a temporary
increase of 128 percent in the PPS per
diem payment for any SNF resident
with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS), effective with
services furnished on or after October 1,
2004. This special AIDS add-on was to
remain in effect until ‘‘* * * such date
as the Secretary certifies that there is an
appropriate adjustment in the case mix.
* * *’’ The AIDS add-on is also
discussed in Program Transmittal #160
(Change Request #3291), issued on April
30, 2004, which is available online at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/
downloads/r160cp.pdf. As discussed in
the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70
FR 45028, August 4, 2005), we did not
address the certification of the AIDS
add-on with the implementation of the
case-mix refinements, thus allowing the
temporary add-on payment created by
section 511 of the MMA to continue in
effect.
For the limited number of SNF
residents that qualify for the AIDS addon, implementation of this provision
results in a significant increase in
payment. For example, using FY 2006
data, we identified less than 2,700 SNF
residents with a diagnosis code of 042
(Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
Infection). For FY 2009, an urban
facility with a resident with AIDS in
RUG group ‘‘SSA’’ would have a casemix adjusted payment of almost $246.55
(see Table 4) before the application of
the MMA adjustment. After an increase
of 128 percent, this urban facility would
receive a case-mix adjusted payment of
approximately $562.13.
In addition, section 410 of the MMA
contained a provision that excluded
from consolidated billing certain
practitioner and other services
furnished to SNF residents by rural
health clinics (RHCs) and Federally
Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).
(Further information on this provision
appears in section IV. of this proposed
rule.)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:54 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
F. Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective
Payment—General Overview
We implemented the Medicare SNF
PPS effective with cost reporting
periods beginning on or after July 1,
1998. This PPS pays SNFs through
prospective, case-mix adjusted per diem
payment rates applicable to all covered
SNF services. These payment rates
cover all costs of furnishing covered
skilled nursing services (routine,
ancillary, and capital-related costs)
other than costs associated with
approved educational activities.
Covered SNF services include posthospital services for which benefits are
provided under Part A and all items and
services that, before July 1, 1998 had
been paid under Part B (other than
physician and certain other services
specifically excluded under the BBA)
but furnished to Medicare beneficiaries
in a SNF during a covered Part A stay.
A comprehensive discussion of these
provisions appears in the May 12, 1998
interim final rule (63 FR 26252).
1. Payment Provisions—Federal Rate
The PPS uses per diem Federal
payment rates based on mean SNF costs
in a base year updated for inflation to
the first effective period of the PPS. We
developed the Federal payment rates
using allowable costs from hospitalbased and freestanding SNF cost reports
for reporting periods beginning in FY
1995. The data used in developing the
Federal rates also incorporated an
estimate of the amounts that would be
payable under Part B for covered SNF
services furnished to individuals during
the course of a covered Part A stay in
a SNF.
In developing the rates for the initial
period, we updated costs to the first
effective year of the PPS (the 15-month
period beginning July 1, 1998) using a
SNF market basket index, and then
standardized for the costs of facility
differences in case-mix and for
geographic variations in wages. In
compiling the database used to compute
the Federal payment rates, we excluded
those providers that received new
provider exemptions from the routine
cost limits, as well as costs related to
payments for exceptions to the routine
cost limits. Using the formula that the
BBA prescribed, we set the Federal rates
at a level equal to the weighted mean of
freestanding costs plus 50 percent of the
difference between the freestanding
mean and weighted mean of all SNF
costs (hospital-based and freestanding)
combined. We computed and applied
separately the payment rates for
facilities located in urban and rural
areas. In addition, we adjusted the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25921
portion of the Federal rate attributable
to wage-related costs by a wage index.
The Federal rate also incorporates
adjustments to account for facility casemix, using a classification system that
accounts for the relative resource
utilization of different patient types.
The RUG–III classification system uses
beneficiary assessment data from the
Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed by
SNFs to assign beneficiaries to one of 53
RUG–III groups. The original RUG–III
case-mix classification system included
44 groups. However, under refinements
that became effective on January 1,
2006, we added nine new groups—
comprising a new Rehabilitation plus
Extensive Services category—at the top
of the RUG hierarchy. The May 12, 1998
interim final rule (63 FR 26252)
included a detailed description of the
original 44-group RUG–III case-mix
classification system. A comprehensive
description of the refined 53-group
RUG–III case-mix classification system
(RUG–53) appeared in the proposed and
final rules for FY 2006 (70 FR 29070,
May 19, 2005, and 70 FR 45026, August
4, 2005).
Further, in accordance with section
1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) of the Act, the
Federal rates in this proposed rule
reflect an update to the rates that we
published in the August 3, 2007 final
rule for FY 2008 (72 FR 43412) and the
associated correction notices (on
September 28, 2007, 72 FR 55085, and
November 30, 2007, 72 FR 67652), equal
to the full change in the SNF market
basket index. A more detailed
discussion of the SNF market basket
index and related issues appears in
sections I.F.2. and III. of this proposed
rule.
2. Rate Updates Using the Skilled
Nursing Facility Market Basket Index
Section 1888(e)(5) of the Act requires
us to establish a SNF market basket
index that reflects changes over time in
the prices of an appropriate mix of
goods and services included in covered
SNF services. We use the SNF market
basket index to update the Federal rates
on an annual basis. In the August 3,
2007, FY 2008 SNF PPS final rule (72
FR 43425 through 43430), we revised
and rebased the market basket, which
included updating the base year from
FY 1997 to FY 2004. The proposed FY
2009 market basket increase is 3.1
percent.
In addition, as explained in the
August 4, 2003, final rule for FY 2004
(66 FR 46058) and in section III.B. of
this proposed rule, the annual update of
the payment rates includes, as
appropriate, an adjustment to account
for market basket forecast error. As
described in the final rule for FY 2008,
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25922
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the threshold percentage that serves to
trigger an adjustment to account for
market basket forecast error is 0.5
percentage point effective for FY 2008
and subsequent years. This adjustment
takes into account the forecast error
from the most recently available FY for
which there is final data, and applies
whenever the difference between the
forecasted and actual change in the
market basket exceeds a 0.5 percentage
point threshold. For FY 2007 (the most
recently available FY for which there is
final data), the estimated increase in the
market basket index was 3.1 percentage
points, while the actual increase was 3.1
percentage points, resulting in no
difference. Accordingly, as the
difference between the estimated and
actual amount of change does not
exceed the 0.5 percentage point
threshold, the payment rates for FY
2009 do not include a forecast error
adjustment. Table 1 below shows the
forecasted and actual market basket
amounts for FY 2007.
TABLE 1.—DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FORECASTED AND ACTUAL MARKET BASKET INCREASES FOR FY 2007
Forecasted FY
2007 Increase*
Index
Actual FY 2007
Increase**
3.1
3.1
SNF ........................................................................................................................................
FY 2007
Difference***
0.0
*Published in Federal Register; based on second quarter 2006 Global Insight Inc. forecast (97 index).
**Based on the first quarter 2008 Global Insight Inc.forecast (97 index).
***The FY 2007 forecast error correction for the PPS Operating portion will be applied to the FY 2009 PPS update recommendations. Any
forecast error less than 0.5 percentage points will not be reflected in the update recommendation.
II. Annual Update of Payment Rates
Under the Prospective Payment System
for Skilled Nursing Facilities
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Annual Update’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
A. Federal Prospective Payment System
This proposed rule sets forth a
schedule of Federal prospective
payment rates applicable to Medicare
Part A SNF services beginning October
1, 2008. The schedule incorporates per
diem Federal rates that provide Part A
payment for all costs of services
furnished to a beneficiary in a SNF
during a Medicare-covered stay.
1. Costs and Services Covered by the
Federal Rates
In accordance with section
1888(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Federal
rates apply to all costs (routine,
ancillary, and capital-related) of covered
SNF services other than costs associated
with approved educational activities as
defined in § 413.85. Under section
1888(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, covered SNF
services include post-hospital SNF
services for which benefits are provided
under Part A (the hospital insurance
program), as well as all items and
services (other than those services
excluded by statute) that, before July 1,
1998, were paid under Part B (the
supplementary medical insurance
program) but furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries in a SNF during a Part A
covered stay. (These excluded service
categories are discussed in greater detail
in section V.B.2. of the May 12, 1998
interim final rule (63 FR 26295 through
26297)).
2. Methodology Used for the Calculation
of the Federal Rates
The proposed FY 2009 rates would
reflect an update using the full amount
of the latest market basket index. The
proposed FY 2009 market basket
increase factor is 3.1 percent. A
complete description of the multi-step
process used to calculate Federal rates
initially appeared in the May 12, 1998
interim final rule (63 FR 26252), as
further revised in subsequent rules. We
note that in accordance with section
101(c)(2) of the BBRA, the previous
temporary increases in the per diem
adjusted payment rates for certain
designated RUGs, as specified in section
101(a) of the BBRA and section 314 of
the BIPA, are no longer in effect due to
the implementation of case-mix
refinements as of January 1, 2006.
However, the temporary increase of 128
percent in the per diem adjusted
payment rates for SNF residents with
AIDS, enacted by section 511 of the
MMA, remains in effect.
We used the SNF market basket to
adjust each per diem component of the
Federal rates forward to reflect cost
increases occurring between the
midpoint of the Federal FY beginning
October 1, 2007, and ending September
30, 2008, and the midpoint of the
Federal FY beginning October 1, 2008,
and ending September 30, 2009, to
which the payment rates apply. In
accordance with section
1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) of the Act, we
update the payment rates for FY 2009 by
a factor equal to the full market basket
index percentage increase. (We note,
however, that the President’s budget
currently includes a provision that
would establish a zero percent market
basket update for FYs 2009 through
2011, and that the provisions outlined
in this proposed rule would need to
reflect any legislation that the Congress
may enact to adopt that proposal.) We
further adjust the rates by a wage index
budget neutrality factor, described later
in this section. Tables 2 and 3 reflect the
updated components of the unadjusted
Federal rates for FY 2009.
TABLE 2.—FY 2009 UNADJUSTED FEDERAL RATE PER DIEM—URBAN
Nursing—
Case-mix
Rate component
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Per Diem Amount ............................................................................................
$151.30
Therapy—
Case-mix
Therapy—
Non-case-mix
Non-case-mix
$15.00
$77.22
Therapy—
Non-case-mix
Non-case-mix
$16.04
$78.64
$113.97
TABLE 3.—FY 2009 UNADJUSTED FEDERAL RATE PER DIEM—RURAL
Nursing—
Case-mix
Rate component
Per Diem Amount ............................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$144.55
Therapy—
Case-mix
$131.42
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
B. Case-Mix Adjustments
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
1. Background
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(i) of the Act
requires the Secretary to make an
adjustment to account for case-mix. The
statute specifies that the adjustment is
to reflect both a resident classification
system that the Secretary establishes to
account for the relative resource use of
different patient types, as well as
resident assessment and other data that
the Secretary considers appropriate. In
first implementing the SNF PPS (63 FR
26252, May 12, 1998), we developed the
Resource Utilization Groups, version III
(RUG–III) case-mix classification
system, which tied the amount of
payment to resident resource use in
combination with resident characteristic
information. Staff time measurement
(STM) studies conducted in 1990, 1995,
and 1997 provided information on
resource use (time spent by staff
members on residents) and resident
characteristics that enabled us not only
to establish RUG–III, but also to create
case-mix indexes.
Under the BBA, each update of the
SNF PPS payment rates must include
the case-mix classification methodology
applicable for the coming Federal FY.
As indicated in section I.F.1 of this
proposed rule, the payment rates set
forth herein reflect the use of the refined
RUG–53 system that we discussed in
detail in the proposed and final rules for
FY 2006.
When we developed the refined RUG–
53 system, we constructed new case-mix
indexes, using the Staff Time
Measurement (STM) study data that was
collected during the 1990s and
originally used in creating the SNF PPS
case-mix classification system and casemix indexes. In section II.B.2 of this
proposed rule, we discuss further
adjustments to those new case-mix
indexes.
2. Development of the Case-Mix Indexes
In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006
(70 FR 45032, August 4, 2005), we
introduced two refinements to the SNF
PPS: nine new case-mix groups to
account for the care needs of
beneficiaries requiring both extensive
medical and rehabilitation services, and
an adjustment to reflect the variability
in the use of non-therapy ancillaries
(NTAs). We made these refinements by
using the resource minute data from the
original 44-group RUG–III model to
create a new set of relative weights, or
case-mix indexes (CMIs), for the 53group RUG–III model. We then
compared the CMIs for the two models
to ensure that estimated total payments
under the 53-group model would
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
maintain parity to those that would
have been made under the 44-group
model.
In conducting this analysis, we used
FY 2001 claims data (the most current
data available at the time) to compare
the distribution of payment days by
RUG category in the original, 44-group
model with anticipated payments by
RUG category in the refined 53-group
model. Based on the results of this
analysis, we adjusted the new CMIs
upward by applying a parity adjustment
factor, in order to ensure that the RUG–
III model was expanded in a budgetneutral manner. We then applied a
second adjustment to the CMIs to
account for the variability in the use of
NTA services. These two adjustments
resulted in a combined 17.9 percent
increase in the CMIs that went into
effect on January 1, 2006, as part of the
case-mix refinement implementation. A
detailed description of the methods
used to make these two adjustments to
the CMIs appears in the SNF PPS
proposed rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 29077
through 29078, May 19, 2005). However,
we recognized that utilization patterns
change over time, and in the FY 2006
final rule (70 FR 45031, August 4, 2005),
we committed to monitoring the
accuracy and effectiveness of the CMIs
used in the 53-group model.
In monitoring recent claims data, we
observed that actual utilization patterns
differed significantly from those we had
projected using the 2001 data. In
particular, the proportion of patients
grouped in the highest paying RUG
categories—combining high therapy
with extensive services—greatly
exceeded our projections. We have,
therefore, used actual claims data to
recalibrate both of the adjustments to
the CMIs: the parity adjustment
designed to make the change from the
44-group model to the 53-group model
in a budget-neutral manner, and the
factor used to recognize the variability
in NTA utilization.
To determine the parity adjustment
factor needed to re-establish budget
neutrality, we compared simulated CY
2006 payments (using the most recent
data available) for the 44-group and 53group RUG–III models using the same
methodology that we described in the
SNF PPS proposed rule for FY 2006 (70
FR 29077 through 29078, May 19, 2005).
Once we had identified the recalibrated
parity adjustment factor necessary to reestablish budget neutrality, we then
determined the recalibrated percentage
adjustment that would be needed to
reset the NTA component of the CMIs
at the appropriate level specified in the
SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR
45031, August 4, 2005). Under our
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25923
proposed recalibration, these two
adjustments, which had initially
produced a combined increase of 17.9
percent in the FY 2006 refinement,
would instead result in an overall 9.68
percent increase for FY 2009. Thus, for
FY 2009, the aggregate impact of this
proposed recalibration would be the
difference between the original, FY 2006
total increase of 17.9 percent and the
recalibrated total increase of 9.68
percent, or a negative $770 million.
It is extremely important to note that
this adjustment, as proposed, would be
made prospectively. However, we are
responsible for maintaining the fiscal
integrity of the SNF PPS, and by using
the actual claims data, the SNF PPS
would better reflect the resources used,
resulting in more accurate payment. To
that end, we have developed our
proposed recalibration of the parity and
NTA adjustments to the CMIs using
actual claims distribution data.
Although the 2001 data were the best
source available at the time the FY 2006
refinements were introduced, the 2006
data provide the most recent and a more
accurate source of RUG–53 utilization.
(We also note that pursuant to our
ongoing commitment to monitoring the
accuracy and effectiveness of the CMIs
under the refined case-mix system, there
may be further revisions to the
recalibration as we develop the FY 2009
final rule, based on the data available at
that time.)
We note that the negative $770
million adjustment described above
would be largely offset by the FY 2009
market basket adjustment factor of 3.1
percent, or $710 million, with a net
result of a negative annual update of
approximately $60 million. We are,
nevertheless, confident that this
proposed recalibration would achieve
the goals of the refinement provision
implemented in January 2006, and that,
as a result, payments would better
reflect those policies. We also wish to
note that after it conducted a thorough
review of SNF profit margins, MedPAC
concluded that, in the aggregate, SNFs
are operating on a sound financial basis.
As evidenced by MedPAC’s recent
recommendation for a zero percent
update for SNFs in FY 2009, we believe
that this recalibration could be made
without creating undue hardship on
providers.
We list the case-mix adjusted
payment rates separately for urban and
rural SNFs in Tables 4 and 5, with the
corresponding case-mix values. These
tables do not reflect the AIDS add-on
enacted by section 511 of the MMA,
which we apply only after making all
other adjustments (wage and case-mix).
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25924
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—RUG–53 CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES AND ASSOCIATED INDEXES—URBAN
RUG–III
category
Nursing
index
RUX ..........................................................
RUL ..........................................................
RVX ..........................................................
RVL ..........................................................
RHX ..........................................................
RHL ..........................................................
RMX .........................................................
RML ..........................................................
RLX ..........................................................
RUC .........................................................
RUB ..........................................................
RUA ..........................................................
RVC ..........................................................
RVB ..........................................................
RVA ..........................................................
RHC .........................................................
RHB ..........................................................
RHA ..........................................................
RMC .........................................................
RMB .........................................................
RMA .........................................................
RLB ..........................................................
RLA ..........................................................
SE3 ..........................................................
SE2 ..........................................................
SE1 ..........................................................
SSC ..........................................................
SSB ..........................................................
SSA ..........................................................
CC2 ..........................................................
CC1 ..........................................................
CB2 ..........................................................
CB1 ..........................................................
CA2 ..........................................................
CA1 ..........................................................
IB2 ............................................................
IB1 ............................................................
IA2 ............................................................
IA1 ............................................................
BB2 ..........................................................
BB1 ..........................................................
BA2 ..........................................................
BA1 ..........................................................
PE2 ..........................................................
PE1 ..........................................................
PD2 ..........................................................
PD1 ..........................................................
PC2 ..........................................................
PC1 ..........................................................
PB2 ..........................................................
PB1 ..........................................................
PA2 ..........................................................
PA1 ..........................................................
Therapy
index
1.77
1.31
1.44
1.24
1.33
1.27
1.80
1.57
1.22
1.20
0.92
0.78
1.14
1.01
0.77
1.13
1.03
0.88
1.07
1.01
0.97
1.06
0.79
1.72
1.38
1.17
1.14
1.05
1.02
1.13
0.99
0.91
0.84
0.83
0.75
0.69
0.67
0.57
0.53
0.68
0.65
0.56
0.48
0.79
0.77
0.72
0.70
0.66
0.65
0.52
0.50
0.49
0.46
2.25
2.25
1.41
1.41
0.94
0.94
0.77
0.77
0.43
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.41
1.41
1.41
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.43
0.43
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Nursing
component
Therapy
component
Non-case
mix therapy
comp
Non-case
mix component
267.80
198.20
217.87
187.61
201.23
192.15
272.34
237.54
184.59
181.56
139.20
118.01
172.48
152.81
116.50
170.97
155.84
133.14
161.89
152.81
146.76
160.38
119.53
260.24
208.79
177.02
172.48
158.87
154.33
170.97
149.79
137.68
127.09
125.58
113.48
104.40
101.37
86.24
80.19
102.88
98.35
84.73
72.62
119.53
116.50
108.94
105.91
99.86
98.35
78.68
75.65
74.14
69.60
256.43
256.43
160.70
160.70
107.13
107.13
87.76
87.76
49.01
256.43
256.43
256.43
160.70
160.70
160.70
107.13
107.13
107.13
87.76
87.76
87.76
49.01
49.01
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
77.22
Total rate
601.45
531.85
455.79
425.53
385.58
376.50
437.32
402.52
310.82
515.21
472.85
451.66
410.40
390.73
354.42
355.32
340.19
317.49
326.87
317.79
311.74
286.61
245.76
352.46
301.01
269.24
264.70
251.09
246.55
263.19
242.01
229.90
219.31
217.80
205.70
196.62
193.59
178.46
172.41
195.10
190.57
176.95
164.84
211.75
208.72
201.16
198.13
192.08
190.57
170.90
167.87
166.36
161.82
TABLE 5.—RUG–53 CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES AND ASSOCIATED INDEXES—RURAL
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
RUG–III
category
Nursing
Index
RUX ..........................................................
RUL ..........................................................
RVX ..........................................................
RVL ..........................................................
RHX ..........................................................
RHL ..........................................................
RMX .........................................................
RML ..........................................................
RLX ..........................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Therapy
index
1.77
1.31
1.44
1.24
1.33
1.27
1.80
1.57
1.22
PO 00000
Frm 00008
2.25
2.25
1.41
1.41
0.94
0.94
0.77
0.77
0.43
Fmt 4701
Nursing
component
255.85
189.36
208.15
179.24
192.25
183.58
260.19
226.94
176.35
295.70
295.70
185.30
185.30
123.53
123.53
101.19
101.19
56.51
Non-case
mix
therapy
comp
Therapy
component
Sfmt 4702
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Non-case
mix
component
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
Total rate
630.19
563.70
472.09
443.18
394.42
385.75
440.02
406.77
311.50
25925
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—RUG–53 CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES AND ASSOCIATED INDEXES—RURAL—Continued
RUG–III
category
Nursing
Index
RUC .........................................................
RUB ..........................................................
RUA ..........................................................
RVC ..........................................................
RVB ..........................................................
RVA ..........................................................
RHC .........................................................
RHB ..........................................................
RHA ..........................................................
RMC .........................................................
RMB .........................................................
RMA .........................................................
RLB ..........................................................
RLA ..........................................................
SE3 ..........................................................
SE2 ..........................................................
SE1 ..........................................................
SSC ..........................................................
SSB ..........................................................
SSA ..........................................................
CC2 ..........................................................
CC1 ..........................................................
CB2 ..........................................................
CB1 ..........................................................
CA2 ..........................................................
CA1 ..........................................................
IB2 ............................................................
IB1 ............................................................
IA2 ............................................................
IA1 ............................................................
BB2 ..........................................................
BB1 ..........................................................
BA2 ..........................................................
BA1 ..........................................................
PE2 ..........................................................
PE1 ..........................................................
PD2 ..........................................................
PD1 ..........................................................
PC2 ..........................................................
PC1 ..........................................................
PB2 ..........................................................
PB1 ..........................................................
PA2 ..........................................................
PA1 ..........................................................
1.20
0.92
0.78
1.14
1.01
0.77
1.13
1.03
0.88
1.07
1.01
0.97
1.06
0.79
1.72
1.38
1.17
1.14
1.05
1.02
1.13
0.99
0.91
0.84
0.83
0.75
0.69
0.67
0.57
0.53
0.68
0.65
0.56
0.48
0.79
0.77
0.72
0.70
0.66
0.65
0.52
0.50
0.49
0.46
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
C. Wage Index Adjustment to Federal
Rates
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act
requires that we adjust the Federal rates
to account for differences in area wage
levels, using a wage index that we find
appropriate. Since the inception of a
PPS for SNFs, we have used hospital
wage data in developing a wage index
to be applied to SNFs. We propose to
continue that practice for FY 2009, as
we continue to believe that in the
absence of SNF-specific wage data,
using the hospital inpatient wage index
is appropriate and reasonable for the
SNF PPS. As explained in the update
notice for FY 2005 (69 FR 45786, July
30, 2004), the SNF PPS does not use the
hospital area wage index’s occupational
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Therapy
index
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.41
1.41
1.41
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.43
0.43
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Nursing
component
Therapy
component
Non-case
mix
therapy
comp
173.46
132.99
112.75
164.79
146.00
111.30
163.34
148.89
127.20
154.67
146.00
140.21
153.22
114.19
248.63
199.48
169.12
164.79
151.78
147.44
163.34
143.10
131.54
121.42
119.98
108.41
99.74
96.85
82.39
76.61
98.29
93.96
80.95
69.38
114.19
111.30
104.08
101.19
95.40
93.96
75.17
72.28
70.83
66.49
295.70
295.70
295.70
185.30
185.30
185.30
123.53
123.53
123.53
101.19
101.19
101.19
56.51
56.51
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
16.04
mix adjustment, as this adjustment
serves specifically to define the
occupational categories more clearly in
a hospital setting; moreover, the
collection of the occupational wage data
also excludes any wage data related to
SNFs. Therefore, we believe that using
the updated wage data exclusive of the
occupational mix adjustment continues
to be appropriate for SNF payments.
Since the implementation of the SNF
PPS, as set forth in § 413.337(a)(1)(ii), a
SNF’s wage index is determined based
on the location of the SNF in an urban
or rural area as defined in § 413.333 and
further defined in § 412.62(f)(1)(ii) and
§ 412.62(f)(1)(iii) as urban and rural
areas, respectively. In the FY 2006 SNF
PPS final rule (70 FR 45041, August 4,
2005), we adopted revised labor market
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Non-case
mix
component
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
78.64
Total rate
547.80
507.33
487.09
428.73
409.94
375.24
365.51
351.06
329.37
334.50
325.83
320.04
288.37
249.34
343.31
294.16
263.80
259.47
246.46
242.12
258.02
237.78
226.22
216.10
214.66
203.09
194.42
191.53
177.07
171.29
192.97
188.64
175.63
164.06
208.87
205.98
198.76
195.87
190.08
188.64
169.85
166.96
165.51
161.17
area definitions based on CBSAs. At the
time, we noted that these were the same
labor market area definitions (based on
OMB’s new CBSA designations)
implemented under the Hospital
Inpatient Prospective Payment System
(IPPS) at § 412.64(b), which were
effective for those hospitals beginning
October 1, 2004, as discussed in the
IPPS final rule for FY 2005 (69 FR at
49026 through 49034, August 11, 2004).
In the FY 2006 SNF PPS final rule, we
inadvertently omitted making a
conforming regulation text change for
§ 413.333. However, no change was
made to our decision to follow the IPPS
definition of urban and rural. We are
proposing to make that conforming
regulation text change to revise the
definitions for rural and urban areas
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25926
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
effective for services provided on or
after October 1, 2005, to reference the
regulations at § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A)
through (C), consistent with the revision
under the IPPS.
1. Clarification of New England Deemed
Counties
We are taking this opportunity to
address the change in the treatment of
‘‘New England deemed counties’’ (that
is, those counties in New England listed
in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(B) that were deemed
to be part of urban areas under section
601(g) of the Social Security
Amendments of 1983) that was made in
the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 47337 through
47338, August 22, 2007). These counties
include the following: Litchfield
County, Connecticut; York County,
Maine; Sagadahoc County, Maine;
Merrimack County, New Hampshire;
and Newport County, Rhode Island. Of
these five ‘‘New England deemed
counties,’’ three (York County,
Sagadahoc County, and Newport
County) are also included in
metropolitan statistical areas defined by
OMB and are considered urban under
both the current IPPS and SNF PPS
labor market area definitions in
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A). The remaining two,
Litchfield County and Merrimack
County, are geographically located in
areas that are considered rural under the
current IPPS (and SNF PPS) labor
market area definitions, but have been
previously deemed urban under the
IPPS in certain circumstances, as
discussed below.
In the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with
comment period, § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(B)
was revised such that the two ‘‘New
England deemed counties’’ that are still
considered rural under the OMB
definitions (Litchfield County, CT and
Merrimack County, NH), are no longer
considered urban effective for
discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2007, and therefore, are considered
rural in accordance with
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C). However, for
purposes of payment under the IPPS,
acute-care hospitals located within
those areas are treated as being
reclassified to their deemed urban area
effective for discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2007 (see 72 FR 47337
through 47338). We note that the SNF
PPS does not provide for such
geographic reclassification. Also, in the
FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment
period (72 FR 47338), we explained that
we have limited this policy change for
the ‘‘New England deemed counties’’
only to IPPS hospitals, and any change
to non-IPPS provider wage indexes
would be addressed in the respective
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
payment system rules. Accordingly, we
are taking this opportunity to clarify the
treatment of ‘‘New England deemed
counties’’ under the SNF PPS in this
proposed rule.
As discussed above, the SNF PPS has
consistently used the IPPS definition of
‘‘urban’’ and ‘‘rural’’ with regard to the
wage index used in the SNF PPS.
Historical changes to the labor market
area/geographic classifications and
annual updates to the wage index values
under the SNF PPS are made effective
October 1 each year. When we
established the most recent SNF PPS
payment rate update, effective for SNF
services provided on or after October 1,
2007 through September 30, 2008, we
considered the ‘‘New England deemed
counties’’ (including Litchfield County,
CT and Merrimack County, NH) as
urban for FY 2008, as evidenced by the
inclusion of Litchfield County as one of
the constituent counties of urban CBSA
25540 (Hartford-West Hartford-East
Hartford, CT), and the inclusion of
Merrimack County as one of the
constituent counties of urban CBSA
31700 (Manchester-Nashua, NH)).
As noted above, § 413.333 indicates
that the terms ‘‘rural’’ and ‘‘urban’’ are
defined according to the definitions of
those terms as used in the IPPS.
Applying the IPPS definitions,
Litchfield County, CT and Merrimack
County, NH are not considered ‘‘urban’’
under § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (B)
as revised under the FY 2008 IPPS final
rule and, therefore, are considered
‘‘rural’’ under § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C).
Accordingly, reflecting our policy to use
the IPPS definitions of ‘‘urban’’ and
‘‘rural,’’ these two counties will be
considered ‘‘rural’’ under the SNF PPS
effective with the next update of the
SNF PPS payment rates on October 1,
2008, and will no longer be included in
urban CBSA 25540 (Hartford-West
Hartford-East Hartford, CT) and urban
CBSA 31700 (Manchester-Nashua, NH),
respectively. We note that this policy is
consistent with our policy of not taking
into account IPPS geographic
reclassifications in determining
payments under the SNF PPS. As
indicated above, we are proposing to
make a technical change to the
regulations at § 413.333 to reflect the
updated IPPS regulation reference.
2. Multi-Campus Hospital Wage Index
Data
In the FY 2008 SNF PPS final rule (72
FR 43412, August 3, 2007), we
established SNF PPS wage index values
for FY 2008 calculated from the same
data (collected from cost reports
submitted by hospitals for cost reporting
periods beginning during FY 2004) used
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to compute the FY 2008 acute care
hospital inpatient wage index, without
taking into account geographic
reclassification under sections
1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act.
However, the IPPS policy that
apportions the wage data for multicampus hospitals was not finalized
before the SNF PPS final rule. The SNF
PPS wage index values applicable for
services provided on or after October 1,
2007 through September 30, 2008 are
shown in Table 8 (for urban areas) and
Table 9 (for rural areas) and in the
Addendum to the FY 2008 SNF PPS
final rule (72 FR 43437 through 43463).
We are continuing to use IPPS wage
data for FY 2009 because we believe
that in the absence of SNF-specific wage
data, using the hospital inpatient wage
data is appropriate and reasonable for
the SNF PPS. We note that the IPPS
wage data used to determine the
proposed FY 2009 SNF wage index
values reflect our policy that was
adopted under the IPPS beginning in FY
2008, which apportions the wage data
for multi-campus hospitals located in
different labor market areas, or CoreBased Statistical Areas (CBSAs), to each
CBSA where the campuses are located
(see the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 47317 through
47320)). Specifically, for the proposed
FY 2009 SNF PPS, the wage index was
computed using IPPS wage data
(published by hospitals for cost
reporting periods beginning in 2005, as
with the FY 2009 IPPS wage index),
which allocated salaries and hours to
the campuses of two multi-campus
hospitals with campuses that are located
in different labor areas; one is
Massachusetts and the other is Illinois.
The wage index values for the proposed
FY 2009 SNF PPS in the following
CBSAs are affected by this policy:
Boston-Quincy, MA (CBSA 14484),
Providence-New Bedford-Falls River,
RI–MA (CBSA 39300), ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL (CBSA 16974) and
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL–WI
(CBSA 29404) (please refer to Table 8 in
the Addendum of this proposed rule).
In summary, for FY 2009, we propose
to use the FY 2009 wage index data
(collected from cost reports submitted
by hospitals for cost reporting periods
beginning during FY 2005) to adjust
SNF PPS payments beginning October 1,
2008. These data reflect the multicampus and New England deemed
counties policies discussed above.
Finally, we propose to continue using
the same methodology discussed in the
SNF PPS final rule for FY 2008 (72 FR
43423) to address those geographic areas
in which there are no hospitals and,
thus, no hospital wage index data on
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25927
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
which to base the calculation of the FY
2009 SNF PPS wage index. For rural
geographic areas that do not have
hospitals and, therefore, lack hospital
wage data on which to base an area
wage adjustment, we would use the
average wage index from all contiguous
CBSAs as a reasonable proxy. This
methodology is used to construct the
wage index for rural Massachusetts.
However, we would not apply this
methodology to rural Puerto Rico due to
the distinct economic circumstances
that exist there, but instead would
continue using the most recent wage
index previously available for that area.
For urban areas without specific
hospital wage index data, we would use
the average wage indexes of all of the
urban areas within the State to serve as
a reasonable proxy for the wage index
of that urban CBSA. The only urban area
without wage index data available is
CBSA (25980) Hinesville-Fort Stewart,
GA.
TABLE 6.—RUG–53
To calculate the SNF PPS wage index
adjustment, we would apply the wage
index adjustment to the labor-related
portion of the Federal rate, which is
69.994 percent of the total rate. This
percentage reflects the labor-related
relative importance for FY 2009, using
the revised and rebased FY 2004-based
market basket. The labor-related relative
importance for FY 2008 was 70.249, as
shown in Table 11. We calculate the
labor-related relative importance from
the SNF market basket, and it
approximates the labor-related portion
of the total costs after taking into
account historical and projected price
changes between the base year and FY
2009. The price proxies that move the
different cost categories in the market
basket do not necessarily change at the
same rate, and the relative importance
captures these changes. Accordingly,
the relative importance figure more
closely reflects the cost share weights
for FY 2009 than the base year weights
from the SNF market basket.
We calculate the labor-related relative
importance for FY 2009 in four steps.
First, we compute the FY 2009 price
index level for the total market basket
and each cost category of the market
basket. Second, we calculate a ratio for
each cost category by dividing the FY
2009 price index level for that cost
category by the total market basket price
index level. Third, we determine the FY
2009 relative importance for each cost
category by multiplying this ratio by the
base year (FY 2004) weight. Finally, we
add the FY 2009 relative importance for
each of the labor-related cost categories
(wages and salaries, employee benefits,
non-medical professional fees, laborintensive services, and a portion of
capital-related expenses) to produce the
FY 2009 labor-related relative
importance. Tables 6 and 7 below show
the Federal rates by labor-related and
non-labor-related components.
CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES FOR URBAN SNFS BY LABOR AND NON-LABOR COMPONENT
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
RUG-III
category
Total rate
RUX .........................................................................................................................................................
RUL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVX ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RHX .........................................................................................................................................................
RHL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RMX .........................................................................................................................................................
RML .........................................................................................................................................................
RLX ..........................................................................................................................................................
RUC .........................................................................................................................................................
RUB .........................................................................................................................................................
RUA .........................................................................................................................................................
RVC .........................................................................................................................................................
RVB ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVA ..........................................................................................................................................................
RHC .........................................................................................................................................................
RHB .........................................................................................................................................................
RHA .........................................................................................................................................................
RMC .........................................................................................................................................................
RMB .........................................................................................................................................................
RMA .........................................................................................................................................................
RLB ..........................................................................................................................................................
RLA ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE3 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSC ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSB ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSA ..........................................................................................................................................................
CC2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CC1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CB2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CB1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CA1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
IB2 ............................................................................................................................................................
IB1 ............................................................................................................................................................
IA2 ............................................................................................................................................................
IA1 ............................................................................................................................................................
BB2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BB1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BA1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
601.45
531.85
455.79
425.53
385.58
376.50
437.32
402.52
310.82
515.21
472.85
451.66
410.40
390.73
354.42
355.32
340.19
317.49
326.87
317.79
311.74
286.61
245.76
352.46
301.01
269.24
264.70
251.09
246.55
263.19
242.01
229.90
219.31
217.80
205.70
196.62
193.59
178.46
172.41
195.10
190.57
176.95
164.84
07MYP2
Labor portion
420.98
372.26
319.03
297.85
269.88
263.53
306.10
281.74
217.56
360.62
330.97
316.13
287.26
273.49
248.07
248.70
238.11
222.22
228.79
222.43
218.20
200.61
172.02
246.70
210.69
188.45
185.27
175.75
172.57
184.22
169.39
160.92
153.50
152.45
143.98
137.62
135.50
124.91
120.68
136.56
133.39
123.85
115.38
Non-labor
portion
180.47
159.59
136.76
127.68
115.70
112.97
131.22
120.78
93.26
154.59
141.88
135.53
123.14
117.24
106.35
106.62
102.08
95.27
98.08
95.36
93.54
86.00
73.74
105.76
90.32
80.79
79.43
75.34
73.98
78.97
72.62
68.98
65.81
65.35
61.72
59.00
58.09
53.55
51.73
58.54
57.18
53.10
49.46
25928
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6.—RUG–53
CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES FOR URBAN SNFS BY LABOR AND NON-LABOR
COMPONENT—Continued
RUG-III
category
PE2
PE1
PD2
PD1
PC2
PC1
PB2
PB1
PA2
PA1
Total rate
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 7.—RUG–53
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
148.21
146.09
140.80
138.68
134.44
133.39
119.62
117.50
116.44
113.26
Non-labor
portion
63.54
62.63
60.36
59.45
57.64
57.18
51.28
50.37
49.92
48.56
CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES FOR RURAL SNFS BY LABOR AND NON-LABOR COMPONENT
RUG-III
category
Total rate
RUX .........................................................................................................................................................
RUL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVX ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RHX .........................................................................................................................................................
RHL ..........................................................................................................................................................
RMX .........................................................................................................................................................
RML .........................................................................................................................................................
RLX ..........................................................................................................................................................
RUC .........................................................................................................................................................
RUB .........................................................................................................................................................
RUA .........................................................................................................................................................
RVC .........................................................................................................................................................
RVB ..........................................................................................................................................................
RVA ..........................................................................................................................................................
RHC .........................................................................................................................................................
RHB .........................................................................................................................................................
RHA .........................................................................................................................................................
RMC .........................................................................................................................................................
RMB .........................................................................................................................................................
RMA .........................................................................................................................................................
RLB ..........................................................................................................................................................
RLA ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE3 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SE1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSC ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSB ..........................................................................................................................................................
SSA ..........................................................................................................................................................
CC2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CC1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CB2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CB1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
CA1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
IB2 ............................................................................................................................................................
IB1 ............................................................................................................................................................
IA2 ............................................................................................................................................................
IA1 ............................................................................................................................................................
BB2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BB1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
BA1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PE2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PE1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PD2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PD1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PC2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PC1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PB2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PB1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
PA1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
211.75
208.72
201.16
198.13
192.08
190.57
170.90
167.87
166.36
161.82
Labor portion
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
630.19
563.70
472.09
443.18
394.42
385.75
440.02
406.77
311.50
547.80
507.33
487.09
428.73
409.94
375.24
365.51
351.06
329.37
334.50
325.83
320.04
288.37
249.34
343.31
294.16
263.80
259.47
246.46
242.12
258.02
237.78
226.22
216.10
214.66
203.09
194.42
191.53
177.07
171.29
192.97
188.64
175.63
164.06
208.87
205.98
198.76
195.87
190.08
188.64
169.85
166.96
165.51
161.17
07MYP2
Labor portion
441.10
394.56
330.43
310.20
276.07
270.00
307.99
284.71
218.03
383.43
355.10
340.93
300.09
286.93
262.65
255.84
245.72
230.54
234.13
228.06
224.01
201.84
174.52
240.30
205.89
184.64
181.61
172.51
169.47
180.60
166.43
158.34
151.26
150.25
142.15
136.08
134.06
123.94
119.89
135.07
132.04
122.93
114.83
146.20
144.17
139.12
137.10
133.04
132.04
118.88
116.86
115.85
112.81
Non-labor
portion
189.09
169.14
141.66
132.98
118.35
115.75
132.03
122.06
93.47
164.37
152.23
146.16
128.64
123.01
112.59
109.67
105.34
98.83
100.37
97.77
96.03
86.53
74.82
103.01
88.27
79.16
77.86
73.95
72.65
77.42
71.35
67.88
64.84
64.41
60.94
58.34
57.47
53.13
51.40
57.90
56.60
52.70
49.23
62.67
61.81
59.64
58.77
57.04
56.60
50.97
50.10
49.66
48.36
25929
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act
also requires that we apply this wage
index in a manner that does not result
in aggregate payments that are greater or
less than would otherwise be made in
the absence of the wage adjustment. For
FY 2009 (Federal rates effective October
1, 2008), we would apply an adjustment
to fulfill the budget neutrality
requirement. We would meet this
requirement by multiplying each of the
components of the unadjusted Federal
rates by a budget neutrality factor equal
to the ratio of the weighted average
wage adjustment factor for FY 2008 to
the weighted average wage adjustment
factor for FY 2009. For this calculation,
we use the same 2006 claims utilization
data for both the numerator and
denominator of this ratio. We define the
wage adjustment factor used in this
calculation as the labor share of the rate
component multiplied by the wage
index plus the non-labor share of the
rate component. The proposed budget
neutrality factor for this year is 1.0009.
The wage index applicable to FY 2009
is set forth in Tables 8 and 9, which
appear in the Addendum of this
proposed rule.
In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006
(70 FR 45026, August 4, 2005), we
adopted the changes discussed in the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Bulletin No. 03–04 (June 6,
2003), available online at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/
b03–04.html, which announced revised
definitions for Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs), and the creation of
Micropolitan Statistical Areas and
Combined Statistical Areas. In addition,
OMB published subsequent bulletins
regarding CBSA changes, including
changes in CBSA numbers and titles. As
indicated in the FY 2008 SNF PPS final
rule (72 FR 43423, August 3, 2007), this
and all subsequent SNF PPS rules and
notices are considered to incorporate
the CBSA changes published in the
most recent OMB bulletin that applies
to the hospital wage data used to
determine the current SNF PPS wage
index. The OMB bulletins may be
accessed online at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/
index.html.
In adopting the OMB Core-Based
Statistical Area (CBSA) geographic
designations, we provided for a 1-year
transition with a blended wage index for
all providers. For FY 2006, the wage
index for each provider consisted of a
blend of 50 percent of the FY 2006
MSA-based wage index and 50 percent
of the FY 2006 CBSA-based wage index
(both using FY 2002 hospital data). We
referred to the blended wage index as
the FY 2006 SNF PPS transition wage
index. As discussed in the SNF PPS
final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45041),
subsequent to the expiration of this 1year transition on September 30, 2006,
we used the full CBSA-based wage
index values, as now presented in
Tables 8 and 9 of this proposed rule.
D. Updates to the Federal Rates
In accordance with section
1888(e)(4)(E) of the Act, as amended by
section 311 of the BIPA, the proposed
payment rates in this proposed rule
reflect an update equal to the full SNF
market basket, estimated at 3.1
percentage points. We would continue
to disseminate the rates, wage index,
and case-mix classification methodology
through the Federal Register before the
August 1 that precedes the start of each
succeeding FY.
E. Relationship of RUG–III Classification
System to Existing Skilled Nursing
Facility Level-of-Care Criteria
As discussed in § 413.345, we include
in each update of the Federal payment
rates in the Federal Register the
designation of those specific RUGs
under the classification system that
represent the required SNF level of care,
as provided in § 409.30. This
designation reflects an administrative
presumption under the refined RUG–53
that beneficiaries who are correctly
assigned to one of the upper 35 of the
RUG–53 groups on the initial 5-day,
Medicare-required assessment are
automatically classified as meeting the
SNF level of care definition up to and
including the assessment reference date
on the 5-day Medicare required
assessment.
A beneficiary assigned to any of the
lower 18 groups is not automatically
classified as either meeting or not
meeting the definition, but instead
receives an individual level of care
determination using the existing
administrative criteria. This
presumption recognizes the strong
likelihood that beneficiaries assigned to
one of the upper 35 groups during the
immediate post-hospital period require
a covered level of care, which would be
significantly less likely for those
beneficiaries assigned to one of the
lower 18 groups.
In this proposed rule, we are
continuing the designation of the upper
35 groups for purposes of this
administrative presumption, consisting
of the following RUG–53 classifications:
All groups within the Rehabilitation
plus Extensive Services category; All
groups within the Ultra High
Rehabilitation category; all groups
within the Very High Rehabilitation
category; all groups within the High
Rehabilitation category; all groups
within the Medium Rehabilitation
category; all groups within the Low
Rehabilitation category; all groups
within the Extensive Services category;
all groups within the Special Care
category; and, all groups within the
Clinically Complex category.
F. Example of Computation of Adjusted
PPS Rates and SNF Payment
Using the hypothetical SNF XYZ
described in Table 10 below, the
following shows the adjustments made
to the Federal per diem rate to compute
the provider’s actual per diem PPS
payment. SNF XYZ’s 12-month cost
reporting period begins October 1, 2008.
SNF XYZ’s total PPS payment would
equal $29,719. We derive the Labor and
Non-labor columns from Table 6 of this
proposed rule.
TABLE 10.—RUG–53 SNF XYZ: LOCATED IN CEDAR RAPIDS, IA (URBAN CBSA 16300)
[Wage Index: 0.8924]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
RUG Group
Labor
Wage index
Adj. labor
Non-labor
Adj. rate
Percent adj
Medicare
days
payment
RVX ..................................
RLX ..................................
RHA ..................................
CC2 ..................................
IA2 ....................................
$319.03
217.56
222.22
184.22
124.91
0.8924
0.8924
0.8924
0.8924
0.8924
$284.70
194.15
198.31
164.40
111.47
$136.76
93.26
95.27
78.97
53.55
$421.46
287.41
293.58
243.37
165.02
$421.46
287.41
293.58
554.88*
165.02
14
30
16
10
30
$5,900.00
8,622.00
4,697.00
5,549.00
4,951.00
Total ..........................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
100
29,719.00
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
* Reflects a 128 percent adjustment from section 511 of the MMA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25930
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
G. Other Issues
1. Staff Time and Resource Intensity
Verification (STRIVE) Project
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘STRIVE Project’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
As noted previously in section II.B.1
of this proposed rule, section
1888(e)(4)(G)(i) of the Act requires the
Secretary to make an adjustment to
account for case-mix. The statute
specifies that the adjustment is to reflect
both a resident classification system that
the Secretary establishes to account for
the relative resource use of different
patient types, as well as resident
assessment and other data that the
Secretary considers appropriate. In first
implementing the SNF PPS (63 FR
26252, May 12, 1998), we developed the
RUG-III case-mix classification system,
which tied the amount of payment to
resident resource use in combination
with resident characteristic information.
Staff time measurement (STM) studies
conducted in 1990, 1995, and 1997
provided information on resource use
(time spent by staff members on
residents) and resident characteristics
that enabled us not only to establish
RUG–III, but also to create case-mix
indexes.
Since that time, we have become
concerned that incentives of the SNF
PPS and the public reporting of nursing
home quality measures likely have
altered industry practices, and have
affected the nursing resources required
to treat different types of patients.
Changes to technology might also have
affected care methods, while more
choices in housing alternatives (such as
assisted living and community housing)
may have altered the population mix
served by nursing homes.
To help ensure that the SNF PPS
payment rates reflect current practices
and resource needs, CMS sponsored a
national nursing home time study,
STRIVE, which began in the Fall of
2005. Information collected in STRIVE
includes the amount of time that staff
members spend on residents and
information on residents’’ physical and
clinical status derived from MDS
assessment data.
Two hundred and five nursing homes
from the following fifteen States and
jurisdictions volunteered to participate
in STRIVE: The District of Columbia,
Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Montana, New York, Ohio, South
Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and
Washington. We are currently analyzing
staff time and MDS assessment data for
approximately 9,700 residents.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nursing homes with poor survey
histories or pending enforcement
actions were excluded from the sample.
In addition, nursing homes with poor
quality measure (QM) scores, low
occupancy rates, or large proportions of
private pay or pediatric patients were
also excluded.
Nursing homes were randomly
recruited within five strata. The five
strata follow: Hospital-based facilities;
facilities with high concentrations of
residents on ventilators; facilities with
high concentrations of residents with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV);
facilities with high concentrations of
residents on Medicare Part A stays; and
all other facilities. Facilities with large
concentrations of residents on
ventilators, residents with HIV, or
residents on Part A stays were oversampled in order to assure sufficient
numbers of residents in those
populations. Nursing homes were
voluntarily recruited in random order
until enough facilities in each targeted
category agreed to participate.
Participating facilities included both
not-for-profit entities and corporations;
chains and independent operators;
nursing homes with populations small
to large in size; and facilities situated in
urban and rural locations.
STRIVE began on-site data collection
at both SNFs and Medicaid Nursing
Facilities (NFs) in the Spring of 2006.
STRIVE collected data from both types
of facilities because almost half of the
States use a version of the RUG-III
system for their Medicaid
reimbursement systems.
Participating facilities submitted both
time and MDS assessment data. Nursing
staff recorded their time over 48 hours.
Nursing staff included registered nurses,
licensed practical nurses, and nursing
aides. Therapy staff recorded their time
over 7 consecutive days. Therapy staff
included physical therapists and aides;
occupational therapists and aides; and
speech-language pathologists. Each
nursing home staff member recorded his
or her time at the facility in different
categories (for example, residentspecific time (RST), non-residentspecific time (NRST), unpaid time, and
non-study time).
As our analysis continues, we expect
to introduce changes to the RUG-III
grouper methodology and clinical
assessment instrument. Further
exploration of STRIVE data and possible
refinements to the SNF PPS may
ultimately culminate in a new RUG
model, version IV.
To date, STRIVE has benefited from
stakeholder input, starting with the
December 2005 Open Door Forum to
which the public was invited. The
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
educators, researchers, beneficiary
advocates, clinicians, consultants,
government experts, and representatives
from health care, nursing home, and
other related industry associations
serving on the STRIVE technical expert
panel (TEP) have provided valuable
insights on topics such as sample
populations. Beginning in 2005 until its
most recent February 2008 meeting, the
TEP has met twice and held two
teleconferences. Additionally, our
contractor recently established a smaller
Analytic Panel consisting of various
stakeholders who meet regularly with
our researchers to discuss the analysis
of the STRIVE data.
Our preliminary analyses of RUG IIIrelated resource times and payment
rates indicated that, as mentioned
previously, SNF care patterns have
changed significantly over the decade
since we last conducted STMs. We note
that calculating CMIs based upon
STRIVE data for use within a RUG-III
model constructed over a decade ago
would create methodological challenges
and, therefore, could only be considered
an interim step, as we would have to
reexamine the CMIs after changes to the
structural model are finalized. We will
continue to analyze STRIVE data and
intend to create an updated RUG
classification structure that would more
accurately reflect current care practices
and resource use. Our contractors also
plan to receive input from the TEP and
the Analytic Panel to guide the STRIVE
analysis. We may also use the results of
the contractors’ analyses to make
changes to the RUG classification
structure. It is our intention to introduce
new case-mix weights in FY 2010 that
reflect the results of the STRIVE
analysis and any changes to the RUG
classification structure.
More information on STRIVE appears
at the following Web site: https://
www.qtso.com/strive.html. Items posted
there include: Assessment forms
distributed by STRIVE; ‘‘train the
trainer’’ materials used to teach the data
monitors who, in turn, instructed
nursing home staff members on how to
record their time; materials from State
teleconferences; and slides presented at
STRIVE TEPs. We plan to post
preliminary results of the STRIVE
analyses, when available, on the
following Web site: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/SNFPPS/
10_TimeStudy.asp.
2. Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘MDS 3.0’’ at the beginning of
your comments.]
Sections 1819(f)(6)(A)–(B) and
1919(f)(6)(A)–(B) of the Social Security
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Act, as amended by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
(OBRA 1987), require the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human
Services (the Secretary) to specify a
minimum data set of core elements for
use in conducting comprehensive
assessments. As stated in § 483.20,
Medicare- and Medicaid-participating
nursing homes must conduct ‘‘a
comprehensive, accurate, standardized,
reproducible assessment’’ of each
nursing home resident’s functional
capacity.
CMS is developing a new version of
the MDS, MDS 3.0, to reflect more
accurately each resident’s clinical,
cognitive, and functional status as well
as the care that nursing homes provide
residents. The regulations at
§ 483.20(b)(1)(i) through (xviii) list the
clinical domains that must be included
in the Resident Assessment Instrument
(RAI). These domains have been
incorporated into the MDS 2.0 and
would also be included in MDS 3.0. We
anticipate that in FY 2010, MDS 3.0
would become the current version of the
MDS. MDS 3.0, like MDS 2.0, would
focus on the clinical assessment of each
nursing home resident to screen for
common, often unrecognized or
unevaluated, conditions and syndromes.
We made clinical revisions to the
instrument based on input from subjectarea experts, feedback from MDS users,
resident advocates and families, and
new knowledge and evidence about
resident assessment. With the
implementation of MDS 3.0, we aim to
increase the clinical relevance,
accuracy, and efficiency of assessments;
require assessors to record direct
resident responses on some items;
include assessment items used in other
care settings; and move items toward
future electronic health record formats.
On January 24, 2008, CMS hosted a
special Open Door Forum to provide
details about MDS 3.0.
We now plan to evaluate the impact
of the MDS 3.0 changes on the RUG–III
resident classification system used in
the Medicare payment structure. We
intend to develop ways to adapt the
RUG system to the MDS 3.0 assessment
instrument as part of the STRIVE study.
We would then finalize changes to the
MDS 3.0 and any necessary adaptations
to the RUG classification system. Our
intent would be to implement the
updated system nationally in FY 2010.
We are very much aware that the
transition to a new MDS instrument in
conjunction with the possible release of
a new RUG grouper requires careful
planning and extensive provider
training. CMS staff are already working
on training plans that would include a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
new MDS 3.0 manual, documentation
explaining the updated RUG grouper
methodology, data specifications for
providers and vendors, training videos,
a help desk call and e-mail center, and
a train-the-trainer conference tentatively
scheduled for Spring 2009. However, we
realize that the most effective training
would require coordination between
CMS and its key stakeholders, including
provider and professional associations,
Fiscal Intermediaries and Part A and
Part B Medicare Administrative
Contractors (MACs), and State agencies.
We want to encourage stakeholders to
work with CMS staff to provide
additional training opportunities on the
local level to ensure a smooth transition.
We plan to publish a transition plan in
2008 that should highlight opportunities
for joint action. In 2009, we intend to
make draft MDS 3.0 specifications
available to providers and vendors. We
also tentatively plan to include in the
update to the FY 2010 SNF PPS rates
(which we intend to introduce in Spring
2009 and finalize by the end of July,
2009) definitive information on the final
MDS 3.0 and RUG grouper
specifications. Additional information is
available online at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov via the following
links:
• MDS 3.0 information: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
NursingHomeQualityInits/
25_NHQIMDS30.asp.
• January 15, 2008 version of the
MDS 3.0 instrument: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
NursingHomeQualityInits/Downloads/
MDS30DraftVersion.pdf.
• MDS 3.0 timeline: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
NursingHomeQualityInits/Downloads/
MDS30Timeline.pdf.
3. Integrated Post Acute Care Payment
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Integrated Post Acute Care
Payment’’ at the beginning of your
comments.]
Under current law, Medicare covers
post-acute care (PAC) services in
various care settings, including SNFs,
home health agencies (HHAs), long-term
care hospitals (LTCHs), and inpatient
rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). Each of
the PAC sites has a separate payment
system that relies on different patient
assessment instruments, although there
is no mandated assessment instrument
for LTCHs. The current model is based
on provider-oriented ‘‘silos’’ with
significant payment differentials
existing between provider types that
treat similar patients and provide
similar services.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25931
In the SNF PPS update notice for FY
2007 (71 FR 43172 through 43173, July
31, 2006), we described our plans to
explore refinements to the existing PAC
payment methodologies to create a more
seamless system for payment and
delivery of PAC under Medicare. The
new model will focus on beneficiary
needs rather than provider type and will
be characterized by more consistent
payments for the same type of care
across different sites of service, qualitydriven pay-for-performance incentives,
and collection of uniform clinical
assessment information to support
quality and discharge planning
functions.
We also noted in the FY 2007 SNF
PPS update notice (71 FR 43172) that
section 5008 of the Deficit Reduction
Act (DRA) of 2005 mandates a PAC
payment reform demonstration for
purposes of understanding costs and
outcomes across different PAC sites. To
meet this mandate, CMS implemented
the PAC Payment Reform
Demonstration (PAC–PRD) to examine
differences in costs and outcomes for
PAC patients of similar case-mix who
use different types of PAC providers and
to develop a standardized patient
assessment tool for use at hospital
discharge and at PAC admission and
discharge. This tool, the Continuity
Assessment Record and Evaluation
(CARE) tool, will measure the health
and functional status of Medicare acute
discharges. During the demonstration,
CARE will be used at hospital discharge
and upon admission and discharge from
PAC settings. The CARE instrument
consists of a core set of assessment
items that are common to all patients
and care settings and are organized
under several major domains: Medical,
Functional, Cognitive, Social, and
Continuity of Care, in addition to
supplemental items for specific
conditions and care settings. Additional
information on the PAC–PRD is
available at: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
DemoProjectsEvalRpts/MD/itemdetail.
asp?filterType=dual,%20keyword&filter
Value=post%20acute%20care&filter
ByDID=0&sortByDID=3&sortOrder=
descending&itemID=CMS1201325&
intNumPerPage=10.
We are interested in receiving public
comments on the CARE instrument, and
specifically invite comments on how
CARE might advance the use of Health
Information Technology (HIT) in
automating the process for collecting
and submitting quality data. The CARE
tool is available at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
paperworkreductionactof1995/pral/
list.asp. Viewers should scroll down to
the entry for CMS–10243, ‘‘Data
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25932
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Collection for Administering the
Medicare Continuity Assessment Record
and Evaluation (CARE) Instrument.’’
Viewers can then click on the link to
CMS–10243, click on the link to
‘‘Downloads,’’ and open Appendix A
(‘‘CARE Tool Item Matrix,’’ a .pdf file)
and Appendix B (‘‘CARE Tool Master
Document,’’ in Microsoft Word).
In addition, we wish to take this
opportunity to discuss recent
developments in the related area of
value-based purchasing (VBP). VBP ties
payment to performance through the use
of incentives based on measures of
quality and cost of care. The
implementation of VBP is rapidly
transforming CMS from being a passive
payer of claims to an active purchaser
of higher quality, more efficient health
care for Medicare beneficiaries. Our
VBP initiatives include hospital pay for
reporting (the Reporting Hospital
Quality Data for the Annual Payment
Update Program), physician pay for
reporting (the Physician Quality
Reporting Initiative), home health pay
for reporting, the Hospital VBP Plan
Report to Congress, and various VBP
demonstration programs across payment
settings, including the Premier Hospital
Quality Incentive Demonstration and
the Physician Group Practice
Demonstration.
The preventable hospital-acquired
conditions (HAC) payment provision for
IPPS hospitals is another of CMS’’
value-based purchasing initiatives. The
principal behind the HAC payment
provision (Medicare not paying more for
healthcare-associated conditions) could
be applied to the Medicare payment
systems for other settings of care.
Section 1886(d)(4)(D) of the Act
required the Secretary to select for the
HAC IPPS payment provision
conditions that: (a) are high cost, high
volume, or both; (b) are assigned to a
higher-paying Medicare severity
diagnosis-related group (MS–DRG)
when present as a secondary diagnosis;
and (c) could reasonably have been
prevented through the application of
evidence-based guidelines. Beginning
October 1, 2008, Medicare can no longer
assign an inpatient hospital discharge to
a higher-paying MS–DRG if a selected
HAC condition was not present on
admission. That is, the case will be paid
as though the secondary diagnosis were
not present. (Medicare will continue to
assign a discharge to a higher-paying
MS–DRG in those instances where the
selected condition was, in fact, present
on admission).
The broad principle articulated in the
HAC payment provision for IPPS
hospitals—of Medicare not paying for
these types of preventable conditions—
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
could potentially be applied to other
Medicare payment systems for similar
conditions that occur in settings other
than IPPS hospitals. Other possible
settings of care might include hospital
outpatient departments, SNFs, HHAs,
end-stage renal disease facilities, and
physician practices. The
implementation would be different for
each setting, as each payment system is
different and the reasonable
preventability through the application
of evidence-based guidelines could vary
for candidate conditions over the
different settings. However, alignment
of incentives across settings of care is an
important goal for all of CMS’’ VBP
initiatives, including the HAC
provision.
A related application of the broad
principle behind the HAC payment
provision for IPPS hospitals could be
considered through Medicare secondary
payer policy by requiring the provider
that failed to prevent the occurrence of
a preventable condition in one setting to
pay for all or part of the necessary
follow-up care in a second setting. This
would help shield the Medicare
program from inappropriately paying for
the downstream effects of a preventable
condition acquired in the first setting
but treated in the second setting.
We note that we are not proposing
new Medicare policy in this discussion
of the possible application of HACs
payment policy for IPPS hospitals to
other settings, as some of these
approaches may require new statutory
authority. Rather, we are seeking public
comment on the application of the
preventable HACs payment provision
for IPPS hospitals to other Medicare
payment systems and settings. We look
forward to working with stakeholders in
the fight against these preventable
conditions.
H. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections
and Clarifications
We are also taking the opportunity to
set forth certain technical corrections
and clarifications in this proposed rule,
as discussed below.
1. Bad Debt Payments
We are proposing to make a technical
revision in the SNF PPS regulations at
§ 413.335(b) to reflect Medicare bad debt
payments to SNFs. Under section
1861(v)(1) of the Act and § 413.89 of the
regulations, Medicare may pay some or
all of the uncollectible deductible and
coinsurance amounts to those entities
paid under a reasonable cost payment
methodology that are eligible to receive
payment for ‘‘bad debt’’ as defined in
§ 413.89(b)(1). Under the original
reasonable cost SNF payment
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
methodology that preceded the
introduction of the SNF PPS, SNFs did,
in fact, receive bad debt payments for
uncollectible SNF coinsurance amounts
(the SNF benefit has no deductible). As
we noted in the preamble to the July 30,
1999 SNF PPS final rule (64 FR 41656),
while the SNF PPS has maintained this
longstanding practice of recognizing
SNF bad debt payments ever since its
inception, these payments are not
included within the SNF PPS per diem
itself, but rather, are claimed on the
SNF’s Medicare cost report. However, in
drafting the regulations text in
§ 413.335(b) on the scope of the SNF
PPS per diem payment, we
inadvertently omitted a reference to this
practice.
Accordingly, in this proposed rule,
we now propose to rectify that
inadvertent omission by adding a new
clause to § 413.335(b), to clarify that in
addition to the Federal per diem
payment amounts, SNFs receive
payment for bad debts of Medicare
beneficiaries, as specified in the
provisions of the regulations at § 413.89.
We note that those provisions include
the 30 percent reduction in applicable
SNF bad debt payments made in
accordance with section 5004 of the
DRA, as specified in § 413.89(h)(2).
Further, we note that the President’s
budget currently includes a provision
that would eliminate Medicare bad debt
payments altogether, and that the
provisions outlined in this proposed
rule would need to reflect any
legislation that the Congress may enact
to adopt that proposal. Finally, we note
that our proposed revision is similar to
language that already appears in the
regulations text for the inpatient
psychiatric facility PPS, at
§ 412.422(b)(2).
2. Additional Clarifications
We are also proposing to make
clarifications in two other areas: When
a SNF may bill at the default payment
rate, and the role of rehabilitation
services evaluations in SNFs.
A recent analysis of claims data has
confirmed confusion among providers
as to when it is permissible to submit a
claim using the Health Insurance
Prospective Payment System (HIPPS)
rate code of AAA00, which is the
default code. Under the SNF PPS, SNFs
are required to submit resident
assessment data according to an
assessment schedule. When the resident
assessment is prepared timely, the
provider should bill the RUG payment
group that is assigned to the assessment.
When the SNF fails to comply with the
assessment schedule, it must file a late
assessment in order to be paid. In this
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25933
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
situation, CMS pays a ‘‘default rate’’—
a reduced payment made in lieu of the
full SNF PPS rate that would have been
paid had the resident been assessed in
a timely manner. Noncompliance with
the schedule is determined by the
assessment reference date (ARD) on the
resident assessment.
Program instructions also allow for
payment at the default rate in the
following limited circumstances where
the SNF has failed to assess the
beneficiary: When the stay is less than
8 days within a spell of illness; the SNF
is notified on an untimely basis or is
unaware of a Medicare Secondary Payer
denial; the SNF is notified on an
untimely basis of the revocation of a
payment ban; the beneficiary requests a
demand bill; or, the SNF is notified on
an untimely basis or is unaware of a
beneficiary’s disenrollment from a
Medicare Advantage plan. Further
information regarding these limited
circumstances can be found in the
Provider Reimbursement Manual, Part I
(CMS Pub. 15–1), Chapter 28.
In circumstances other than those
described above, no payment is
available to the SNF where the SNF fails
to assess the resident. However, even
when no payment will be made, we
wish to clarify that the SNF must
nonetheless submit a claim using the
HIPPS default rate code and an
occurrence code 77 indicating provider
liability in order to ensure that the
beneficiary’s spell of illness (benefit
period) is updated.
We have also recently received
questions concerning Change Request
(CR) 5532 (Transmittal no. 73, dated
June 29, 2007), regarding coverage of
rehabilitation services in a SNF (see
CMS Pub. 100–2, Chapter 8, § 30.4.1.1).
As a result, we wish to clarify the
requirement that an initial evaluation
must be completed and the plan of
treatment developed before recording
the number of minutes of rehabilitation
services provided or estimated for each
discipline on the Resident Assessment
Instrument (RAI).
For Medicare to cover rehabilitation
services in a SNF, the services must be
directly and specifically related to an
active written treatment plan that is
developed before the start of
rehabilitation services. The plan must
be based upon an initial evaluation
performed by a qualified therapist (after
SNF admission and before the start of
rehabilitation services in the SNF) and
must be approved by the physician after
any needed consultation with the
qualified therapist. This means that the
evaluation must have been performed
for each discipline and the plan of
treatment developed in order to include
minutes for each discipline under
Section P (‘‘Special Treatments and
Procedures’’) of the Resident
Assessment Instrument, and also to
project minutes under Section T
(‘‘Therapy Supplement for Medicare
PPS’’) of the Resident Assessment
Instrument. Section T of the MDS is
completed for Medicare 5-day
assessments and in certain cases, when
a beneficiary is readmitted to the SNF,
whereas Section P is completed for each
Medicare-required assessment. In those
cases where a beneficiary is discharged
during the SNF stay and later
readmitted, an initial evaluation must
be performed upon readmission to the
SNF, prior to the start of rehabilitation
services in the SNF.
III. The Skilled Nursing Facility Market
Basket Index
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Market Basket Index’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
Section 1888(e)(5)(A) of the Act
requires us to establish a SNF market
basket index (input price index), that
reflects changes over time in the prices
of an appropriate mix of goods and
services included in the SNF PPS. This
proposed rule incorporates the latest
available projections of the SNF market
basket index. We will incorporate
updated projections based on the latest
available projections when we publish
the SNF final rule. Accordingly, we
have developed a SNF market basket
index that encompasses the most
commonly used cost categories for SNF
routine services, ancillary services, and
capital-related expenses.
Each year, we calculate a revised
labor-related share based on the relative
importance of labor-related cost
categories in the input price index.
Table 11 below summarizes the
proposed updated labor-related share
for FY 2009.
TABLE 11.—LABOR-RELATED RELATIVE IMPORTANCE, FY 2008 AND FY 2009
Relative importance, labor-related, FY 2008
07:2 forecast
Relative importance, labor-related, FY 2009
08:1 forecast
Wages and salaries .........................................................................................................................................
Employee benefits ...........................................................................................................................................
Nonmedical professional fees .........................................................................................................................
Labor-intensive services ..................................................................................................................................
Capital-related (.391) .......................................................................................................................................
51.218
11.720
1.333
3.456
2.522
51.139
11.595
1.331
3.454
2.475
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................
70.249
69.994
Source: Global Insight, Inc., formerly DRI-WEFA.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
A. Use of the Skilled Nursing Facility
Market Basket Percentage
Section 1888(e)(5)(B) of the Act
defines the SNF market basket
percentage as the percentage change in
the SNF market basket index from the
average of the previous FY to the
average of the current FY. For the
Federal rates established in this
proposed rule, we use the percentage
increase in the SNF market basket index
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
to compute the update factor for FY
2009. We use the Global Insight, Inc.
(formerly DRI–WEFA), first quarter 2008
forecasted percentage increase in the FY
2004-based SNF market basket index for
routine, ancillary, and capital-related
expenses, described in the previous
section, to compute the update factor in
this proposed rule. Finally, as discussed
in section I.A. of this proposed rule, we
no longer compute update factors to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adjust a facility-specific portion of the
SNF PPS rates because the initial threephase transition period from facilityspecific to full Federal rates that started
with cost reporting periods beginning in
July 1998 has expired.
B. Market Basket Forecast Error
Adjustment
As discussed in the June 10, 2003,
supplemental proposed rule (68 FR
34768) and finalized in the August 4,
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25934
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
2003, final rule (68 FR 46067), the
regulations at § 413.337(d)(2) provide
for an adjustment to account for market
basket forecast error. The initial
adjustment applied to the update of the
FY 2003 rate for FY 2004, and took into
account the cumulative forecast error for
the period from FY 2000 through FY
2002. Subsequent adjustments in
succeeding FYs take into account the
forecast error from the most recently
available FY for which there is final
data, and apply whenever the difference
between the forecasted and actual
change in the market basket exceeds a
specified threshold. We originally used
a 0.25 percentage point threshold for
this purpose; however, for the reasons
specified in the FY 2008 SNF PPS final
rule (72 FR 43425, August 3, 2007), we
adopted a 0.5 percentage point
threshold effective with FY 2008. As
discussed previously in section I.F.2. of
this proposed rule, as the difference
between the estimated and actual
amounts of increase in the market
basket index for FY 2007 (the most
recently available FY for which there is
final data) does not exceed the 0.5
percentage point threshold, the
proposed payment rates for FY 2009 do
not include a forecast error adjustment.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
C. Federal Rate Update Factor
Section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) of the Act
requires that the update factor used to
establish the FY 2009 Federal rates be
at a level equal to the full market basket
percentage change. Accordingly, to
establish the update factor, we
determined the total growth from the
average market basket level for the
period of October 1, 2007 through
September 30, 2008 to the average
market basket level for the period of
October 1, 2008 through September 30,
2009. Using this process, the proposed
market basket update factor for FY 2009
SNF Federal rates is 3.1 percent. We
used this revised proposed update factor
to compute the Federal portion of the
SNF PPS rate shown in Tables 2 and 3.
IV. Consolidated Billing
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Consolidated Billing’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
Section 4432(b) of the BBA
established a consolidated billing
requirement that places the Medicare
billing responsibility for virtually all of
the services that the SNF’s residents
receive on the SNF, except for a small
number of services that the statute
specifically identifies as being excluded
from this provision. As noted previously
in section I. of this proposed rule,
subsequent legislation enacted a number
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
of modifications in the consolidated
billing provision.
Specifically, section 103 of the BBRA
amended this provision by further
excluding a number of individual ‘‘highcost, low-probability’’ services,
identified by the Healthcare Common
Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)
codes, within several broader categories
(chemotherapy and its administration,
radioisotope services, and customized
prosthetic devices) that otherwise
remained subject to the provision. We
discuss this BBRA amendment in
greater detail in the proposed and final
rules for FY 2001 (65 FR 19231 through
19232, April 10, 2000, and 65 FR 46790
through 46795, July 31, 2000), as well as
in Program Memorandum AB–00–18
(Change Request #1070), issued March
2000, which is available online at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/
downloads/ab001860.pdf.
Section 313 of the BIPA further
amended this provision by repealing its
Part B aspect; that is, its applicability to
services furnished to a resident during
a SNF stay that Medicare does not
cover. (However, physical,
occupational, and speech-language
therapy remain subject to consolidated
billing, regardless of whether the
resident who receives these services is
in a covered Part A stay.) We discuss
this BIPA amendment in greater detail
in the proposed and final rules for FY
2002 (66 FR 24020 through 24021, May
10, 2001, and 66 FR 39587 through
39588, July 31, 2001).
In addition, section 410 of the MMA
amended this provision by excluding
certain practitioner and other services
furnished to SNF residents by RHCs and
FQHCs. We discuss this MMA
amendment in greater detail in the
update notice for FY 2005 (69 FR
45818–45819, July 30, 2004), as well as
in Program Transmittal #390 (Change
Request #3575), issued December 10,
2004, which is available online at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/
downloads/r390cp.pdf.
To date, the Congress has enacted no
further legislation affecting the
consolidated billing provision.
However, as noted above and explained
in the proposed rule for FY 2001 (65 FR
19232, April 10, 2000), the amendments
enacted in section 103 of the BBRA not
only identified for exclusion from this
provision a number of particular service
codes within four specified categories
(that is, chemotherapy items,
chemotherapy administration services,
radioisotope services, and customized
prosthetic devices), but also gave the
Secretary ‘‘* * * the authority to
designate additional, individual services
for exclusion within each of the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specified service categories.’’ In the
proposed rule for FY 2001, we also
noted that the BBRA Conference report
(H.R. Rep. No.
106–479 at 854 (1999) (Conf. Rep.))
characterizes the individual services
that this legislation targets for exclusion
as, ‘‘* * * high-cost, low probability
events that could have devastating
financial impacts because their costs far
exceed the payment [SNFs] receive
under the prospective payment system
* * *’’. According to the conferees,
section 103(a), ‘‘is an attempt to exclude
from the PPS certain services and costly
items that are provided infrequently in
SNFs * * *’’. By contrast, we noted that
the Congress declined to designate for
exclusion any of the remaining services
within those four categories (thus
leaving all of those services subject to
SNF consolidated billing), because they
are relatively inexpensive and are
furnished routinely in SNFs.
As we further explained in the final
rule for FY 2001 (65 FR 46790, July 31,
2000), and as our longstanding policy,
any additional service codes that we
might designate for exclusion under our
discretionary authority must meet the
same criteria that the Congress used in
identifying the original codes excluded
from consolidated billing under section
103(a) of the BBRA: they must fall
within one of the four service categories
specified in the BBRA, and they also
must meet the same standards of high
cost and low probability in the SNF
setting. Accordingly, we characterized
this statutory authority to identify
additional service codes for exclusion
‘‘* * * as essentially affording the
flexibility to revise the list of excluded
codes in response to changes of major
significance that may occur over time
(for example, the development of new
medical technologies or other advances
in the state of medical practice)’’ (65 FR
46791). In this proposed rule, we
specifically invite public comments
identifying codes in any of these four
service categories (chemotherapy items,
chemotherapy administration services,
radioisotope services, and customized
prosthetic devices) representing recent
medical advances that might meet our
criteria for exclusion from SNF
consolidated billing.
We note that the original BBRA
legislation (as well as the implementing
regulations) identified a set of excluded
services by means of specifying HCPCS
codes that were in effect as of a
particular date (in that case, as of July
1, 1999). Identifying the excluded
services in this manner made it possible
for us to utilize program issuances as
the vehicle for accomplishing routine
updates of the excluded codes, in order
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
to reflect any minor revisions that might
subsequently occur in the coding system
itself (for example, the assignment of a
different code number to the same
service). Accordingly, in the event that
we identify through the current
rulemaking cycle any new services that
would actually represent a substantive
change in the scope of the exclusions
from SNF consolidated billing, we
would identify these additional
excluded services by means of the
HCPCS codes that are in effect as of a
specific date (in this case, as of October
1, 2008). By making any new exclusions
in this manner, we could similarly
accomplish routine future updates of
these additional codes through the
issuance of program instructions.
V. Application of the SNF PPS to SNF
Services Furnished by Swing-Bed
Hospitals
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Swing-Bed Hospitals’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
In accordance with section 1888(e)(7)
of the Act, as amended by section 203
of the BIPA, Part A pays CAHs on a
reasonable cost basis for SNF services
furnished under a swing-bed agreement.
However, effective with cost reporting
periods beginning on or after July 1,
2002, the swing-bed services of nonCAH rural hospitals are paid under the
SNF PPS. As explained in the final rule
for FY 2002 (66 FR 39562, July 31,
2001), we selected this effective date
consistent with the statutory provision
to integrate swing-bed rural hospitals
into the SNF PPS by the end of the SNF
transition period, June 30, 2002.
Accordingly, all non-CAH swing-bed
rural hospitals have come under the
SNF PPS as of June 30, 2003. Therefore,
all rates and wage indexes outlined in
earlier sections of this proposed rule for
the SNF PPS also apply to all non-CAH
swing-bed rural hospitals. A complete
discussion of assessment schedules, the
MDS and the transmission software
(RAVEN–SB for Swing Beds) appears in
the final rule for FY 2002 (66 FR 39562,
July 31, 2001). The latest changes in the
MDS for swing-bed rural hospitals
appear on our SNF PPS Web site,
www.cms.hhs.gov/snfpps.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
VI. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Provisions of the Proposed
Rule’’ at the beginning of your
comments.]
In this proposed rule, in addition to
accomplishing the required annual
update of the SNF PPS payment rates,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
we also propose making the following
revisions in the regulations text:
• Revise the existing SNF PPS
definitions of ‘‘urban’’ and ‘‘rural’’ areas
that appear in § 413.333 to include
updated cross-references to the
corresponding IPPS definitions in Part
412, subpart D.
• Make a technical revision at
§ 413.335(b) to reflect Medicare bad debt
payments to SNFs.
VII. Collection of Information
Requirements
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Collection of Information’’ at
the beginning of your comments.]
This document does not impose
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. 3501 et seq.).
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
[If you choose to comment on issues
in this section, please include the
caption ‘‘Impact Analysis’’ at the
beginning of your comments.]
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impacts of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 (September 1993, Regulatory
Planning and Review), the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (September 19, 1980,
RFA, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of
the Social Security Act (the Act), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order
13132 on Federalism, and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
Executive Order 12866, as amended,
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 1 year).
This proposed rule is a major rule, as
defined in Title 5, United States Code,
section 804(2), because we estimate the
FY 2009 impact reflects a $710 million
increase from the update to the payment
rates and a $770 million reduction from
the recalibration of the case-mix
adjustment, thereby yielding a net
decrease of $60 million on payments to
SNFs.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25935
The proposed update set forth in this
proposed rule would apply to payments
in FY 2009. Accordingly, the analysis
that follows only describes the impact of
this single year. In accordance with the
requirements of the Act, we will publish
a notice for each subsequent FY that
will provide for an update to the
payment rates and include an associated
impact analysis.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, small
entities include small businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and small
government jurisdictions. Most SNFs
and most other providers and suppliers
are small entities, either by their
nonprofit status or by having revenues
of $11.5 million or less in any 1 year.
For purposes of the RFA, approximately
53 percent of SNFs are considered small
businesses according to the Small
Business Administration’s latest size
standards, with total revenues of $11.5
million or less in any 1 year (for further
information, see 65 FR 69432,
November 17, 2000). Individuals and
States are not included in the definition
of a small entity. In addition,
approximately 29 percent of SNFs are
nonprofit organizations.
This proposed rule would update the
SNF PPS rates published in the final
rule for FY 2008 (72 FR 43412, August
3, 2007) and the associated correction
notices (72 FR 55085, September 28,
2007, and 72 FR 67652, November 30,
2007), thereby decreasing net payments
by an estimated $60 million. As
indicated in Table 12, the effect on
facilities will be a net negative impact
of 0.3 percent. The total impact reflects
a $770 million reduction from the
recalibration of the case-mix
adjustment, offset by a $710 million
increase from the update to the payment
rates. We note that some individual
providers may experience a net increase
in payments while most others
experience a decrease. This is due to the
distributional impact of the FY 2009
wage indexes and the degree of
Medicare utilization. While this
proposed rule is considered major, its
relative impact on SNFs overall is
extremely small; that is, less than 3
percent of total SNF revenues from all
payor sources. Therefore, the Secretary
has determined that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25936
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
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. The proposed rule
will affect small rural hospitals that (a)
furnish SNF services under a swing-bed
agreement or (b) have a hospital-based
SNF. We anticipate that the impact on
small rural hospitals will be similar to
the impact on SNF providers overall.
Section 202 of UMRA 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.
In 2008, that threshold is approximately
$130 million. This proposed rule would
not have a substantial effect on the
governments mentioned, or on private
sector costs.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates
regulations that impose substantial
direct requirement costs on State and
local governments, preempts State law,
or otherwise has Federalism
implications. As stated above, this
proposed rule would have no
substantial effect on State and local
governments.
B. Anticipated Effects
This proposed rule sets forth
proposed updates of the SNF PPS rates
contained in the final rule for FY 2008
(72 FR 43412, August 3, 2007) and the
associated correction notices (72 FR
55085, September 28, 2007, and 72 FR
67652, November 30, 2007). Based on
the above, we estimate the FY 2009
impact would be a net decrease of $60
million on payments to SNFs (this
reflects a $770 million reduction from
the recalibration of the case-mix
adjustment, offset by a $710 million
increase from the update to the payment
rates. The impact analysis of this
proposed rule represents the projected
effects of the changes in the SNF PPS
from FY 2008 to FY 2009. We estimate
the effects by estimating payments
while holding all other payment
variables constant. We use the best data
available, but we do not attempt to
predict behavioral responses to these
changes, and we do not make
adjustments for future changes in such
variables as days or case-mix.
We note that certain events may
combine to limit the scope or accuracy
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
of our impact analysis, because an
analysis is future-oriented and, thus,
very susceptible to forecasting errors
due to other changes in the forecasted
impact time period. Some examples of
possible events are newly-legislated
general Medicare program funding
changes by the Congress, or changes
specifically related to SNFs. In addition,
changes to the Medicare program may
continue to be made as a result of
previously-enacted legislation, or new
statutory provisions. Although these
changes may not be specific to the SNF
PPS, the nature of the Medicare program
is that the changes may interact, and the
complexity of the interaction of these
changes could make it difficult to
predict accurately the full scope of the
impact upon SNFs.
In accordance with section
1888(e)(4)(E) of the Act, we update the
payment rates for FY 2008 by a factor
equal to the full market basket index
percentage increase plus the FY 2007
forecast error adjustment to determine
the payment rates for FY 2009. The
special AIDS add-on established by
section 511 of the MMA remains in
effect until ‘‘* * *such date as the
Secretary certifies that there is an
appropriate adjustment in the case mix.
* * *’’ We have not provided a separate
impact analysis for the MMA provision.
Our latest estimates indicate that there
are less than 2,700 beneficiaries who
qualify for the AIDS add-on payment.
The impact to Medicare is included in
the ‘‘total’’ column of Table 12. In
proposing to update the rates for FY
2009, standard annual revisions and
clarifications mentioned elsewhere in
this proposed rule (for example, the
update to the wage and market basket
indexes used for adjusting the Federal
rates). These revisions would increase
payments to SNFs by approximately
$710 million.
The net decrease in payments
associated with this proposed rule is
estimated to be $60 million for FY 2009.
The decrease of $770 million due to the
recalibration of the case-mix
adjustment, together with the market
basket increase of $710 million, results
in a net decrease of $60 million.
The impacts are shown in Table 12.
The breakdown of the various categories
of data in the table follows.
The first column shows the
breakdown of all SNFs by urban or rural
status, hospital-based or freestanding
status, and census region.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The first row of figures in the first
column describes the estimated effects
of the various changes on all facilities.
The next six rows show the effects on
facilities split by hospital-based,
freestanding, urban, and rural
categories. The urban and rural
designations are based on the location of
the facility under the CBSA designation.
The next twenty-two rows show the
effects on urban versus rural status by
census region.
The second column in the table shows
the number of facilities in the impact
database.
The third column of the table shows
the effect of the annual update to the
wage index. This represents the effect of
using the most recent wage data
available. The total impact of this
change is zero percent; however, there
are distributional effects of the change.
The fourth column shows the effect of
recalibrating the two adjustments (parity
and NTA) to the CMIs. As explained
previously in section II.B.2 of this
proposed rule, we are proposing this
recalibration so that the CMIs more
accurately reflect parity in expenditures
under the refined, 53-group RUG system
introduced in 2006 relative to payments
made under the original, 44-group RUG
system, and in order to keep the NTA
component at the appropriate level
specified in the FY 2006 SNF PPS final
rule. The total impact of this change is
a decrease of 3.3 percent. We note that
some individual providers may
experience larger decreases in payments
than others due to case-mix utilization.
The fifth column shows the effect of
all of the changes on the FY 2009
payments. The market basket increase of
3.1 percentage points is constant for all
providers and, though not shown
individually, is included in the total
column. It is projected that aggregate
payments will decrease by 0.3 percent,
assuming facilities do not change their
care delivery and billing practices in
response.
As can be seen from this table, the
combined effects of all of the changes
vary by specific types of providers and
by location. For example, though most
facilities experience payment decreases,
some providers (for example, those in
the urban Pacific region) show an
increase of 1.0 percent. Payment
increases for facilities in the urban and
rural Pacific areas of the country are the
highest for any of the provider
categories.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25937
EP07MY08.014
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25938
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
C. Alternatives Considered
Section 1888(e) of the Act establishes
the SNF PPS for the payment of
Medicare SNF services for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after July 1,
1998. This section of the statute
prescribes a detailed formula for
calculating payment rates under the
SNF PPS, and does not provide for the
use of any alternative methodology. It
specifies that the base year cost data to
be used for computing the SNF PPS
payment rates must be from FY 1995
(October 1, 1994, through September 30,
1995.) In accordance with the statute,
we also incorporated a number of
elements into the SNF PPS (for example,
case-mix classification methodology, the
MDS assessment schedule, a market
basket index, a wage index, and the
urban and rural distinction used in the
development or adjustment of the
Federal rates). Further, section
1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act specifically
requires us to disseminate the payment
rates for each new FY through the
Federal Register, and to do so before the
August 1 that precedes the start of the
new FY. Accordingly, we are not
pursuing alternatives with respect to the
payment methodology as discussed
above.
The proposed rule would recalibrate
the case-mix adjustment to the case-mix
indexes based on actual CY 2006 data
instead of continuing to use FY 2001
data, in order to make the change from
the 44-group RUG model to the refined
53-group model in a budget-neutral
manner, as described in section II.B.2.
In the FY 2006 SNF PPS final rule (70
FR 45031, August 4, 2005), we
committed to monitoring the accuracy
and effectiveness of the case-mix
indexes used in the 53-group model. We
believe that using actual data instead of
superseded historical data better meets
our objective of paying SNFs more
accurately.
We considered various options for
implementing the revised case-mix
adjustment. For example, we considered
implementing partial adjustments to the
case-mix indexes over multiple years
until parity was achieved. However, we
believe that these options would further
delay moving to the most appropriate
payment amounts. Moreover, in
anticipation of the possible changes
resulting from STRIVE in the RUG–III
structural model and the CMIs used in
payment, we believe it is important for
the recalibration to be entirely
completed beforehand, in order to
ensure stability in the base as we move
forward with these other changes.
We also considered introducing new
case-mix weights derived from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
STRIVE time study data. However, our
initial analyses show that it would be
more efficient and less burdensome to
providers to introduce any new casemix weights as part of an overall
restructuring of the RUG–III model that
is currently scheduled for October 2009.
D. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 13 below, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this proposed rule. This
table provides our best estimate of the
change in Medicare payments under the
SNF PPS as a result of the policies in
this proposed rule based on the data for
15,346 SNFs in our database. All
expenditures are classified as transfers
to Medicare providers (that is, SNFs).
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapter IV as follows:
PART 413—PRINCIPLES OF
REASONABLE COST
REIMBURSEMENT; PAYMENT FOR
END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE
SERVICES; PROSPECTIVELY
DETERMINED PAYMENT RATES FOR
SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 413
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1812(d), 1814(b),
1815, 1833(a), (i), and (n), 1861(v), 1871,
1881, 1883, and 1886 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395d(d), 1395f(b),
1395g, 1395l(a), (i), and (n), 1395x(v),
1395hh, 1395rr, 1395tt, and 1395ww); and
sec. 124 of Public Law 106–133 (113 Stat.
1501A–332).
Subpart J—Prospective Payment for
Skilled Nursing Facilities
TABLE 13.—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT:
2. In § 413.333, the definitions of the
CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EX- terms ‘‘rural area’’ and ‘‘urban area’’ are
PENDITURES, FROM THE 2008 SNF revised to read as follows:
PPS FISCAL YEAR TO THE 2009
§ 413.333 Definitions.
SNF PPS FISCAL YEAR
*
[In Millions]
Category
Transfers
Annualized Monetized Transfers.
From Whom To
Whom?.
$60 million*
SNF Medicare Providers
to Federal Government
* The net decrease of $60 million in transfer
payments is a result of the decrease of $770
million due to the proposed recalibration of the
case-mix adjustment, together with the proposed market basket increase of $710 million.
E. Conclusion
Overall estimated payments for SNFs
in FY 2009 are projected to decrease by
0.3 percent compared with those in FY
2008. We estimate that SNFs in urban
areas would experience a 0.3 percent
decrease in estimated payments
compared with FY 2008. We estimate
that SNFs in rural areas would
experience a 0.2 percent decrease in
estimated payments compared with FY
2008. Providers in the urban Pacific
region and the rural Pacific region show
increases in payments of 1.0 and 0.9
percent, respectively.
Finally, in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order 12866,
this regulation was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 413
Health facilities, Kidney diseases,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
Rural area means, for services
provided on or after July 1, 1998, but
before October 1, 2005, an area as
defined in § 412.62(f)(1)(iii) of this
chapter. For services provided on or
after October 1, 2005, rural area means
an area as defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C)
of this chapter.
Urban area means, for services
provided on or after July 1, 1998, but
before October 1, 2005, an area as
defined in § 412.62(f)(1)(ii) of this
chapter. For services provided on or
after October 1, 2005, urban area means
an area as defined in
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) and
§ 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this chapter.
§ 413.335
[Amended]
3. Section 413.335 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 413.335
Basis of payment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Payment in full. (1) The payment
rates represent payment in full (subject
to applicable coinsurance as described
in subpart G of part 409 of this chapter)
for all costs (routine, ancillary, and
capital-related) associated with
furnishing inpatient SNF services to
Medicare beneficiaries other than costs
associated with approved educational
activities as described in § 413.85.
(2) In addition to the Federal per diem
payment amounts, SNFs receive
payment for bad debts of Medicare
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
beneficiaries, as specified in § 413.89 of
this part.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare-Hospital
Insurance Program; and No. 93.774,
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
Program)
Dated: March 14, 2008.
Kerry Weems,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Dated: April 24, 2008.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25939
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.015
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25940
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25941
EP07MY08.016
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.017
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25942
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25943
EP07MY08.018
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.019
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25944
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25945
EP07MY08.020
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.021
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25946
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25947
EP07MY08.022
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.023
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25948
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25949
EP07MY08.024
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.025
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25950
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25951
EP07MY08.026
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.027
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25952
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25953
EP07MY08.028
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.029
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25954
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25955
EP07MY08.030
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.031
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25956
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25957
EP07MY08.032
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.033
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25958
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
25959
EP07MY08.034
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 08–1214 Filed 5–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:59 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP2.SGM
07MYP2
EP07MY08.035
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
25960
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25918-25960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1214]
[[Page 25917]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Part 413
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing
for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2009; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 25918]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 413
[CMS-1534-P]
RIN 0938-AP11
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated
Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2009
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would update the payment rates used under
the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs), for fiscal year (FY) 2009. In addition, it would recalibrate
the case-mix indexes so that they more accurately reflect parity in
expenditures related to the implementation of case-mix refinements in
January 2006. It also discusses our ongoing analysis of nursing home
staff time measurement data collected in the Staff Time and Resource
Intensity Verification (STRIVE) project. Finally, the proposed rule
would make technical corrections in the regulations text with respect
to Medicare bad debt payments to SNFs and the reference to the
definition of urban and rural as applied to SNFs.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1534-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.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for ``Comment or Submission'' and enter the file code to
find the document accepting comments.
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-1534-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-1534-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.
a. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201
(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.
b. 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the address 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: Ellen Berry, (410) 786-4528 (for
information related to clinical issues). Jeanette Kranacs, (410) 786-
9385 (for information related to the development of the payment rates
and case-mix indexes). Bill Ullman, (410) 786-5667 (for information
related to level of care determinations, consolidated billing, and
general information).
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. You can assist us by referencing the file code
CMS-1534-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. 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 also 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.
To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this
document, we are providing the following Table of Contents.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Current System for Payment of SNF Services Under Part A of
the Medicare Program
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) for
Updating the Prospective Payment System for Skilled Nursing
Facilities
C. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement
Act of 1999 (BBRA)
D. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA)
E. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA)
F. Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment--General
Overview
1. Payment Provisions--Federal Rate
2. Rate Updates Using the Skilled Nursing Facility Market Basket
Index
II. Annual Update of Payment Rates Under the Prospective Payment
System for Skilled Nursing Facilities
A. Federal Prospective Payment System
1. Costs and Services Covered by the Federal Rates
2. Methodology Used for the Calculation of the Federal Rates
B. Case-Mix Adjustments
1. Background
2. Development of the Case-Mix Indexes
C. Wage Index Adjustment to Federal Rates
1. Clarification of New England Deemed Counties
2. Multi-Campus Hospital Wage Index Data
D. Updates to Federal Rates
E. Relationship of RUG-III Classification System to Existing
Skilled Nursing Facility Level-of-Care Criteria
F. Example of Computation of Adjusted PPS Rates and SNF Payment
[[Page 25919]]
G. Other Issues
1. Staff Time and Resource Intensity Verification (STRIVE)
Project
2. Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0
3. Integrated Post Acute Care Payment
H. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections and Clarifications
1. Bad Debt Payments
2. Additional Clarifications
III. The Skilled Nursing Facility Market Basket Index
A. Use of the Skilled Nursing Facility Market Basket Percentage
B. Market Basket Forecast Error Adjustment
C. Federal Rate Update Factor
IV. Consolidated Billing
V. Application of the SNF PPS to SNF Services Furnished by Swing-Bed
Hospitals
VI. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
VII. Collection of Information Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
B. Anticipated Effects
C. Alternatives Considered
D. Accounting Statement
E. Conclusion
Regulation Text
Addendum: FY 2009 CBSA-Based Wage Index Tables (Tables 8 & 9)
Abbreviations
In addition, because of the many terms to which we refer by
abbreviation in this proposed rule, we are listing these abbreviations
and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ARD Assessment Reference Date
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-33
BBRA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of
1999, Pub. L. 106-113
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-554
CAH Critical Access Hospital
CARE Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMI Case-Mix Index
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-171
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center
FR Federal Register
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
HAC Hospital-Acquired Condition
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
HIPPS Health Insurance Prospective Payment System
HIT Health Information Technology
IFC Interim Final Rule with Comment Period
IPPS Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System
MDS Minimum Data Set
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003, Pub.L. 108-173
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MS-DRG Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group
NRST Non-Resident Specific Time
NTA Non-Therapy Ancillary
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OMRA Other Medicare Required Assessment
PAC-PRD Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration
PPS Prospective Payment System
RAI Resident Assessment Instrument
RAP Resident Assessment Protocol
RAVEN Resident Assessment Validation Entry
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354
RHC Rural Health Clinic
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RUG-III Resource Utilization Groups, Version III
RUG-53 Refined 53-Group RUG-III Case-Mix Classification System
RST Resident Specific Time
SCHIP State Children's Health Insurance Program
SNF Skilled Nursing Facility
STM Staff Time Measurement
STRIVE Staff Time and Resource Intensity Verification
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-4
VBP Value-Based Purchasing
I. Background
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include
the caption ``BACKGROUND'' at the beginning of your comments.]
Annual updates to the prospective payment system (PPS) rates for
skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are required by section 1888(e) of
the Social Security Act (the Act), as added by section 4432 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), and amended by the Medicare,
Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA), the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), and
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA). Our most recent annual update occurred in a final rule (72
FR 43412, August 3, 2007) that set forth updates to the SNF PPS payment
rates for fiscal year (FY) 2008. We subsequently published two
correction notices (72 FR 55085, September 28, 2007, and 72 FR 67652,
November 30, 2007) with respect to those payment rate updates.
A. Current System for Payment of Skilled Nursing Facility Services
Under Part A of the Medicare Program
Section 4432 of the BBA amended section 1888 of the Act to provide
for the implementation of a per diem PPS for SNFs, covering all costs
(routine, ancillary, and capital-related) of covered SNF services
furnished to beneficiaries under Part A of the Medicare program,
effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1,
1998. In this proposed rule, we propose to update the per diem payment
rates for SNFs for FY 2009. Major elements of the SNF PPS include:
Rates. As discussed in section I.F.1. of this proposed
rule, we established per diem Federal rates for urban and rural areas
using allowable costs from FY 1995 cost reports. These rates also
included an estimate of the cost of services that, before July 1, 1998,
had been paid under Part B but were furnished to Medicare beneficiaries
in a SNF during a Part A covered stay. We adjust the rates annually
using a SNF market basket index, and we adjust them by the hospital
inpatient wage index to account for geographic variation in wages. We
also apply a case-mix adjustment to account for the relative resource
utilization of different patient types. This adjustment utilizes a
refined, 53-group version of the Resource Utilization Groups, version
III (RUG-III) case-mix classification system, based on information
obtained from the required resident assessments using the Minimum Data
Set (MDS) 2.0. Additionally, as noted in the August 4, 2005 final rule
(70 FR 45028), the payment rates at various times have also reflected
specific legislative provisions, including section 101 of the BBRA,
sections 311, 312, and 314 of the BIPA, and section 511 of the MMA.
Transition. Under sections 1888(e)(1)(A) and (e)(11) of
the Act, the SNF PPS included an initial, three-phase transition that
blended a facility-specific rate (reflecting the individual facility's
historical cost experience) with the Federal case-mix adjusted rate.
The transition extended through the facility's first three cost
reporting periods under the PPS, up to and including the one that began
in FY 2001. Thus, the SNF PPS is no longer operating under the
transition, as all facilities have been paid at the full Federal rate
effective with cost reporting periods beginning in FY 2002. As we now
base payments entirely on the adjusted Federal per diem rates, we no
longer include adjustment factors related to facility-specific rates
for the coming FY.
Coverage. The establishment of the SNF PPS did not change
Medicare's fundamental requirements for SNF coverage. However, because
the RUG-III classification is based, in part, on the beneficiary's need
for skilled nursing
[[Page 25920]]
care and therapy, we have attempted, where possible, to coordinate
claims review procedures with the output of beneficiary assessment and
RUG-III classifying activities. This approach includes an
administrative presumption that utilizes a beneficiary's initial
classification in one of the upper 35 RUGs of the refined 53-group
system to assist in making certain SNF level of care determinations, as
discussed in greater detail in section II.E. of this proposed rule.
Consolidated Billing. The SNF PPS includes a consolidated
billing provision that requires a SNF to submit consolidated Medicare
bills to its fiscal intermediary or Medicare Administrative Contractor
for almost all of the services that its residents receive during the
course of a covered Part A stay. In addition, this provision places
with the SNF the Medicare billing responsibility for physical,
occupational, and speech-language therapy that the resident receives
during a noncovered stay. The statute excludes a small list of services
from the consolidated billing provision (primarily those of physicians
and certain other types of practitioners), which remain separately
billable under Part B when furnished to a SNF's Part A resident. A more
detailed discussion of this provision appears in section IV. of this
proposed rule.
Application of the SNF PPS to SNF services furnished by
swing-bed hospitals. Section 1883 of the Act permits certain small,
rural hospitals to enter into a Medicare swing-bed agreement, under
which the hospital can use its beds to provide either acute or SNF
care, as needed. For critical access hospitals (CAHs), Part A pays on a
reasonable cost basis for SNF services furnished under a swing-bed
agreement. However, in accordance with section 1888(e)(7) of the Act,
these services furnished by non-CAH rural hospitals are paid under the
SNF PPS, effective with cost reporting periods beginning on or after
July 1, 2002. A more detailed discussion of this provision appears in
section V. of this proposed rule.
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) for Updating
the Prospective Payment System for Skilled Nursing Facilities
Section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act requires that we publish annually
in the Federal Register:
1. The unadjusted Federal per diem rates to be applied to days of
covered SNF services furnished during the FY.
2. The case-mix classification system to be applied with respect to
these services during the FY.
3. The factors to be applied in making the area wage adjustment
with respect to these services.
In the July 30, 1999 final rule (64 FR 41670), we indicated that we
would announce any changes to the guidelines for Medicare level of care
determinations related to modifications in the RUG-III classification
structure (see section II.E. of this proposed rule for a discussion of
the relationship between the case-mix classification system and SNF
level of care determinations).
Along with other revisions proposed later in this preamble, this
proposed rule provides the annual updates to the Federal rates as
mandated by the Act.
C. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of
1999 (BBRA)
There were several provisions in the BBRA that resulted in
adjustments to the SNF PPS. We described these provisions in detail in
the final rule that we published in the Federal Register on July 31,
2000 (65 FR 46770). In particular, section 101(a) of the BBRA provided
for a temporary 20 percent increase in the per diem adjusted payment
rates for 15 specified RUG-III groups. In accordance with section
101(c)(2) of the BBRA, this temporary payment adjustment expired on
January 1, 2006, upon the implementation of case-mix refinements (see
section I.F.1. of this proposed rule). We included further information
on BBRA provisions that affected the SNF PPS in Program Memorandums A-
99-53 and A-99-61 (December 1999).
Also, section 103 of the BBRA designated certain additional
services for exclusion from the consolidated billing requirement, as
discussed in section IV. of this proposed rule. Further, for swing-bed
hospitals with more than 49 (but less than 100) beds, section 408 of
the BBRA provided for the repeal of certain statutory restrictions on
length of stay and aggregate payment for patient days, effective with
the end of the SNF PPS transition period described in section
1888(e)(2)(E) of the Act. In the July 31, 2001 final rule (66 FR
39562), we made conforming changes to the regulations at Sec.
413.114(d), effective for services furnished in cost reporting periods
beginning on or after July 1, 2002, to reflect section 408 of the BBRA.
D. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA)
The BIPA also included several provisions that resulted in
adjustments to the SNF PPS. We described these provisions in detail in
the final rule that we published in the Federal Register on July 31,
2001 (66 FR 39562). In particular:
Section 203 of the BIPA exempted CAH swing-beds from the
SNF PPS. We included further information on this provision in Program
Memorandum A-01-09 (Change Request 1509), issued January 16,
2001, which is available online at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/
downloads/a0109.pdf.
Section 311 of the BIPA revised the statutory update
formula for the SNF market basket, and also directed us to conduct a
study of alternative case-mix classification systems for the SNF PPS.
In 2006, we submitted a report to the Congress on this study, which is
available online at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/SNFPPS/Downloads/RC__
2006_PC__PPSSNF.pdf.
Section 312 of the BIPA provided for a temporary increase
of 16.66 percent in the nursing component of the case-mix adjusted
Federal rate for services furnished on or after April 1, 2001, and
before October 1, 2002. The add-on is no longer in effect. This section
also directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an
audit of SNF nursing staff ratios and submit a report to the Congress
on whether the temporary increase in the nursing component should be
continued. The report (GAO-03-176), which GAO issued in November 2002,
is available online at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03176.pdf.
Section 313 of the BIPA repealed the consolidated billing
requirement for services (other than physical, occupational, and
speech-language therapy) furnished to SNF residents during noncovered
stays, effective January 1, 2001. (A more detailed discussion of this
provision appears in section IV. of this proposed rule.)
Section 314 of the BIPA corrected an anomaly involving
three of the RUGs that the BBRA had designated to receive the temporary
payment adjustment discussed above in section I.C. of this proposed
rule. (As noted previously, in accordance with section 101(c)(2) of the
BBRA, this temporary payment adjustment expired upon the implementation
of case-mix refinements on January 1, 2006.)
Section 315 of the BIPA authorized us to establish a
geographic reclassification procedure that is specific to SNFs, but
only after collecting the data necessary to establish a SNF wage index
that is based on wage data from nursing homes. To date, this has proven
to be infeasible due to the volatility of existing SNF wage data and
the significant amount of resources that
[[Page 25921]]
would be required to improve the quality of that data.
We included further information on several of the BIPA provisions
in Program Memorandum A-01-08 (Change Request 1510), issued
January 16, 2001, which is available online at www.cms.hhs.gov/
transmittals/downloads/a0108.pdf.
E. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (MMA)
The MMA included a provision that results in a further adjustment
to the SNF PPS. Specifically, section 511 of the MMA amended section
1888(e)(12) of the Act, to provide for a temporary increase of 128
percent in the PPS per diem payment for any SNF resident with Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), effective with services furnished on
or after October 1, 2004. This special AIDS add-on was to remain in
effect until ``* * * such date as the Secretary certifies that there is
an appropriate adjustment in the case mix. * * *'' The AIDS add-on is
also discussed in Program Transmittal 160 (Change Request
3291), issued on April 30, 2004, which is available online at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/downloads/r160cp.pdf. As discussed
in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45028, August 4, 2005), we
did not address the certification of the AIDS add-on with the
implementation of the case-mix refinements, thus allowing the temporary
add-on payment created by section 511 of the MMA to continue in effect.
For the limited number of SNF residents that qualify for the AIDS
add-on, implementation of this provision results in a significant
increase in payment. For example, using FY 2006 data, we identified
less than 2,700 SNF residents with a diagnosis code of 042 (Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection). For FY 2009, an urban facility
with a resident with AIDS in RUG group ``SSA'' would have a case-mix
adjusted payment of almost $246.55 (see Table 4) before the application
of the MMA adjustment. After an increase of 128 percent, this urban
facility would receive a case-mix adjusted payment of approximately
$562.13.
In addition, section 410 of the MMA contained a provision that
excluded from consolidated billing certain practitioner and other
services furnished to SNF residents by rural health clinics (RHCs) and
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). (Further information on
this provision appears in section IV. of this proposed rule.)
F. Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment--General Overview
We implemented the Medicare SNF PPS effective with cost reporting
periods beginning on or after July 1, 1998. This PPS pays SNFs through
prospective, case-mix adjusted per diem payment rates applicable to all
covered SNF services. These payment rates cover all costs of furnishing
covered skilled nursing services (routine, ancillary, and capital-
related costs) other than costs associated with approved educational
activities. Covered SNF services include post-hospital services for
which benefits are provided under Part A and all items and services
that, before July 1, 1998 had been paid under Part B (other than
physician and certain other services specifically excluded under the
BBA) but furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in a SNF during a covered
Part A stay. A comprehensive discussion of these provisions appears in
the May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR 26252).
1. Payment Provisions--Federal Rate
The PPS uses per diem Federal payment rates based on mean SNF costs
in a base year updated for inflation to the first effective period of
the PPS. We developed the Federal payment rates using allowable costs
from hospital-based and freestanding SNF cost reports for reporting
periods beginning in FY 1995. The data used in developing the Federal
rates also incorporated an estimate of the amounts that would be
payable under Part B for covered SNF services furnished to individuals
during the course of a covered Part A stay in a SNF.
In developing the rates for the initial period, we updated costs to
the first effective year of the PPS (the 15-month period beginning July
1, 1998) using a SNF market basket index, and then standardized for the
costs of facility differences in case-mix and for geographic variations
in wages. In compiling the database used to compute the Federal payment
rates, we excluded those providers that received new provider
exemptions from the routine cost limits, as well as costs related to
payments for exceptions to the routine cost limits. Using the formula
that the BBA prescribed, we set the Federal rates at a level equal to
the weighted mean of freestanding costs plus 50 percent of the
difference between the freestanding mean and weighted mean of all SNF
costs (hospital-based and freestanding) combined. We computed and
applied separately the payment rates for facilities located in urban
and rural areas. In addition, we adjusted the portion of the Federal
rate attributable to wage-related costs by a wage index.
The Federal rate also incorporates adjustments to account for
facility case-mix, using a classification system that accounts for the
relative resource utilization of different patient types. The RUG-III
classification system uses beneficiary assessment data from the Minimum
Data Set (MDS) completed by SNFs to assign beneficiaries to one of 53
RUG-III groups. The original RUG-III case-mix classification system
included 44 groups. However, under refinements that became effective on
January 1, 2006, we added nine new groups--comprising a new
Rehabilitation plus Extensive Services category--at the top of the RUG
hierarchy. The May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR 26252) included a
detailed description of the original 44-group RUG-III case-mix
classification system. A comprehensive description of the refined 53-
group RUG-III case-mix classification system (RUG-53) appeared in the
proposed and final rules for FY 2006 (70 FR 29070, May 19, 2005, and 70
FR 45026, August 4, 2005).
Further, in accordance with section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) of the
Act, the Federal rates in this proposed rule reflect an update to the
rates that we published in the August 3, 2007 final rule for FY 2008
(72 FR 43412) and the associated correction notices (on September 28,
2007, 72 FR 55085, and November 30, 2007, 72 FR 67652), equal to the
full change in the SNF market basket index. A more detailed discussion
of the SNF market basket index and related issues appears in sections
I.F.2. and III. of this proposed rule.
2. Rate Updates Using the Skilled Nursing Facility Market Basket
Index
Section 1888(e)(5) of the Act requires us to establish a SNF market
basket index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an
appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered SNF services.
We use the SNF market basket index to update the Federal rates on an
annual basis. In the August 3, 2007, FY 2008 SNF PPS final rule (72 FR
43425 through 43430), we revised and rebased the market basket, which
included updating the base year from FY 1997 to FY 2004. The proposed
FY 2009 market basket increase is 3.1 percent.
In addition, as explained in the August 4, 2003, final rule for FY
2004 (66 FR 46058) and in section III.B. of this proposed rule, the
annual update of the payment rates includes, as appropriate, an
adjustment to account for market basket forecast error. As described in
the final rule for FY 2008,
[[Page 25922]]
the threshold percentage that serves to trigger an adjustment to
account for market basket forecast error is 0.5 percentage point
effective for FY 2008 and subsequent years. This adjustment takes into
account the forecast error from the most recently available FY for
which there is final data, and applies whenever the difference between
the forecasted and actual change in the market basket exceeds a 0.5
percentage point threshold. For FY 2007 (the most recently available FY
for which there is final data), the estimated increase in the market
basket index was 3.1 percentage points, while the actual increase was
3.1 percentage points, resulting in no difference. Accordingly, as the
difference between the estimated and actual amount of change does not
exceed the 0.5 percentage point threshold, the payment rates for FY
2009 do not include a forecast error adjustment. Table 1 below shows
the forecasted and actual market basket amounts for FY 2007.
Table 1.--Difference Between the Forecasted and Actual Market Basket Increases for FY 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecasted FY Actual FY 2007 FY 2007
Index 2007 Increase* Increase** Difference***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNF.......................................................... 3.1 3.1 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Published in Federal Register; based on second quarter 2006 Global Insight Inc. forecast (97 index).
**Based on the first quarter 2008 Global Insight Inc.forecast (97 index).
***The FY 2007 forecast error correction for the PPS Operating portion will be applied to the FY 2009 PPS update
recommendations. Any forecast error less than 0.5 percentage points will not be reflected in the update
recommendation.
II. Annual Update of Payment Rates Under the Prospective Payment System
for Skilled Nursing Facilities
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include
the caption ``Annual Update'' at the beginning of your comments.]
A. Federal Prospective Payment System
This proposed rule sets forth a schedule of Federal prospective
payment rates applicable to Medicare Part A SNF services beginning
October 1, 2008. The schedule incorporates per diem Federal rates that
provide Part A payment for all costs of services furnished to a
beneficiary in a SNF during a Medicare-covered stay.
1. Costs and Services Covered by the Federal Rates
In accordance with section 1888(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Federal
rates apply to all costs (routine, ancillary, and capital-related) of
covered SNF services other than costs associated with approved
educational activities as defined in Sec. 413.85. Under section
1888(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, covered SNF services include post-hospital
SNF services for which benefits are provided under Part A (the hospital
insurance program), as well as all items and services (other than those
services excluded by statute) that, before July 1, 1998, were paid
under Part B (the supplementary medical insurance program) but
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in a SNF during a Part A covered
stay. (These excluded service categories are discussed in greater
detail in section V.B.2. of the May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR
26295 through 26297)).
2. Methodology Used for the Calculation of the Federal Rates
The proposed FY 2009 rates would reflect an update using the full
amount of the latest market basket index. The proposed FY 2009 market
basket increase factor is 3.1 percent. A complete description of the
multi-step process used to calculate Federal rates initially appeared
in the May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR 26252), as further
revised in subsequent rules. We note that in accordance with section
101(c)(2) of the BBRA, the previous temporary increases in the per diem
adjusted payment rates for certain designated RUGs, as specified in
section 101(a) of the BBRA and section 314 of the BIPA, are no longer
in effect due to the implementation of case-mix refinements as of
January 1, 2006. However, the temporary increase of 128 percent in the
per diem adjusted payment rates for SNF residents with AIDS, enacted by
section 511 of the MMA, remains in effect.
We used the SNF market basket to adjust each per diem component of
the Federal rates forward to reflect cost increases occurring between
the midpoint of the Federal FY beginning October 1, 2007, and ending
September 30, 2008, and the midpoint of the Federal FY beginning
October 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2009, to which the payment
rates apply. In accordance with section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) of the
Act, we update the payment rates for FY 2009 by a factor equal to the
full market basket index percentage increase. (We note, however, that
the President's budget currently includes a provision that would
establish a zero percent market basket update for FYs 2009 through
2011, and that the provisions outlined in this proposed rule would need
to reflect any legislation that the Congress may enact to adopt that
proposal.) We further adjust the rates by a wage index budget
neutrality factor, described later in this section. Tables 2 and 3
reflect the updated components of the unadjusted Federal rates for FY
2009.
Table 2.--FY 2009 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem--Urban
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nursing-- Case- Therapy-- Case- Therapy-- Non-
Rate component mix mix case-mix Non-case-mix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Diem Amount................................. $151.30 $113.97 $15.00 $77.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--FY 2009 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem--Rural
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nursing-- Case- Therapy-- Case- Therapy-- Non-
Rate component mix mix case-mix Non-case-mix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Diem Amount................................. $144.55 $131.42 $16.04 $78.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25923]]
B. Case-Mix Adjustments
1. Background
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to make
an adjustment to account for case-mix. The statute specifies that the
adjustment is to reflect both a resident classification system that the
Secretary establishes to account for the relative resource use of
different patient types, as well as resident assessment and other data
that the Secretary considers appropriate. In first implementing the SNF
PPS (63 FR 26252, May 12, 1998), we developed the Resource Utilization
Groups, version III (RUG-III) case-mix classification system, which
tied the amount of payment to resident resource use in combination with
resident characteristic information. Staff time measurement (STM)
studies conducted in 1990, 1995, and 1997 provided information on
resource use (time spent by staff members on residents) and resident
characteristics that enabled us not only to establish RUG-III, but also
to create case-mix indexes.
Under the BBA, each update of the SNF PPS payment rates must
include the case-mix classification methodology applicable for the
coming Federal FY. As indicated in section I.F.1 of this proposed rule,
the payment rates set forth herein reflect the use of the refined RUG-
53 system that we discussed in detail in the proposed and final rules
for FY 2006.
When we developed the refined RUG-53 system, we constructed new
case-mix indexes, using the Staff Time Measurement (STM) study data
that was collected during the 1990s and originally used in creating the
SNF PPS case-mix classification system and case-mix indexes. In section
II.B.2 of this proposed rule, we discuss further adjustments to those
new case-mix indexes.
2. Development of the Case-Mix Indexes
In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45032, August 4,
2005), we introduced two refinements to the SNF PPS: nine new case-mix
groups to account for the care needs of beneficiaries requiring both
extensive medical and rehabilitation services, and an adjustment to
reflect the variability in the use of non-therapy ancillaries (NTAs).
We made these refinements by using the resource minute data from the
original 44-group RUG-III model to create a new set of relative
weights, or case-mix indexes (CMIs), for the 53-group RUG-III model. We
then compared the CMIs for the two models to ensure that estimated
total payments under the 53-group model would maintain parity to those
that would have been made under the 44-group model.
In conducting this analysis, we used FY 2001 claims data (the most
current data available at the time) to compare the distribution of
payment days by RUG category in the original, 44-group model with
anticipated payments by RUG category in the refined 53-group model.
Based on the results of this analysis, we adjusted the new CMIs upward
by applying a parity adjustment factor, in order to ensure that the
RUG-III model was expanded in a budget-neutral manner. We then applied
a second adjustment to the CMIs to account for the variability in the
use of NTA services. These two adjustments resulted in a combined 17.9
percent increase in the CMIs that went into effect on January 1, 2006,
as part of the case-mix refinement implementation. A detailed
description of the methods used to make these two adjustments to the
CMIs appears in the SNF PPS proposed rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 29077
through 29078, May 19, 2005). However, we recognized that utilization
patterns change over time, and in the FY 2006 final rule (70 FR 45031,
August 4, 2005), we committed to monitoring the accuracy and
effectiveness of the CMIs used in the 53-group model.
In monitoring recent claims data, we observed that actual
utilization patterns differed significantly from those we had projected
using the 2001 data. In particular, the proportion of patients grouped
in the highest paying RUG categories--combining high therapy with
extensive services--greatly exceeded our projections. We have,
therefore, used actual claims data to recalibrate both of the
adjustments to the CMIs: the parity adjustment designed to make the
change from the 44-group model to the 53-group model in a budget-
neutral manner, and the factor used to recognize the variability in NTA
utilization.
To determine the parity adjustment factor needed to re-establish
budget neutrality, we compared simulated CY 2006 payments (using the
most recent data available) for the 44-group and 53-group RUG-III
models using the same methodology that we described in the SNF PPS
proposed rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 29077 through 29078, May 19, 2005).
Once we had identified the recalibrated parity adjustment factor
necessary to re-establish budget neutrality, we then determined the
recalibrated percentage adjustment that would be needed to reset the
NTA component of the CMIs at the appropriate level specified in the SNF
PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45031, August 4, 2005). Under our
proposed recalibration, these two adjustments, which had initially
produced a combined increase of 17.9 percent in the FY 2006 refinement,
would instead result in an overall 9.68 percent increase for FY 2009.
Thus, for FY 2009, the aggregate impact of this proposed recalibration
would be the difference between the original, FY 2006 total increase of
17.9 percent and the recalibrated total increase of 9.68 percent, or a
negative $770 million.
It is extremely important to note that this adjustment, as
proposed, would be made prospectively. However, we are responsible for
maintaining the fiscal integrity of the SNF PPS, and by using the
actual claims data, the SNF PPS would better reflect the resources
used, resulting in more accurate payment. To that end, we have
developed our proposed recalibration of the parity and NTA adjustments
to the CMIs using actual claims distribution data. Although the 2001
data were the best source available at the time the FY 2006 refinements
were introduced, the 2006 data provide the most recent and a more
accurate source of RUG-53 utilization. (We also note that pursuant to
our ongoing commitment to monitoring the accuracy and effectiveness of
the CMIs under the refined case-mix system, there may be further
revisions to the recalibration as we develop the FY 2009 final rule,
based on the data available at that time.)
We note that the negative $770 million adjustment described above
would be largely offset by the FY 2009 market basket adjustment factor
of 3.1 percent, or $710 million, with a net result of a negative annual
update of approximately $60 million. We are, nevertheless, confident
that this proposed recalibration would achieve the goals of the
refinement provision implemented in January 2006, and that, as a
result, payments would better reflect those policies. We also wish to
note that after it conducted a thorough review of SNF profit margins,
MedPAC concluded that, in the aggregate, SNFs are operating on a sound
financial basis. As evidenced by MedPAC's recent recommendation for a
zero percent update for SNFs in FY 2009, we believe that this
recalibration could be made without creating undue hardship on
providers.
We list the case-mix adjusted payment rates separately for urban
and rural SNFs in Tables 4 and 5, with the corresponding case-mix
values. These tables do not reflect the AIDS add-on enacted by section
511 of the MMA, which we apply only after making all other adjustments
(wage and case-mix).
[[Page 25924]]
Table 4.--RUG-53 Case-Mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes--Urban
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-case Non-case
RUG-III category Nursing Therapy Nursing Therapy mix therapy mix Total rate
index index component component comp component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUX.......................................................... 1.77 2.25 267.80 256.43 ........... 77.22 601.45
RUL.......................................................... 1.31 2.25 198.20 256.43 ........... 77.22 531.85
RVX.......................................................... 1.44 1.41 217.87 160.70 ........... 77.22 455.79
RVL.......................................................... 1.24 1.41 187.61 160.70 ........... 77.22 425.53
RHX.......................................................... 1.33 0.94 201.23 107.13 ........... 77.22 385.58
RHL.......................................................... 1.27 0.94 192.15 107.13 ........... 77.22 376.50
RMX.......................................................... 1.80 0.77 272.34 87.76 ........... 77.22 437.32
RML.......................................................... 1.57 0.77 237.54 87.76 ........... 77.22 402.52
RLX.......................................................... 1.22 0.43 184.59 49.01 ........... 77.22 310.82
RUC.......................................................... 1.20 2.25 181.56 256.43 ........... 77.22 515.21
RUB.......................................................... 0.92 2.25 139.20 256.43 ........... 77.22 472.85
RUA.......................................................... 0.78 2.25 118.01 256.43 ........... 77.22 451.66
RVC.......................................................... 1.14 1.41 172.48 160.70 ........... 77.22 410.40
RVB.......................................................... 1.01 1.41 152.81 160.70 ........... 77.22 390.73
RVA.......................................................... 0.77 1.41 116.50 160.70 ........... 77.22 354.42
RHC.......................................................... 1.13 0.94 170.97 107.13 ........... 77.22 355.32
RHB.......................................................... 1.03 0.94 155.84 107.13 ........... 77.22 340.19
RHA.......................................................... 0.88 0.94 133.14 107.13 ........... 77.22 317.49
RMC.......................................................... 1.07 0.77 161.89 87.76 ........... 77.22 326.87
RMB.......................................................... 1.01 0.77 152.81 87.76 ........... 77.22 317.79
RMA.......................................................... 0.97 0.77 146.76 87.76 ........... 77.22 311.74
RLB.......................................................... 1.06 0.43 160.38 49.01 ........... 77.22 286.61
RLA.......................................................... 0.79 0.43 119.53 49.01 ........... 77.22 245.76
SE3.......................................................... 1.72 ........... 260.24 ........... 15.00 77.22 352.46
SE2.......................................................... 1.38 ........... 208.79 ........... 15.00 77.22 301.01
SE1.......................................................... 1.17 ........... 177.02 ........... 15.00 77.22 269.24
SSC.......................................................... 1.14 ........... 172.48 ........... 15.00 77.22 264.70
SSB.......................................................... 1.05 ........... 158.87 ........... 15.00 77.22 251.09
SSA.......................................................... 1.02 ........... 154.33 ........... 15.00 77.22 246.55
CC2.......................................................... 1.13 ........... 170.97 ........... 15.00 77.22 263.19
CC1.......................................................... 0.99 ........... 149.79 ........... 15.00 77.22 242.01
CB2.......................................................... 0.91 ........... 137.68 ........... 15.00 77.22 229.90
CB1.......................................................... 0.84 ........... 127.09 ........... 15.00 77.22 219.31
CA2.......................................................... 0.83 ........... 125.58 ........... 15.00 77.22 217.80
CA1.......................................................... 0.75 ........... 113.48 ........... 15.00 77.22 205.70
IB2.......................................................... 0.69 ........... 104.40 ........... 15.00 77.22 196.62
IB1.......................................................... 0.67 ........... 101.37 ........... 15.00 77.22 193.59
IA2.......................................................... 0.57 ........... 86.24 ........... 15.00 77.22 178.46
IA1.......................................................... 0.53 ........... 80.19 ........... 15.00 77.22 172.41
BB2.......................................................... 0.68 ........... 102.88 ........... 15.00 77.22 195.10
BB1.......................................................... 0.65 ........... 98.35 ........... 15.00 77.22 190.57
BA2.......................................................... 0.56 ........... 84.73 ........... 15.00 77.22 176.95
BA1.......................................................... 0.48 ........... 72.62 ........... 15.00 77.22 164.84
PE2.......................................................... 0.79 ........... 119.53 ........... 15.00 77.22 211.75
PE1.......................................................... 0.77 ........... 116.50 ........... 15.00 77.22 208.72
PD2.......................................................... 0.72 ........... 108.94 ........... 15.00 77.22 201.16
PD1.......................................................... 0.70 ........... 105.91 ........... 15.00 77.22 198.13
PC2.......................................................... 0.66 ........... 99.86 ........... 15.00 77.22 192.08
PC1.......................................................... 0.65 ........... 98.35 ........... 15.00 77.22 190.57
PB2.......................................................... 0.52 ........... 78.68 ........... 15.00 77.22 170.90
PB1.......................................................... 0.50 ........... 75.65 ........... 15.00 77.22 167.87
PA2.......................................................... 0.49 ........... 74.14 ........... 15.00 77.22 166.36
PA1.......................................................... 0.46 ........... 69.60 ........... 15.00 77.22 161.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--RUG-53 Case-mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes--Rural
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-case Non-case
RUG-III category Nursing Therapy Nursing Therapy mix therapy mix Total rate
Index index component component comp component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUX.......................................................... 1.77 2.25 255.85 295.70 ........... 78.64 630.19
RUL.......................................................... 1.31 2.25 189.36 295.70 ........... 78.64 563.70
RVX.......................................................... 1.44 1.41 208.15 185.30 ........... 78.64 472.09
RVL.......................................................... 1.24 1.41 179.24 185.30 ........... 78.64 443.18
RHX.......................................................... 1.33 0.94 192.25 123.53 ........... 78.64 394.42
RHL.......................................................... 1.27 0.94 183.58 123.53 ........... 78.64 385.75
RMX.......................................................... 1.80 0.77 260.19 101.19 ........... 78.64 440.02
RML.......................................................... 1.57 0.77 226.94 101.19 ........... 78.64 406.77
RLX.......................................................... 1.22 0.43 176.35 56.51 ........... 78.64 311.50
[[Page 25925]]
RUC.......................................................... 1.20 2.25 173.46 295.70 ........... 78.64 547.80
RUB.......................................................... 0.92 2.25 132.99 295.70 ........... 78.64 507.33
RUA.......................................................... 0.78 2.25 112.75 295.70 ........... 78.64 487.09
RVC.......................................................... 1.14 1.41 164.79 185.30 ........... 78.64 428.73
RVB.......................................................... 1.01 1.41 146.00 185.30 ........... 78.64 409.94
RVA.......................................................... 0.77 1.41 111.30 185.30 ........... 78.64 375.24
RHC.......................................................... 1.13 0.94 163.34 123.53 ........... 78.64 365.51
RHB.......................................................... 1.03 0.94 148.89 123.53 ........... 78.64 351.06
RHA.......................................................... 0.88 0.94 127.20 123.53 ........... 78.64 329.37
RMC.......................................................... 1.07 0.77 154.67 101.19 ........... 78.64 334.50
RMB.......................................................... 1.01 0.77 146.00 101.19 ........... 78.64 325.83
RMA.......................................................... 0.97 0.77 140.21 101.19 ........... 78.64 320.04
RLB.......................................................... 1.06 0.43 153.22 56.51 ........... 78.64 288.37
RLA.......................................................... 0.79 0.43 114.19 56.51 ........... 78.64 249.34
SE3.......................................................... 1.72 ........... 248.63 ........... 16.04 78.64 343.31
SE2.......................................................... 1.38 ........... 199.48 ........... 16.04 78.64 294.16
SE1.......................................................... 1.17 ........... 169.12 ........... 16.04 78.64 263.80
SSC.......................................................... 1.14 ........... 164.79 ........... 16.04 78.64 259.47
SSB.......................................................... 1.05 ........... 151.78 ........... 16.04 78.64 246.46
SSA.......................................................... 1.02 ........... 147.44 ........... 16.04 78.64 242.12
CC2.......................................................... 1.13 ........... 163.34 ........... 16.04 78.64 258.02
CC1.......................................................... 0.99 ........... 143.10 ........... 16.04 78.64 237.78
CB2.......................................................... 0.91 ........... 131.54 ........... 16.04 78.64 226.22
CB1.......................................................... 0.84 ........... 121.42 ........... 16.04 78.64 216.10
CA2.......................................................... 0.83 ........... 119.98 ........... 16.04 78.64 214.66
CA1.......................................................... 0.75 ........... 108.41 ........... 16.04 78.64 203.09
IB2.......................................................... 0.69 ........... 99.74 ........... 16.04 78.64 194.42
IB1.......................................................... 0.67 ........... 96.85 ........... 16.04 78.64 191.53
IA2.......................................................... 0.57 ........... 82.39 ........... 16.04 78.64 177.07
IA1.......................................................... 0.53 ........... 76.61 ........... 16.04 78.64 171.29
BB2.......................................................... 0.68 ........... 98.29 ........... 16.04 78.64 192.97
BB1.......................................................... 0.65 ........... 93.96 ........... 16.04 78.64 188.64
BA2.......................................................... 0.56 ........... 80.95 ........... 16.04 78.64 175.63
BA1.......................................................... 0.48 ........... 69.38 ........... 16.04 78.64 164.06
PE2.......................................................... 0.79 ........... 114.19 ........... 16.04 78.64 208.87
PE1.......................................................... 0.77 ........... 111.30 ........... 16.04 78.64 205.98
PD2.......................................................... 0.72 ........... 104.08 ........... 16.04 78.64 198.76
PD1.......................................................... 0.70 ........... 101.19 ........... 16.04 78.64 195.87
PC2.......................................................... 0.66 ........... 95.40 ........... 16.04 78.64 190.08
PC1.......................................................... 0.65 ........... 93.96 ........... 16.04 78.64 188.64
PB2.......................................................... 0.52 ........... 75.17 ........... 16.04 78.64 169.85
PB1.......................................................... 0.50 ........... 72.28 ........... 16.04 78.64 166.96
PA2.......................................................... 0.49 ........... 70.83 ........... 16.04 78.64 165.51
PA1.......................................................... 0.46 ........... 66.49 ........... 16.04 78.64 161.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Wage Index Adjustment to Federal Rates
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act requires that we adjust the
Federal rates to account for differences in area wage levels, using a
wage index that we find appropriate. Since the inception of a PPS for
SNFs, we have used hospital wage data in developing a wage index to be
applied to SNFs. We propose to continue that practice for FY 2009, as
we continue to believe that in the absence of SNF-specific wage data,
using the hospital inpatient wage index is appropriate and reasonable
for the SNF PPS. As explained in the update notice for FY 2005 (69 FR
45786, July 30, 2004), the SNF PPS does not use the hospital area wage
index's occupational mix adjustment, as this adjustment serves
specifically to define the occupational categories more clearly in a
hospital setting; moreover, the collection of the occupational wage
data also excludes any wage data related to SNFs. Therefore, we believe
that using the updated wage data exclusive of the occupational mix
adjustment continues to be appropriate for SNF payments.
Since the implementation of the SNF PPS, as set forth in Sec.
413.337(a)(1)(ii), a SNF's wage index is determined based on the
location of the SNF in an urban or rural area as defined in Sec.
413.333 and further defined in Sec. 412.62(f)(1)(ii) and Sec.
412.62(f)(1)(iii) as urban and rural areas, respectively. In the FY
2006 SNF PPS final rule (70 FR 45041, August 4, 2005), we adopted
revised labor market area definitions based on CBSAs. At the time, we
noted that these were the same labor market area definitions (based on
OMB's new CBSA designations) implemented under the Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment System (IPPS) at Sec. 412.64(b), which were
effective for those hospitals beginning October 1, 2004, as discussed
in the IPPS final rule for FY 2005 (69 FR at 49026 through 49034,
August 11, 2004). In the FY 2006 SNF PPS final rule, we inadvertently
omitted making a conforming regulation text change for Sec. 413.333.
However, no ch