Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010, 61738-62188 [E9-26502]
Download as PDF
61738
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 410, 411, 414, 415, 485,
and 498
[CMS–1413–FC]
RINs 0938–AP40
Medicare Program; Payment Policies
Under the Physician Fee Schedule and
Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule with comment period.
SUMMARY: This final rule with comment
period implements changes to the
physician fee schedule and other
Medicare Part B payment policies to
ensure that our payment systems are
updated to reflect changes in medical
practice and the relative value of
services. It also implements or discusses
certain provisions of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008. (See the Table of
Contents for a listing of the specific
issues addressed in this rule.)
This final rule with comment period
also finalizes the calendar year (CY)
2009 interim relative value units (RVUs)
and issues interim RVUs for new and
revised codes for CY 2010. In addition,
in accordance with the statute, it
announces that the update to the
physician fee schedule conversion
factor is ¥21.2 percent for CY 2010, the
preliminary estimate for the sustainable
growth rate for CY 2010 is ¥8.8 percent,
and the conversion factor (CF) for CY
2010 is $28.4061.
DATES: Effective Dates: With the
exception of the provisions of § 414.68
and § 414.210(e)(5), this final rule is
effective on January 1, 2010. The
provisions of § 414.68 are effective on
October 30, 2009, and the provisions of
§ 414.210(e)(5) are effective on July 1,
2010.
Comment Date: To be assured
consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses
provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
December 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–1413–FC. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions under the ‘‘More Search
Options’’ tab.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–1413–FC, P.O. Box 8013,
Baltimore, MD 21244–8013.
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 to the
following address ONLY: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: CMS–1413–FC,
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 before the close
of the comment period to either of the
following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey 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.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 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 addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Ensor, (410) 786–5617, for issues related
to practice expense methodology.
Craig Dobyski, (410) 786–4584, for
issues related to geographic practice
cost indices and malpractice RVUs.
Ken Marsalek, (410) 786–4502, for
issues related to the physician practice
information survey and the multiple
procedure payment reduction.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Regina Walker-Wren, (410) 786–9160,
for issues related to the phasing out of
the outpatient mental health treatment
limitation.
Diane Stern, (410) 786–1133, for
issues related to the physician quality
reporting initiative and incentives for
e-prescribing.
Lisa Grabert, (410) 786–6827, for
issues related to the Physician Resource
Use Feedback Program.
Colleen Bruce, (410) 786–5529, for
issues related to value-based
purchasing.
Sandra Bastinelli, (410) 786–3630, for
issues related to the implementation of
accreditation standards.
Jim Menas, (410) 786–4507, for issues
related to teaching anesthesia services.
Sarah McClain, (410) 786–2994, for
issues related to the coverage of cardiac
rehabilitation services.
Dorothy Shannon, (410) 786–3396, for
issues related to payment for cardiac
and pulmonary rehabilitation services.
Roya Lotfi, (410) 786–4072, for issues
related to the coverage of pulmonary
rehabilitation.
Jamie Hermansen, (410) 786–2064, for
issues related to kidney disease patient
education programs.
Terri Harris, (410) 786–6830, for
issues related to payment for kidney
disease patient education.
Brijet Burton, (410) 786–7364, for
issues related to the compendia for
determination of medically-accepted
indications for off-label uses of drugs
and biologicals in an anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic regimen.
Henry Richter, (410) 786–4562, or
Lisa Hubbard, (410) 786–5472, for issues
related to renal dialysis provisions and
payments for end-stage renal disease
facilities.
Cheryl Gilbreath, (410) 786–5919, for
issues related to payment for covered
outpatient drugs and biologicals.
Edmund Kasaitis, (410) 786–0477, or
Bonny Dahm, (410) 786–4006, for issues
related to the Competitive Acquisition
Program (CAP) for Part B drugs.
Pauline Lapin, (410) 786–6883, for
issues related to the chiropractic
services demonstration BN issue.
Monique Howard, (410) 786–3869, for
issues related to CORF conditions of
coverage.
Roechel Kujawa, (410) 786–9111, for
issues related to ambulance services.
Anne Tayloe Hauswald, (410) 786–
4546, for clinical laboratory issues.
Troy Barsky, (410) 786–8873, or Roy
Albert, (410) 786–1872, for issues
related to physician self-referral.
Christopher Molling, (410) 786–6399,
or Anita Greenberg, (410) 786–4601, for
issues related to the repeal of transfer of
title for oxygen equipment.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Michelle Peterman, (410) 786–2591,
or Iffat Fatima, (410) 786–6709 for
issues related to the grandfathering
provisions of the durable medical
equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive
Acquisition Program.
Ralph Goldberg, (410) 786–4870, or
Heidi Edmunds, (410) 786–1781, for
issues related to the damages process
caused by the termination of contracts
awarded in 2008 under the DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding program.
Diane Milstead, (410) 786–3355, or
Gaysha Brooks, (410) 786–9649, for all
other issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments: We welcome
comments from the public on the
following issues: interim relative value
units (RVUs) for selected codes
identified in Addendum C; the
physician self-referral designated health
services (DHS) codes listed in Tables 31
and 32; services for consideration for
the Five-Year Review of work RVUs for
services as discussed in section II.P.,
and information concerning services
provided under arrangement as
discussed in section II.N.2.
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.regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions 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.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Table of Contents
To assist readers in referencing
sections contained in this preamble, we
are providing a table of contents. Some
of the issues discussed in this preamble
affect the payment policies, but do not
require changes to the regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Information on the regulation’s impact
appears throughout the preamble, and
therefore, is not discussed exclusively
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
in section XIII. of this final rule with
comment period.
I. Background
A. Development of the Relative Value
System
1. Work RVUs
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units
(PE RVUs)
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP) RVUs
4. Refinements to the RVUs
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget
Neutral
B. Components of the Fee Schedule
Payment Amounts
C. Most Recent Changes to the Fee
Schedule
II. Provisions of the Final Regulation and
Analysis of the Public Comments
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense (PE)
Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Data Sources for Calculating Practice
Expense
b. Allocation of PE to Services
c. Facility and Non-Facility Costs
d. Services With Technical Components
(TCs) and Professional Components
(PCs)
e. Transition Period
f. PE RVU Methodology
2. PE Revisions for CY 2010
a. SMS and Supplemental Survey
Background
b. Physician Practice Information Survey
(PPIS)
c. Equipment Utilization Rate
d. Miscellaneous PE Issues
e. AMA RUC PE Recommendations for
Direct PE Inputs
f. Practice Expense for Intranasal Vaccine
Administration Codes (CPT Codes
90467, 90468, 90473, and 90474)
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs): Locality Discussion
1. Update—Expiration of 1.0 Work GPCI
Floor
2. Payment Localities
C. Malpractice Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Background
2. Methodology for the Revision of
Resource-Based Malpractice RVUs
D. Medicare Telehealth Services
1. Requests for Adding Services to the List
of Medicare Telehealth Services
2. Submitted Requests for Addition to the
List of Telehealth Services
a. Health and Behavior Assessment and
Intervention (HBAI)
b. Nursing Facility Services
c. Critical Care Services
d. Other Requests
e. Summary: Result of Evaluation of 2010
Requests
3. Other Issues
E. Specific Coding Issues Related to the
Physician Fee Schedule
1. Canalith Repositioning
2. Payment for an Initial Preventive
Physical Examination (IPPE)
3. Audiology Codes: Policy Clarification of
Existing CPT Codes
4. Consultation Services
F. Potentially Misvalued Codes Under the
Physician Fee Schedule
1. Valuing Services Under the Physician
Fee Schedule
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61739
2. High Cost Supplies
3. Review of Services Often Billed Together
and the Possibility of Expanding the
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
(MPPR) to Additional Nonsurgical
Services
4. AMA RUC Review of Potentially
Misvalued Services
a. Site of Service
b. ‘‘23-Hour’’ Stay
c. AMA RUC Review of Potentially
Misvalued Codes for CY 2010
5. PE Issues—Arthoscopy
6. Establishing Appropriate Relative Values
for Physician Fee Schedule Services
G. Issues Related to the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Providers
Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
1. Section 102: Elimination of
Discriminatory Copayment Rates for
Medicare Outpatient Psychiatric Services
2. Section 131(b): Physician Payment,
Efficiency, and Quality Improvements—
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)
3. Section 131(c): Physician Resource Use
Measurement and Reporting Program
4. Section 131(d): Plan for Transition to
Value-Based Purchasing Program for
Physicians and Other Practitioners
5. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (E-Prescribing)—The
E-Prescibing Incentive Program
6. Section 135: Implementation of
Accreditation Standards for Suppliers
Furnishing the Technical Component
(TC) of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
Services
7. Section 139: Improvements for Medicare
Anesthesia Teaching Programs
8. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients With Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions—Cardiac
Rehabilitation Services
9. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients With Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions—Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Services
10. Section 144(b): Repeal of Transfer of
Title for Oxygen Equipment
11. Section 152(b): Coverage of Kidney
Disease Patient Education Services
12. Section 153: Renal Dialysis Provisions
13. Section 182(b): Revision of Definition
of Medically-Accepted Indication for
Drugs; Compendia for Determination of
Medically-Accepted Indications for OffLabel Uses of Drugs and Biologicals in an
Anti-Cancer Chemotherapeutic Regimen
H. Part B Drug Payment
1. Average Sales Price (ASP) Issues
2. Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP)
Issues
I. Provisions Related to Payment for Renal
Dialysis Services Furnished by EndStage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities
J. Discussion of Chiropractic Services
Demonstration
1. Background
2. Analysis of Demonstration
3. Payment Adjustment
K. Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities (CORF) and
Rehabilitation Agency Issues
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61740
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
L. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Technical
Correction to the Rural Adjustment
Factor Regulations (§ 414.610)
M. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule:
Signature on Requisition
N. Physician Self-Referral
1. General Background
2. Physician Stand in the Shoes
3. Services Provided ‘‘Under
Arrangements’’ (Services Performed by
an Entity Other Than the Entity That
Submits the Claim): Solicitation of
Comments
O. Durable Medical Equipment-Related
Issues
1. Damages to Suppliers Awarded a
Contract Under the Acquisition of
Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program) Caused by the Delay of the
Program
2. Notification to Beneficiaries for
Suppliers Regarding Grandfathering
P. Five-Year Refinement of Relative Value
Units
Q. Other Issues—Therapy Caps
III. Refinement of Relative Value Units for
Calendar Year 2010 and Response to
Public Comments on Interim Relative
Value Units for 2009
A. Summary of Issues Discussed Related to
the Adjustment of Relative Value Units
B. Process for Establishing Work Relative
Value Units for the Physician Fee
Schedule
C. Work Relative Value Unit Refinements
of Interim Relative Value Units
D. Interim 2009 Codes
E. Establishment of Interim Work Relative
Value Units for New and Revised
Physician’s Current Procedural
Terminology (CPT) Codes and New
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System Codes (HCPCS) for 2010
(Includes Table Titled ‘‘AMA RUC
Recommendations and CMS’ Decisions
for New and Revised 2010 CPT Codes’’)
F. Discussion of Codes and AMA RUC
Recommendations
G. Additional Coding Issues
H. Establishment of Interim PE RVUs for
New and Revised Physician’s Current
Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes
and New Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System (HCPCS) Codes for 2010
IV. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition:
Annual Update to the List of CPT/
HCPCS Codes
A. General
B. Annual Update to the Code List
V. Physician Fee Schedule Update for CY
2010
A. Physician Fee Schedule Update
B. The Percentage Change in the Medicare
Economic Index (MEI)
C. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
VI. Allowed Expenditures for Physicians’
Services and the Sustainable Growth
Rate (SGR)
A. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
B. Physicians’ Services
C. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for
2010
D. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for
2009
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
E. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for 2008
F. Calculation of 2010, 2009, and 2008
Sustainable Growth Rates
VII. Anesthesia and Physician Fee Schedule
Conversion Factors for CY 2010
A. Physician Fee Schedule Conversion
Factor
B. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
VIII. Telehealth Originating Site Facility Fee
Payment Amount Update
IX. Provisions of the Final Rule
X. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay
in Effective Date
XI. Collection of Information Requirements
XII. Response to Comments
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Regulation Text
Addendum A—Explanation and Use of
Addendum B
Addendum B—Relative Value Units and
Related Information Used in Determining
Medicare Payments for CY 2010
Addendum C—Codes With Interim RVUs
Addendum D—2010 Geographic Adjustment
Factors (GAFs)
Addendum E—2010 Geographic Practice
Cost Indices (GPCIs) by State and
Medicare Locality
Addendum F—CY 2010 ESRD Wage Index
for Non-Urban Areas Based on CBSA
Labor Market Areas
Addendum G—CY 2010 ESRD Wage Index
for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor
Market Areas
Addendum H—CPT/HCPCS Imaging Codes
Defined by Section 5102(b) of the DRA
Addendum I—List of CPT/HCPCS Codes
Used To Define Certain Designated
Health Services Under Section 1877 of
the Social Security Act
Acronyms
In addition, because of the many
organizations and terms to which we
refer by acronym in this final rule with
comment period, we are listing these
acronyms and their corresponding terms
in alphabetical order below:
AA Anesthesiologist assistant
AACVPR American Association of
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary
Rehabilitation
AANA American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists
ABMS American Board of Medical
Specialties
ABN Advanced Beneficiary Notice
ACC American College of Cardiology
ACGME Accreditation Council on Graduate
Medical Education
ACLS Advanced cardiac life support
ACR American College of Radiology
AED Automated external defibrillator
AFROC Association of Freestanding
Radiation Oncology Centers
AHA American Heart Association
AHFS–DI American Hospital Formulary
Service—Drug Information
AHRQ [HHS’] Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality
AMA American Medical Association
AMA–DE American Medical Association
Drug Evaluations
AMP Average manufacturer price
AO Accreditation organization
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AOA American Osteopathic Association
APA American Psychological Association
APTA American Physical Therapy
Association
ARRA American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111–5)
ASC Ambulatory surgical center
ASP Average sales price
ASRT American Society of Radiologic
Technologists
ASTRO American Society for Therapeutic
Radiology and Oncology
ATA American Telemedicine Association
AWP Average wholesale price
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L.
105–33)
BBRA [Medicare, Medicaid and State Child
Health Insurance Program] Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106–113)
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement Protection Act of
2000 (Pub. L. 106–554)
BLS Basic Life support
BN Budget neutrality
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
CABG Coronary artery bypass graft
CAD Coronary artery disease
CAH Critical access hospital
CAHEA Committee on Allied Health
Education and Accreditation
CAP Competitive acquisition program
CBIC Competitive Bidding Implementation
Contractor
CBP Competitive Bidding Program
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CF Conversion factor
CfC Conditions for Coverage
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CKD Chronic kidney disease
CLFS Clinical laboratory fee schedule
CMA California Medical Association
CMHC Community mental health center
CMP Civil money penalty
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
CNS Clinical nurse specialist
CoP Condition of participation
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facility
COS Cost of service
CPEP Clinical Practice Expert Panel
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPI–U Consumer price index for urban
customers
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CPT [Physicians’] Current Procedural
Terminology (4th Edition, 2002,
copyrighted by the American Medical
Association)
CR Cardiac rehabilitation
CRNA Certified registered nurse anesthetist
CRP Canalith repositioning
CRT Certified respiratory therapist
CSW Clinical social worker
CY Calendar year
DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
DHS Designated health services
DME Durable medical equipment
DMEPOS Durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies
DOQ Doctor’s Office Quality
DOS Date of service
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109–171)
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DSMT Diabetes self-management training
E/M Evaluation and management
EDI Electronic data interchange
EEG Electroencephalogram
EHR Electronic health record
EKG Electrocardiogram
EMG Electromyogram
EMTALA Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act
EOG Electro-oculogram
EPO Erythopoeitin
ESRD End-stage renal disease
FAX Facsimile
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FFS Fee-for-service
FR Federal Register
GAF Geographic adjustment factor
GAO General Accounting Office
GEM Generating Medicare [Physician
Quality Performance Measurement Results]
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
GPO Group purchasing organization
GPCI Geographic practice cost index
HAC Hospital-acquired conditions
HBAI Health and behavior assessment and
intervention
HCPAC Health Care Professional Advisory
Committee
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System
HCRIS Healthcare Cost Report Information
System
HDRT High dose radiation therapy
HH PPS Home Health Prospective Payment
System
HHA Home health agency
HHRG Home health resource group
HHS [Department of] Health and Human
Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–
191)
HIT Health information technology
HITECH Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health Act (Title IV
of Division B of the Recovery Act, together
with Title XIII of Division A of the
Recovery Act)
HITSP Healthcare Information Technology
Standards Panel
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HOPD Hospital outpatient department
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area
HRSA Health Resources Services
Administration (HHS)
IACS Individuals Access to CMS Systems
ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICF Intermediate care facilities
ICR Intensive cardiac rehabilitation
ICR Information collection requirement
IDTF Independent diagnostic testing facility
IFC Interim final rule with comment period
IMRT Intensity-Modulated Radiation
Therapy
IPPE Initial preventive physical
examination
IPPS Inpatient prospective payment system
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISO Insurance services office
IVD Ischemic Vascular Disease
IVIG Intravenous immune globulin
IWPUT Intra-service work per unit of time
JRCERT Joint Review Committee on
Education in Radiologic Technology
KDE Kidney disease education
LCD Local coverage determination
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
MA Medicare Advantage
MA–PD Medicare Advantage—Prescription
Drug Plans
MAV Measure Applicability Validation
MCMP Medicare Care Management
Performance
MDRD Modification of Diet in Renal
Disease
MedCAC Medicare Evidence Development
and Coverage Advisory Committee
(formerly the Medicare Coverage Advisory
Committee (MCAC))
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission
MEI Medicare Economic Index
MIEA–TRHCA Medicare Improvements and
Extension Act of 2006 (that is, Division B
of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (TRHCA) (Pub. L. 109–432)
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–
275)
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (Pub. L. 108–173)
MMSEA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–173)
MNT Medical nutrition therapy
MOC Maintenance of certification
MP Malpractice
MPPR Multiple procedure payment
reduction
MQSA Mammography Quality Standards
Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–539)
MRA Magnetic resonance angiography
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging
MSA Metropolitan statistical area
NBRC National Board for Respiratory Care
NCD National Coverage Determination
NCQDIS National Coalition of Quality
Diagnostic Imaging Services
NDC National drug code
NF Nursing facility
NISTA National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act
NP Nurse practitioner
NPI National Provider Identifier
NPP Nonphysician practitioner
NQF National Quality Forum
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OACT [CMS’] Office of the Actuary
OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
ODF Open door forum
OGPE Oxygen generating portable
equipment
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONC [HHS’] Office of the National
Coordinator for Health IT
OPPS Outpatient prospective payment
system
OSCAR Online Survey and Certification
and Reporting
PA Physician assistant
PAT Performance assessment tool
PC Professional component
PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention
PDP Prescription drug plan
PE Practice expense
PE/HR Practice expense per hour
PEAC Practice Expense Advisory
Committee
PERC Practice Expense Review Committee
PFS Physician Fee Schedule
PGP [Medicare] Physician Group Practice
PHI Protected health information
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61741
PHP Partial hospitalization program
PIM [Medicare] Program Integrity Manual
PLI Professional liability insurance
POA Present on admission
POC Plan of care
PPI Producer price index
PPIS Physician Practice Information Survey
PPS Prospective payment system
PPTA Plasma Protein Therapeutics
Association
PQRI Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
PR Pulmonary rehabilitation
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSA Physician scarcity areas
PT Physical therapy
PTCA Percutaneous transluminal coronary
angioplasty
PVBP Physician and Other Health
Professional Value-Based Purchasing
Workgroup
RA Radiology assistant
RBMA Radiology Business Management
Association
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RHC Rural health clinic
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
RN Registered nurse
RNAC Reasonable net acquisition cost
RPA Radiology practitioner assistant
RRT Registered respiratory therapist
RUC [AMA’s Specialty Society] Relative
(Value) Update Committee
RVU Relative value unit
SBA Small Business Administration
SGR Sustainable growth rate
SLP Speech-language pathology
SMS [AMA’s] Socioeconomic Monitoring
System
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SOR System of record
SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery
STARS Services Tracking and Reporting
System
TC Technical Component
TIN Tax identification number
TRHCA Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (Pub. L. 109–432)
TTO Transtracheal oxygen
UPMC University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center
USDE United States Department of
Education
USP–DI United States Pharmacopoeia—
Drug Information
VBP Value-based purchasing
WAMP Widely available market price
I. Background
Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has
paid for physicians’ services under
section 1848 of the Social Security Act
(the Act), ‘‘Payment for Physicians’
Services.’’ The Act requires that
payments under the physician fee
schedule (PFS) are based on national
uniform relative value units (RVUs)
based on the relative resources used in
furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of
the Act requires that national RVUs be
established for physician work, practice
expense (PE), and malpractice expense.
Before the establishment of the
resource-based relative value system,
Medicare payment for physicians’
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61742
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
services was based on reasonable
charges.
A. Development of the Relative Value
System
1. Work RVUs
The concepts and methodology
underlying the PFS were enacted as part
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (OBRA) of 1989 (Pub. L. 101–239),
and OBRA 1990, (Pub. L. 101–508). The
final rule, published on November 25,
1991 (56 FR 59502), set forth the fee
schedule for payment for physicians’
services beginning January 1, 1992.
Initially, only the physician work RVUs
were resource-based, and the PE and
malpractice RVUs were based on
average allowable charges.
The physician work RVUs established
for the implementation of the fee
schedule in January 1992 were
developed with extensive input from
the physician community. A research
team at the Harvard School of Public
Health developed the original physician
work RVUs for most codes in a
cooperative agreement with the
Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). In constructing the
code-specific vignettes for the original
physician work RVUs, Harvard worked
with panels of experts, both inside and
outside the Federal government, and
obtained input from numerous
physician specialty groups.
Section 1848(b)(2)(B) of the Act
specifies that the RVUs for anesthesia
services are based on RVUs from a
uniform relative value guide, with
appropriate adjustment of the
conversion factor (CF), in a manner to
assure that fee schedule amounts for
anesthesia services are consistent with
those for other services of comparable
value. We established a separate CF for
anesthesia services, and we continue to
utilize time units as a factor in
determining payment for these services.
As a result, there is a separate payment
methodology for anesthesia services.
We establish physician work RVUs for
new and revised codes based on our
review of recommendations received
from the American Medical
Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society
Relative Value Update Committee
(RUC).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units
(PE RVUs)
Section 121 of the Social Security Act
Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–432),
enacted on October 31, 1994, amended
section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act and
required us to develop resource-based
PE RVUs for each physician’s service
beginning in 1998. We were to consider
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
general categories of expenses (such as
office rent and wages of personnel, but
excluding malpractice expenses)
comprising PEs.
Section 4505(a) of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105–
33), amended section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of
the Act to delay implementation of the
resource-based PE RVU system until
January 1, 1999. In addition, section
4505(b) of the BBA provided for a 4-year
transition period from charge-based PE
RVUs to resource-based RVUs.
We established the resource-based PE
RVUs for each physicians’ service in a
final rule, published November 2, 1998
(63 FR 58814), effective for services
furnished in 1999. Based on the
requirement to transition to a resourcebased system for PE over a 4-year
period, resource-based PE RVUs did not
become fully effective until 2002.
This resource-based system was based
on two significant sources of actual PE
data: the Clinical Practice Expert Panel
(CPEP) data; and the AMA’s
Socioeconomic Monitoring System
(SMS) data. The CPEP data were
collected from panels of physicians,
practice administrators, and
nonphysicians (for example, registered
nurses (RNs)) nominated by physician
specialty societies and other groups.
The CPEP panels identified the direct
inputs required for each physician’s
service in both the office setting and
out-of-office setting. We have since
refined and revised these inputs based
on recommendations from the RUC. The
AMA’s SMS data provided aggregate
specialty-specific information on hours
worked and PEs.
Separate PE RVUs are established for
procedures that can be performed in
both a nonfacility setting, such as a
physician’s office, and a facility setting,
such as a hospital outpatient
department. The difference between the
facility and nonfacility RVUs reflects
the fact that a facility typically receives
separate payment from Medicare for its
costs of providing the service, apart
from payment under the PFS. The
nonfacility RVUs reflect all of the direct
and indirect PEs of providing a
particular service.
Section 212 of the Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L.
106–113) directed the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) to establish a process under
which we accept and use, to the
maximum extent practicable and
consistent with sound data practices,
data collected or developed by entities
and organizations to supplement the
data we normally collect in determining
the PE component. On May 3, 2000, we
published the interim final rule (65 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
25664) that set forth the criteria for the
submission of these supplemental PE
survey data. The criteria were modified
in response to comments received, and
published in the Federal Register (65
FR 65376) as part of a November 1, 2000
final rule. The PFS final rules published
in 2001 and 2003, respectively, (66 FR
55246 and 68 FR 63196) extended the
period during which we would accept
these supplemental data through March
1, 2005.
In the Calendar Year (CY) 2007 PFS
final rule with comment period (71 FR
69624), we revised the methodology for
calculating PE RVUs beginning in CY
2007 and provided for a 4-year
transition for the new PE RVUs under
this new methodology.
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP)
RVUs
Section 4505(f) of the BBA amended
section 1848(c) of the Act requiring us
to implement resource-based
malpractice (MP) RVUs for services
furnished on or after 2000. The
resource-based MP RVUs were
implemented in the PFS final rule
published November 2, 1999 (64 FR
59380). The MP RVUs were based on
malpractice insurance premium data
collected from commercial and
physician-owned insurers from all the
States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
4. Refinements to the RVUs
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act
requires that we review all RVUs no less
often than every 5 years. The first FiveYear Review of the physician work
RVUs was published on November 22,
1996 (61 FR 59489) and was effective in
1997. The second Five-Year Review was
published in the CY 2002 PFS final rule
with comment period (66 FR 55246) and
was effective in 2002. The third FiveYear Review of physician work RVUs
was published in the CY 2007 PFS final
rule with comment period (71 FR
69624) and was effective on January 1,
2007. (Note: Additional codes relating to
the third Five-Year Review of physician
work RVUs were addressed in the CY
2008 PFS final rule with comment
period (72 FR 66360).)
In 1999, the AMA’s RUC established
the Practice Expense Advisory
Committee (PEAC) for the purpose of
refining the direct PE inputs. Through
March 2004, the PEAC provided
recommendations to CMS for over 7,600
codes (all but a few hundred of the
codes currently listed in the AMA’s
Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
codes). As part of the CY 2007 PFS final
rule with comment period (71 FR
69624), we implemented a new
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
methodology for determining resourcebased PE RVUs and are transitioning it
over a 4-year period.
In the CY 2005 PFS final rule with
comment period (69 FR 66236), we
implemented the first Five-Year Review
of the MP RVUs (69 FR 66263).
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget
Neutral
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
provides that adjustments in RVUs for a
year may not cause total PFS payments
to differ by more than $20 million from
what they would have been if the
adjustments were not made. In
accordance with section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, if
revisions to the RVUs cause
expenditures to change by more than
$20 million, we make adjustments to
ensure that expenditures do not increase
or decrease by more than $20 million.
As explained in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73FR
69730), as required by section 133(b) of
the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
(Pub. L. 110–275), the separate budget
neutrality (BN) adjustor resulting from
the third Five-Year Review of physician
work RVUs is being applied to the CF
beginning with CY 2009 rather than the
work RVUs.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
B. Components of the Fee Schedule
Payment Amounts
To calculate the payment for every
physicians’ service, the components of
the fee schedule (physician work, PE,
and MP RVUs) are adjusted by a
geographic practice cost index (GPCI).
The GPCIs reflect the relative costs of
physician work, PE, and malpractice
expense in an area compared to the
national average costs for each
component.
RVUs are converted to dollar amounts
through the application of a CF, which
is calculated by CMS’ Office of the
Actuary (OACT).
The formula for calculating the
Medicare fee schedule payment amount
for a given service and fee schedule area
can be expressed as:
Payment = [(RVU work × GPCI work) +
(RVU PE × GPCI PE) + (RVU
malpractice × GPCI malpractice)] ×
CF.
C. Most Recent Changes to the Fee
Schedule
The CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69726)
implemented changes to the PFS and
other Medicare Part B payment policies.
It also finalized the CY 2008 interim
RVUs and implemented interim RVUs
for new and revised codes for CY 2009
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
to ensure that our payment systems are
updated to reflect changes in medical
practice and the relative value of
services. The CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period also addressed
other policies, as well as certain
provisions of the MIPPA.
As required by the statute, and based
on section 131 of the MIPPA, the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period also announced the following for
CY 2009: the PFS update of 1.1 percent,
the initial estimate for the sustainable
growth rate of 7.4 percent, and the
conversion factor (CF) of $36.0666.
II. Provisions of the Final Regulation
In response to the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33520) we
received approximately 16,500 timely
public comments. These included
comments from concerned citizens,
individual physicians, health care
workers, professional associations and
societies, manufacturers and
Congressmen. The majority of the
comments addressed proposals related
to the MIPPA provisions concerning
teaching anesthesiology and cardiac and
pulmonary rehabilitation, the physician
practice information survey (PPIS), and
the impact of the proposed rule on
specific specialties. To the extent that
comments were outside the scope of the
proposed rule, they are not addressed in
this final rule with comment period.
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense
(PE) Relative Value Units (RVUs)
Practice expense (PE) is the portion of
the resources used in furnishing the
service that reflects the general
categories of physician and practitioner
expenses, such as office rent and
personnel wages but excluding
malpractice expenses, as specified in
section 1848(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Section 121 of the Social Security
Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–432),
enacted on October 31, 1994, required
CMS to develop a methodology for a
resource-based system for determining
PE RVUs for each physician’s service.
Until that time, PE RVUs were based on
historical allowed charges. This
legislation stated that the revised PE
methodology must consider the staff,
equipment, and supplies used in the
provision of a variety of medical and
surgical services in various settings
beginning in 1998. The Secretary has
interpreted this to mean that Medicare
payments for each service would be
based on the relative PE resources
typically involved with furnishing the
service.
The initial implementation of
resource-based PE RVUs was delayed
from January 1, 1998, until January 1,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61743
1999, by section 4505(a) of the BBA. In
addition, section 4505(b) of the BBA
required that the new payment
methodology be phased in over 4 years,
effective for services furnished in CY
1999, and fully effective in CY 2002.
The first step toward implementation of
the statute was to adjust the PE values
for certain services for CY 1998. Section
4505(d) of the BBA required that, in
developing the resource-based PE RVUs,
the Secretary must—
• Use, to the maximum extent
possible, generally-accepted cost
accounting principles that recognize all
staff, equipment, supplies, and
expenses, not solely those that can be
linked to specific procedures and actual
data on equipment utilization.
• Develop a refinement method to be
used during the transition.
• Consider, in the course of notice
and comment rulemaking, impact
projections that compare new proposed
payment amounts to data on actual
physician PE.
In CY 1999, we began the 4-year
transition to resource-based PE RVUs
utilizing a ‘‘top-down’’ methodology
whereby we allocated aggregate
specialty-specific practice costs to
individual procedures. The
specialty-specific PEs were derived from
the American Medical Association’s
(AMA’s) Socioeconomic Monitoring
Survey (SMS). In addition, under
section 212 of the BBRA, we established
a process extending through March 2005
to supplement the SMS data with data
submitted by a specialty. The aggregate
PEs for a given specialty were then
allocated to the services furnished by
that specialty on the basis of the direct
input data (that is, the staff time,
equipment, and supplies) and work
RVUs assigned to each CPT code.
For CY 2007, we implemented a new
methodology for calculating PE RVUs.
Under this new methodology, we use
the same data sources for calculating PE,
but instead of using the ‘‘top-down’’
approach to calculate the direct PE
RVUs, under which the aggregate direct
and indirect costs for each specialty are
allocated to each individual service, we
now utilize a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach to
calculate the direct costs. Under the
‘‘bottom up’’ approach, we determine
the direct PE by adding the costs of the
resources (that is, the clinical staff,
equipment, and supplies) typically
required to provide each service. The
costs of the resources are calculated
using the refined direct PE inputs
assigned to each CPT code in our PE
database, which are based on our review
of recommendations received from the
AMA’s Relative Value Update
Committee (RUC). For a more detailed
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61744
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
explanation of the PE methodology, see
the Five-Year Review of Work Relative
Value Units Under the PFS and
Proposed Changes to the Practice
Expense Methodology proposed notice
(71 FR 37242) and the CY 2007 PFS
final rule with comment period (71 FR
69629).
Note: In section II.A.1 of this final rule
with comment period rule, we discuss the
current methodology used for calculating PE.
In section II.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period, which contains PE
proposals for CY 2010, we summarize and
respond to comments on our proposal to use
data from the AMA Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS) in place of the
AMA’s SMS survey data and supplemental
survey data that is currently used in the PE
methodology, as well as our proposal
concerning equipment utilization
assumptions.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Data Sources for Calculating Practice
Expense
The AMA’s SMS survey data and
supplemental survey data from the
specialties of cardiothoracic surgery,
vascular surgery, physical and
occupational therapy, independent
laboratories, allergy/immunology,
cardiology, dermatology,
gastroenterology, radiology,
independent diagnostic testing facilities
(IDTFs), radiation oncology, and urology
are currently used to develop the PE per
hour (PE/HR) for each specialty. For
those specialties for which we do not
have PE/HR, the appropriate PE/HR is
obtained from a crosswalk to a similar
specialty.
The AMA developed the SMS survey
in 1981 and discontinued it in 1999.
Beginning in 2002, we incorporated the
1999 SMS survey data into our
calculation of the PE RVUs, using a 5year average of SMS survey data. (See
the CY 2002 PFS final rule with
comment period (66 FR 55246).) The
SMS PE survey data are adjusted to a
common year, 2005. The SMS data
provide the following six categories of
PE costs:
• Clinical payroll expenses, which
are payroll expenses (including fringe
benefits) for nonphysician clinical
personnel.
• Administrative payroll expenses,
which are payroll expenses (including
fringe benefits) for nonphysician
personnel involved in administrative,
secretarial, or clerical activities.
• Office expenses, which include
expenses for rent, mortgage interest,
depreciation on medical buildings,
utilities, and telephones.
• Medical material and supply
expenses, which include expenses for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
drugs, x-ray films, and disposable
medical products.
• Medical equipment expenses,
which include depreciation, leases, and
rent of medical equipment used in the
diagnosis or treatment of patients.
• All other expenses, which include
expenses for legal services, accounting,
office management, professional
association memberships, and any
professional expenses not previously
mentioned in this section.
In accordance with section 212 of the
BBRA, we established a process to
supplement the SMS data for a specialty
with data collected by entities and
organizations other than the AMA (that
is, those entities and organizations
representing the specialty itself). (See
the Criteria for Submitting
Supplemental Practice Expense Survey
Data interim final rule with comment
period (65 FR 25664).) Originally, the
deadline to submit supplementary
survey data was through August 1, 2001.
In the CY 2002 PFS final rule (66 FR
55246), the deadline was extended
through August 1, 2003. To ensure
maximum opportunity for specialties to
submit supplementary survey data, we
extended the deadline to submit surveys
until March 1, 2005 in the Revisions to
Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule for CY 2004 final rule
with comment period (68 FR 63196)
(hereinafter referred to as CY 2004 PFS
final rule with comment period).
The direct cost data for individual
services were originally developed by
the Clinical Practice Expert Panels
(CPEP). The CPEP data include the
supplies, equipment, and staff times
specific to each procedure. The CPEPs
consisted of panels of physicians,
practice administrators, and
nonphysicians (for example, RNs) who
were nominated by physician specialty
societies and other groups. There were
15 CPEPs consisting of 180 members
from more than 61 specialties and
subspecialties. Approximately 50
percent of the panelists were
physicians.
The CPEPs identified specific inputs
involved in each physician’s service
provided in an office or facility setting.
The inputs identified were the quantity
and type of nonphysician labor, medical
supplies, and medical equipment. The
CPEP data has been regularly updated
by various RUC committees on PE.
b. Allocation of PE to Services
Currently, the aggregate level
specialty-specific PEs are derived from
the AMA’s SMS survey and
supplementary survey data. For CY
2010, we discuss in section II.A.2. of
this final rule with comment period
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
how a new data source, PPIS, will be
used. To establish PE RVUs for specific
services, it is necessary to establish the
direct and indirect PE associated with
each service.
(i) Direct costs. The direct costs are
determined by adding the costs of the
resources (that is, the clinical staff,
equipment, and supplies) typically
required to provide the service. The
costs of these resources are calculated
from the refined direct PE inputs in our
PE database. These direct inputs are
then scaled to the current aggregate pool
of direct PE RVUs. The aggregate pool
of direct PE RVUs can be derived using
the following formula: (PE RVUs ×
physician CF) × (average direct
percentage from survey PE/HR data)).
(ii) Indirect costs. Currently, the SMS
and supplementary survey data are the
sources for the specialty-specific
aggregate indirect costs used in our PE
calculations. For CY 2010, we discuss in
section II.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period how a new data source,
PPIS, will be used. We then allocate the
indirect costs to the code level on the
basis of the direct costs specifically
associated with a code and the greater
of either the clinical labor costs or the
physician work RVUs. For calculation of
the 2010 PE RVUs, we use the 2008
procedure-specific utilization data
crosswalked to 2010 services. To arrive
at the indirect PE costs—
• We apply a specialty-specific
indirect percentage factor to the direct
expenses to recognize the varying
proportion that indirect costs represent
of total costs by specialty. For a given
service, the specific indirect percentage
factor to apply to the direct costs for the
purpose of the indirect allocation is
calculated as the weighted average of
the ratio of the indirect to direct costs
(based on the survey data) for the
specialties that furnish the service. For
example, if a service is furnished by a
single specialty with indirect PEs that
were 75 percent of total PEs, the indirect
percentage factor to apply to the direct
costs for the purposes of the indirect
allocation would be (0.75/0.25) = 3.0.
The indirect percentage factor is then
applied to the service level adjusted
indirect PE allocators.
• We currently use the specialtyspecific PE/HR from the SMS survey
data, as well as the supplemental
surveys for cardiothoracic surgery,
vascular surgery, physical and
occupational therapy, independent
laboratories, allergy/immunology,
cardiology, dermatology, radiology,
gastroenterology, IDTFs, radiation
oncology, and urology. (Note: For
radiation oncology, the data represent
the combined survey data from the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
American Society for Therapeutic
Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and
the Association of Freestanding
Radiation Oncology Centers (AFROC)).
As discussed in the CY 2008 PFS final
rule with comment period (72 FR
66233), the PE/HR survey data for
radiology is weighted by practice size.
For CY 2010, we discuss in section
II.A.2. of this final rule with comment
period how a new data source, PPIS,
will be used. We incorporate this PE/HR
into the calculation of indirect costs
using an index which reflects the
relationship between each specialty’s
indirect scaling factor and the overall
indirect scaling factor for the entire PFS.
For example, if a specialty had an
indirect practice cost index of 2.00, this
specialty would have an indirect scaling
factor that was twice the overall average
indirect scaling factor. If a specialty had
an indirect practice cost index of 0.50,
this specialty would have an indirect
scaling factor that was half the overall
average indirect scaling factor.
• When the clinical labor portion of
the direct PE RVU is greater than the
physician work RVU for a particular
service, the indirect costs are allocated
based upon the direct costs and the
clinical labor costs. For example, if a
service has no physician work and 1.10
direct PE RVUs, and the clinical labor
portion of the direct PE RVUs is 0.65
RVUs, we would use the 1.10 direct PE
RVUs and the 0.65 clinical labor
portions of the direct PE RVUs to
allocate the indirect PE for that service.
c. Facility and Non-Facility Costs
Procedures that can be furnished in a
physician’s office, as well as in a
hospital or facility setting have two PE
RVUs: facility and non-facility. The
non-facility setting includes physicians’
offices, patients’ homes, freestanding
imaging centers, and independent
pathology labs. Facility settings include
hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers
(ASCs), and skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs). The methodology for calculating
PE RVUs is the same for both facility
and non-facility RVUs, but is applied
independently to yield two separate PE
RVUs. Because the PEs for services
provided in a facility setting are
generally included in the payment to
the facility (rather than the payment to
the physician under the PFS), the PE
RVUs are generally lower for services
provided in the facility setting.
d. Services With Technical Components
(TCs) and Professional Components
(PCs)
Diagnostic services are generally
comprised of two components: a
professional component (PC) and a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
technical component (TC), both of
which may be performed independently
or by different providers. When services
have TCs, PCs, and global components
that can be billed separately, the
payment for the global component
equals the sum of the payment for the
TC and PC. This is a result of using a
weighted average of the ratio of indirect
to direct costs across all the specialties
that furnish the global components, TCs,
and PCs; that is, we apply the same
weighted average indirect percentage
factor to allocate indirect expenses to
the global components, PCs, and TCs for
a service. (The direct PE RVUs for the
TC and PC sum to the global under the
bottom-up methodology.)
e. Transition Period
As discussed in the CY 2007 PFS final
rule with comment period (71 FR
69674), the change to the PE
methodology was implemented over a 4year period. In CY 2010, the transition
period for the change to the PE
methodology is complete and PE RVUs
will be calculated based entirely on the
current methodology.
f. PE RVU Methodology
The following is a description of the
PE RVU methodology. While there are
some changes to the data sources, the
methodology remains the same.
(i) Setup File
First, we create a setup file for the PE
methodology. The setup file contains
the direct cost inputs, the utilization for
each procedure code at the specialty
and facility/non-facility place of service
level, and the specialty-specific survey
PE per physician hour data.
(ii) Calculate the Direct Cost PE RVUs
Sum the costs of each direct input.
Step 1: Sum the direct costs of the
inputs for each service. The direct costs
consist of the costs of the direct inputs
for clinical labor, medical supplies, and
medical equipment. The clinical labor
cost is the sum of the cost of all the staff
types associated with the service; it is
the product of the time for each staff
type and the wage rate for that staff
type. The medical supplies cost is the
sum of the supplies associated with the
service; it is the product of the quantity
of each supply and the cost of the
supply. The medical equipment cost is
the sum of the cost of the equipment
associated with the service; it is the
product of the number of minutes each
piece of equipment is used in the
service and the equipment cost per
minute. The equipment cost per minute
is calculated as described at the end of
this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61745
Apply a BN adjustment to the direct
inputs.
Step 2: Calculate the current aggregate
pool of direct PE costs. To do this,
multiply the current aggregate pool of
total direct and indirect PE costs (that is,
the current aggregate PE RVUs
multiplied by the CF) by the average
direct PE percentage from the SMS and
supplementary specialty survey data.
For CY 2010, we discuss in section
II.A.2. of this final rule with comment
period how a new data source, PPIS,
will be used.
Step 3: Calculate the aggregate pool of
direct costs. To do this, for all PFS
services, sum the product of the direct
costs for each service from Step 1 and
the utilization data for that service.
Step 4: Using the results of Step 2 and
Step 3 calculate a direct PE BN
adjustment so that the aggregate direct
cost pool does not exceed the current
aggregate direct cost pool and apply it
to the direct costs from Step 1 for each
service.
Step 5: Convert the results of Step 4
to an RVU scale for each service. To do
this, divide the results of Step 4 by the
Medicare PFS CF.
(iii) Create the Indirect PE RVUs
Create indirect allocators.
Step 6: Based on the SMS and
supplementary specialty survey data,
calculate direct and indirect PE
percentages for each physician
specialty. For CY 2010, we discuss in
section II.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period how a new data source,
PPIS, will be used.
Step 7: Calculate direct and indirect
PE percentages at the service level by
taking a weighted average of the results
of Step 6 for the specialties that furnish
the service. Note that for services with
TCs and PCs, we are calculating the
direct and indirect percentages across
the global components, PCs, and TCs.
That is, the direct and indirect
percentages for a given service (for
example, echocardiogram) do not vary
by the PC, TC and global component.
Step 8: Calculate the service level
allocators for the indirect PEs based on
the percentages calculated in Step 7.
The indirect PEs are allocated based on
the three components: the direct PE
RVU, the clinical PE RVU, and the work
RVU.
For most services the indirect
allocator is:
indirect percentage * (direct PE RVU/
direct percentage) + work RVU.
There are two situations where this
formula is modified:
• If the service is a global service (that
is, a service with global, professional,
and technical components), then the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61746
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
indirect allocator is: indirect percentage
* (direct PE RVU/direct percentage) +
clinical PE RVU + work RVU.
• If the clinical labor PE RVU exceeds
the work RVU (and the service is not a
global service), then the indirect
allocator is: indirect percentage * (direct
PE RVU/direct percentage) + clinical PE
RVU.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Note: For global services, the indirect
allocator is based on both the work RVU and
the clinical labor PE RVU. We do this to
recognize that, for the professional service,
indirect PEs will be allocated using the work
RVUs, and for the TC service, indirect PEs
will be allocated using the direct PE RVU and
the clinical labor PE RVU. This also allows
the global component RVUs to equal the sum
of the PC and TC RVUs.
For presentation purposes in the
examples in the Table 1, the formulas
were divided into two parts for each
service. The first part does not vary by
service and is the indirect percentage *
(direct PE RVU/direct percentage). The
second part is either the work RVU,
clinical PE RVU, or both depending on
whether the service is a global service
and whether the clinical PE RVU
exceeds the work RVU (as described
earlier in this step.)
Apply a BN adjustment to the indirect
allocators.
Step 9: Calculate the current aggregate
pool of indirect PE RVUs by multiplying
the current aggregate pool of PE RVUs
by the average indirect PE percentage
from the physician specialty survey
data. This is similar to the Step 2
calculation for the direct PE RVUs.
Step 10: Calculate an aggregate pool of
indirect PE RVUs for all PFS services by
adding the product of the indirect PE
allocators for a service from Step 8 and
the utilization data for that service. This
is similar to the Step 3 calculation for
the direct PE RVUs.
Step 11: Using the results of Step 9
and Step 10, calculate an indirect PE
adjustment so that the aggregate indirect
allocation does not exceed the available
aggregate indirect PE RVUs and apply it
to indirect allocators calculated in Step
8. This is similar to the Step 4
calculation for the direct PE RVUs.
Calculate the Indirect Practice Cost
Index.
Step 12: Using the results of Step 11,
calculate aggregate pools of specialtyspecific adjusted indirect PE allocators
for all PFS services for a specialty by
adding the product of the adjusted
indirect PE allocator for each service
and the utilization data for that service.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Step 13: Using the specialty-specific
indirect PE/HR data, calculate specialtyspecific aggregate pools of indirect PE
for all PFS services for that specialty by
adding the product of the indirect PE/
HR for the specialty, the physician time
for the service, and the specialty’s
utilization for the service.
Step 14: Using the results of Step 12
and Step 13, calculate the specialtyspecific indirect PE scaling factors as
under the current methodology.
Step 15: Using the results of Step 14,
calculate an indirect practice cost index
at the specialty level by dividing each
specialty-specific indirect scaling factor
by the average indirect scaling factor for
the entire PFS.
Step 16: Calculate the indirect
practice cost index at the service level
to ensure the capture of all indirect
costs. Calculate a weighted average of
the practice cost index values for the
specialties that furnish the service.
(Note: For services with TCs and PCs,
we calculate the indirect practice cost
index across the global components,
PCs, and TCs. Under this method, the
indirect practice cost index for a given
service (for example, echocardiogram)
does not vary by the PC, TC and global
component.)
Step 17: Apply the service level
indirect practice cost index calculated
in Step 16 to the service level adjusted
indirect allocators calculated in Step 11
to get the indirect PE RVU.
(iv) Calculate the Final PE RVUs.
Step 18: Add the direct PE RVUs from
Step 6 to the indirect PE RVUs from
Step 17.
Step 19: Calculate and apply the final
PE BN adjustment by comparing the
results of Step 18 to the current pool of
PE RVUs. This final BN adjustment is
required primarily because certain
specialties are excluded from the PE
RVU calculation for ratesetting
purposes, but all specialties are
included for purposes of calculating the
final BN adjustment. (See ‘‘Specialties
excluded from ratesetting calculation’’
below in this section.)
(v) Setup File Information
• Specialties excluded from
ratesetting calculation: For the purposes
of calculating the PE RVUs, we exclude
certain specialties such as midlevel
practitioners paid at a percentage of the
PFS, audiology, and low volume
specialties from the calculation. These
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specialties are included for the purposes
of calculating the BN adjustment.
• Crosswalk certain low volume
physician specialties: Crosswalk the
utilization of certain specialties with
relatively low PFS utilization to the
associated specialties.
• Physical therapy utilization:
Crosswalk the utilization associated
with all physical therapy services to the
specialty of physical therapy.
• Identify professional and technical
services not identified under the usual
TC and 26 modifiers: Flag the services
that are PC and TC services, but do not
use TC and 26 modifiers (for example,
electrocardiograms). This flag associates
the PC and TC with the associated
global code for use in creating the
indirect PE RVU. For example, the
professional service code 93010 is
associated with the global code 93000.
• Payment modifiers: Payment
modifiers are accounted for in the
creation of the file. For example,
services billed with the assistant at
surgery modifier are paid 16 percent of
the PFS amount for that service;
therefore, the utilization file is modified
to only account for 16 percent of any
service that contains the assistant at
surgery modifier.
• Work RVUs: The setup file contains
the work RVUs from this proposed rule.
(vi) Equipment cost per minute
The equipment cost per minute is
calculated as:
(1/(minutes per year * usage)) * price
* ((interest rate/(1¥(1/((1 + interest rate)
** life of equipment)))) + maintenance)
Where:
minutes per year = maximum minutes per
year if usage were continuous (that is,
usage = 1); 150,000 minutes.
usage = equipment utilization assumption;
0.9 for certain expensive diagnostic
equipment (see section II.A.2. of this
final rule with comment period rule) and
0.5 for others.
price = price of the particular piece of
equipment.
interest rate = 0.11.
life of equipment = useful life of the
particular piece of equipment.
maintenance = factor for maintenance;
0.05.
Note: To illustrate the PE calculation, in
Table 1 we have used the conversion factor
(CF) of $28.3769 which is the CF effective
January 1, 2010 as published in this final rule
with comment period.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61747
ER25NO09.173
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.174
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61748
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2. PE Revisions for CY 2010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
a. SMS and Supplemental Survey
Background
Currently, we use PE/HR obtained
from the SMS surveys from 1995
through 1999. For several specialties
that collected additional PE/HR data
through a more recent supplemental
survey, we accepted and incorporated
these data in developing current PE/HR
values.
While the SMS survey was not
specifically designed for the purpose of
establishing PE RVUs, we found these
data to be the best available at the time.
The SMS was a multi-specialty survey
effort conducted using a consistent
survey instrument and method across
specialties. The survey sample was
randomly drawn from the AMA
Physician Masterfile to ensure national
representativeness. The AMA
discontinued the SMS survey in 1999.
As required by the BBRA, we also
established a process by which specialty
groups could submit supplemental PE
data. In the May 3, 2000 interim final
rule entitled, Medicare Program; Criteria
for Submitting Supplemental Practice
Expense Survey Data, (65 FR 25664), we
established criteria for acceptance of
supplemental data. The criteria were
modified in the CY 2001 and CY 2003
PFS final rules with comment period
(65 FR 65380 and 67 FR 79971,
respectively). We currently use
supplemental survey data for the
following specialties: cardiology;
dermatology; gastroenterology;
radiology; cardiothoracic surgery;
vascular surgery; physical and
occupational therapy; independent
laboratories; allergy/immunology;
independent diagnostic testing facilities
(IDTFs); radiation oncology; medical
oncology; and urology.
Because the SMS data and the
supplemental survey data are from
different time periods, we have
historically inflated them by the MEI to
help put them on as comparable a time
basis as we can when calculating the PE
RVUs. This MEI proxy has been
necessary in the past due to the lack of
contemporaneous, consistently
collected, and comprehensive
multispecialty survey data.
b. Physician Practice Information
Survey (PPIS)
The AMA has conducted a new
survey, the PPIS, which was expanded
(relative to the SMS) to include
nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) paid
under the PFS. The PPIS, administered
in CY 2007 and CY 2008, was designed
to update the specialty-specific PE/HR
data used to develop PE RVUs.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
The AMA and our contractor, The
Lewin Group (Lewin), analyzed the
PPIS data and calculated the PE/HR for
physician and nonphysician specialties,
respectively. The AMA’s summary
worksheets and Lewin’s final report are
available on the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/. (See AMA PPIS
Worksheets 1–3 and Lewin Group Final
Report PPIS.) We also included a table
in the proposed rule showing the
current indirect PE/HR based on SMS
and supplemental surveys, the PPIS
indirect PE/HR, and the indirect cost
percentages of total costs (74 FR 33530
through 33531).
The PPIS is a multispecialty,
nationally representative, PE survey of
both physicians and NPPs using a
consistent survey instrument and
methods highly consistent with those
used for the SMS and the supplemental
surveys. The PPIS has gathered
information from 3,656 respondents
across 51 physician specialty and health
care professional groups. We believe the
PPIS is the most comprehensive source
of PE survey information available to
date.
As noted, the BBRA required us to
establish criteria for accepting
supplemental survey data. Since the
supplemental surveys were specific to
individual specialties and not part of a
comprehensive multispecialty survey,
we had required that certain precision
levels be met in order to ensure that the
supplemental data was sufficiently
valid, and acceptable for use in the
development of the PE RVUs. Because
the PPIS is a contemporaneous,
consistently collected, and
comprehensive multispecialty survey,
we do not believe similar precision
requirements are necessary and we did
not propose to establish them for the use
of the PPIS data.
For physician specialties, the PPIS
responses were adjusted for nonresponse bias. Non-response bias is the
bias that results when the characteristics
of survey respondents differ in
meaningful ways, such as in the mix of
practice sizes, from the general
population. The non-response
adjustment was developed based on a
comparison of practice size and other
characteristic information between the
PPIS survey respondents and data from
the AMA Masterfile (for physician
specialties) or information from
specialty societies (for non-physician
specialties). For six specialties
(chiropractors, clinical social workers,
nuclear medicine, osteopathic
manipulative therapy, physical therapy,
and registered dietitians) such an
adjustment was not possible due to a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61749
lack of available characteristic data. The
AMA and Lewin have indicated that the
non-response weighting has only a
small impact on PE/HR values.
Under our current policy, various
specialties without SMS or
supplemental survey data have been
crosswalked to other similar specialties
to obtain a proxy PE/HR. For specialties
that were part of the PPIS for which we
currently use a crosswalked PE/HR, we
proposed instead to use the PPIS-based
PE/HR. We also proposed to continue
current crosswalks for specialties that
did not participate in PPIS.
Supplemental survey data on
independent labs, from the College of
American Pathologists, was
implemented for payments in CY 2005.
Supplemental survey data from the
National Coalition of Quality Diagnostic
Imaging Services (NCQDIS),
representing IDTFs, was blended with
supplementary survey data from the
American College of Radiology (ACR)
and implemented for payments in CY
2007. Neither IDTFs, nor Independent
Labs, participated in the PPIS.
Therefore, we proposed to continue
using the current PE/HR that was
developed using their supplemental
survey data.
We did not propose to use the PPIS
data for reproductive endocrinology,
sleep medicine, and spine surgery since
these specialties are not separately
recognized by Medicare and we do not
know how to blend this data with
Medicare recognized specialty data. We
sought comment on this issue.
We did not propose changes to the
manner in which the PE/HR data are
used in the current PE RVU
methodology. We proposed to update
the PE/HR data itself based on the new
survey. We proposed to utilize the PE/
HR developed using PPIS data for all
Medicare recognized specialties that
participated in the survey for payments
effective January 1, 2010. The impact of
using the new PPIS-based PE/HR is
discussed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis in section XIII. of this final
rule with comment period.
The following is a summary of the
public comments received on the PPIS
survey and our responses.
Comment: MedPAC was generally
supportive of the use of the PPIS survey
data, stating:
Ensuring the accuracy of PE payments is
important given that close to half of all
payments under the physician fee schedule
are associated with practice expense. The
Commission has repeatedly raised concerns
that the specialty-specific cost data that CMS
uses to derive PE RVUs are not current for
most specialties, which might lead to
payments becoming inaccurate over time.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61750
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Compared with the multiple data sources
that CMS currently relies on for practice cost
information, the PPIS is a step forward
because: (1) It reflects current practice
patterns and costs; (2) it measures costs of
nearly all physician and nonphysician
specialties; and (3) it uses a standard protocol
for all specialty groups that was designed to
derive PE RVUs. However, CMS should
provide more information about the PPIS’s
response rate and representativeness. We are
also concerned that CMS has not laid out
options for ensuring the accuracy of PE RVUs
in the long term. As a future step, CMS
should consider alternatives for collecting
specialty-specific cost data or options to
decrease the reliance on such data.
Response: We agree with MedPAC
that the PPIS is a step forward compared
to the data sources currently used in the
development of the PE RVUs.
With respect to additional
information on the PPIS survey, the
AMA has continued to respond to
requests from the individual specialty
societies for additional data analysis as
they have done since the PPIS results
were first released. We have also
performed further analyses in response
to comments received on the proposed
rule. The results of these analyses are
available on our Web site (described
later in this section) and have not
changed our conclusion that the PPIS is
the most comprehensive, multispecialty, contemporaneous,
consistently collected PE data source
available.
We also agree with MedPAC that it is
appropriate to consider the future of the
PE RVUs moving forward. We did not
propose any changes to the
methodology in conjunction with the
use of the PPIS data. However, we seek
comments from other stakeholders on
the issues raised by MedPAC for the
future. In particular, we seek comments
regarding MedPAC’s suggestion that we
consider alternatives for collecting
specialty-specific cost data or options to
decrease the reliance on such data. For
example, MedPAC stated that ‘‘CMS
should consider if Medicare or provider
groups should sponsor future data
collection efforts, if participation should
be voluntary (such as surveys) or
mandatory (such as cost reports), and
whether a nationally representative
sample of practitioners would be
sufficient for either a survey or cost
reports.’’ MedPAC also stated that one
option for decreasing the reliance on
specialty-specific cost data would be the
elimination of specialty-specific cost
pools from the method used to derive
indirect PE RVUs. We would address
any changes through future rulemaking.
Comment: In addition to MedPAC,
numerous specialty groups and
individual physicians and practitioners
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
supported utilizing the PPIS data. The
commenters included family practice,
general practice, geriatrics, pediatrics,
internal medicine, obstetrics and
gynecology, general surgery, infectious
disease, emergency medicine,
psychiatry, anesthesiology, colorectal
surgery, dermatology, endocrinology,
gastroenterology, neurology,
neurosurgery, ophthalmology,
optometry, orthopedic surgery,
osteopathic physicians, otolaryngology,
pathology, physical medicine and
rehabilitation, physical and
occupational therapy, plastic surgery,
podiatry, pulmonary disease, spine
surgery, thoracic surgery, transplant
surgery, and vascular surgery.
Those in favor of using the PPIS data
made one or more of the following
points:
• PPIS was a nationally
representative survey providing the
most up-to-date and comprehensive
data available from 51 specialties. It was
a highly scientific and controlled
undertaking, using a survey instrument
that the AMA took great care to design,
test, and implement.
• Seventy organizations contributed
to the costs of the survey and agreed to
take responsibility for communicating
and publicizing the effort in order to
enhance response rates. All groups had
ample time to review and provide input
and received monthly updates on
response rates for their group.
• PPIS followed the exacting criteria
that CMS has established for gathering
this type of data and for producing
results that are acceptable for
submission. The AMA worked with
CMS’s contractor to ensure that all data
met these criteria and were analyzed
consistently across the various
physicians and practitioner specialties.
Any data that did not meet the criteria
such as response outliers were
excluded.
• The vast majority of the data
currently used are completely outdated.
MedPAC and GAO have been calling on
CMS to update PE payments. The
annual update of such data is
inadequate to capture the true changes
in practice costs that physicians have
experienced over the years.
• Supplemental survey data from a
limited number of specialties have
caused significant distortions and
misallocations of PE payments, and
provided an unfair advantage to some
specialties. Many organizations were
unable to submit supplemental survey
data due to the high cost of gathering
the data.
• Concurrently and uniformly
collected data will correct payment
imbalances caused by the supplemental
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
surveys. Due to BN, this leads to a shift
in payment to some specialties at the
expense of others. The new data will
reduce the payment gap between
primary care and other specialties.
• Blending PPIS data with existing
data would preserve distortions and
continue utilization of data that are
more than 10 years old for some groups.
Response: We appreciate the support
of this broad-based and diverse mix of
primary care, surgical, and other
nonsurgical specialties for our proposal.
We agree with the commenters that the
PPIS is the most comprehensive, multispecialty, contemporaneous,
consistently collected PE data source
available.
Comment: There were also many
specialty groups and individual
physicians and practitioners strongly
opposed to the use of the PPIS data. The
commenters included representatives of
the specialties of cardiology, radiation
oncology, medical oncology,
interventional radiology, hematology,
nuclear medicine, urology,
rheumatology, and dieticians. Those
opposed to using the PPIS data made
one or more of the following points:
• Some commenters stated that data
were not collected in a
contemporaneous, consistent, and
comprehensive way;
• Some commenters stated that the
PPIS should be subject to the same level
of analysis as the supplemental surveys
to assess accuracy and precision. The
commenters also indicated that the
survey did not meet the target goal for
useable responses. The commenters
stated that the low response rates, for
some specialties, means that the data are
not representative of the specialties’
PEs. The commenters also stated that
specialty societies should be given the
names of the survey respondents,
especially those that failed to fully
complete the survey, so they could be
contacted;
• Some commenters stated that there
was not adequate transparency in the
PPIS survey process and that there was
insufficient information provided about
the survey methodology and process;
• Some commenters stated that CMS
should withdraw the proposal and take
the time necessary to adequately
examine the data submitted by AMA,
consider changes to the PE
methodology, and solicit public input
on the validity of the data and the most
appropriate way to integrate this data
into the PFS; and
• Some commenters stated that if
PPIS data is used, it should be blended
with supplemental survey data and/or
phased in over a number of years.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: The PPIS uses a consistent
survey instrument and methodology
across all specialty and health care
professional groups. The sample was
drawn from the AMA’s Physician
Masterfile, which is a listing of all
member and non-member physicians in
the United States. The survey was
conducted in conjunction with national
medical specialty societies and other
health care professionals, representing
51 specialties and health professions in
order to maximize the overall response
rate. Respondents could submit
information through multiple
modalities, including telephone, fax,
and Web-based reporting.
The survey was conducted by external
contractors. In 2007 the PPIS project
was contracted to the Gallup
Organization. In late 2007 the AMA
transitioned the survey effort to
dmrkynetec, formally Doane Marketing
Research, to complete the project.
Dmrkynetec conducted the majority of
the specialty level surveys that were
previously implemented by CMS.
Dmrkynetec used the same survey
instruments as did the Gallup
Organization in order that survey data
collected by Gallup could be
appropriately merged in the dmrkynetec
data collection.
The survey methodology was highly
consistent with the prior SMS
methodology because only small
deviations were allowed to
accommodate practice style differences
across the various groups surveyed. The
PPIS was conducted in accordance with
known conventions governing PE
collection activities. One hundred
completed surveys for each specialty
was set as a goal for the PPIS, but was
not a minimum requirement. More than
7,000 surveys were collected for 51
physicians, non MD/DO specialties, and
health professions. For the majority of
specialties, at least 100 surveys were
collected.
The AMA provided specialty groups
with information on the survey
throughout the survey process. Monthly
progress reports were issued on
response rates. Due to confidentiality
agreements with the AMA and
participating specialty groups, raw
survey data was not distributed to CMS
or the specialty groups. However, this
does not mean that analysis was not
performed on the PPIS data.
In conjunction with publication of the
proposed rule, we posted information
on our Web site on physician response
rates, precision and PE/HR. In addition,
we posted Lewin’s report entitled,
‘‘Physician Practice Information Survey
(PPIS) Data Submitted for 2010: NonMD/DO and Health Professionals
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Practice Information’’ (June 19, 2009).
This report includes information on the
PPIS survey process as well as the
methodology for determining the PE/
HR.
As noted earlier in our response to the
MedPAC comment, the AMA has
continued to respond to requests from
the individual specialty societies for
additional data analysis, as they have
done since the PPIS results were first
released. In response to comments
received on the proposed rule, we have
also performed additional analyses of
summary data supplied by the AMA,
the supplemental survey, and
cardiology, urology, and radiology
groups. This additional analysis
indicates that while the PE/HR for these
specialties differs between the data
sources reviewed for certain practice
sizes, these differences do not validate
the commenters’ conclusion that the
PPIS data is invalid. We continue to
believe that the PPIS is the most
appropriate data source available for the
development of resource-based PE
RVUs. To view this analysis, please see
our Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/. (At this Web site,
Go to ‘‘PFS Federal Regulation Notices’’
tab, and then chose ‘‘CMS–1413–P.’’
Lewin’s original report is listed under
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule page.
The additional AMA information and
analysis of the PPIS is available at
https://www.ama-assn.org/go/ppisurvey.
We disagree with some commenters
that the same precision requirements
that applied to the individual specialty
supplemental surveys should apply to
the broad multispecialty
contemporaneous PPIS. Each individual
specialty supplemental survey was
being used alongside the multispecialty
contemporaneous SMS survey data for
all the other specialties. This is not the
case for the PPIS data. We proposed to
use the PPIS data in its entirety for all
Medicare recognized specialties, with
the exception of two supplier specialties
that did not participate in the PPIS.
Precision requirements were
appropriate, and required by the BBRA,
in the context of the selective
acceptance of individual supplemental
surveys, but are not necessary in the
context of the much broader adoption of
the PPIS data.
We also disagree that we should blend
the supplemental survey data with the
PPIS data. One of the advantages of the
PPIS data is precisely that it is
contemporaneous and collected in a
consistent, broad multi-specialty
manner. Blending this data with the
supplemental survey data weakens the
advantage of using the PPIS data, as was
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61751
pointed out by commenters who favored
its use.
However, we do recognize that some
specialties experience significant
payment reductions with the use of the
PPIS data. Given the magnitude of these
payment reductions for some
specialties, we agree with commenters
who suggested a transition to the new
PE RVUs developed using the PPIS data.
Historically, we have provided for 4year transitions when we have
significantly altered the PE
methodology. While we did not propose
any changes to the methodology in the
proposed rule, we are persuaded by
commenters that the use of the new
PPIS data has a sufficiently significant
impact to warrant the use of such a
transition. In light of the comments
received and our past practice, we are
finalizing a 4-year transition (75/25, 50/
50, 25/75, 0/100) from the current PE
RVUs to the PE RVUs developed using
the new PPIS data.
Comment: Some commenters that
supported the use of the PPIS data and
some who opposed its use claimed that
Medicare pays only 51 percent of direct
costs. Commenters maintained that the
PE methodology results in the
underpayment of procedures with high
direct costs, and will shift procedures
from the office to the higher cost
hospital setting.
Response: The purpose of the
resource-based PE methodology is to
develop RVUs within the overall PFS
BN requirements. We are unaware of
any independent analysis that indicates
that Medicare pays 51 percent of direct
costs as a result of these BN
requirements. In the PE methodology,
there is a scaling factor applied in the
development of the direct PE portion of
the PE RVUs and there is a scaling factor
applied in the development of the
indirect PE portion. We believe that
commenters may be misinterpreting the
scaling factor applied in the
development of the direct cost portion
of the PE RVUs.
The PPIS data indicated a significant
decrease in the percentage of PEs that
are attributable to direct PEs and a
corresponding increase in the
percentage that are attributable to
indirect PEs. The incorporation of the
PPIS data, therefore, results in a
decrease in the scaling factor applied in
the development of the direct cost
portion of the PE methodology from its
current value of 0.63 to its new value of
0.51 and a corresponding increase in the
scaling factor applied in development of
the indirect cost portion. As stated
earlier, the PPIS is the most
comprehensive, multi-specialty,
contemporaneous, consistently
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61752
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
collected source of PE data. The PPIS
data indicates that direct costs are a
smaller proportion of total PE costs for
almost every single specialty surveyed
(see Table 2). We are incorporating this
result into our methodology and
disagree with commenters that this
empirically based decrease in the
scaling factor for the direct cost portion
of the PE RVU using the PPIS survey
data is inappropriate.
Comment: The American Society of
Clinical Oncology (ASCO) noted that
section 303 of the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108–173) (MMA)
added section 1848(c)(2)(H) of the Act,
which requires us to use their
supplemental survey submitted in 2003
for oncology drug administration
services.
Response: We have reviewed the
MMA provision and agree that, as
amended, section 1848(c)(2)(H)(i) of the
Act requires that we continue to use the
supplemental survey data for oncology.
We have revised the PE/HR for medical
oncology, hematology, and hematology/
oncology to reflect the continued use of
these supplemental survey data.
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that PPIS data for
reproductive endocrinology, sleep
medicine, and spine surgery should not
be used because they are not separately
recognized specialties by Medicare and
it is difficult to blend this data with data
from specialties that are recognized.
Other commenters disagreed and
recommended weights we could use to
blend the PPIS data with the data from
the recognized specialties for certain
services.
Some commenters encouraged us to
make these Medicare-recognized
specialties because they perform work
that is separate and apart from their
parent specialty, require additional
training, and have separate liability
issues. Other commenters opposed the
recognition of separate specialties for
these groups, indicating that they are
not markedly different from their parent
specialties.
Response: We did not specifically
solicit comments on whether
reproductive endocrinology, sleep
medicine, and spine surgery should be
separately recognized Medicare
specialties, nor did we make such a
proposal. Specialties seeking such
recognition must make a formal request
using our existing process. (See the CMS
Internet-Only Medicare Claims
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Processing Manual, Pub. L. 100–04,
Chapter 26, Section 10.8, Requirements
for Specialty Codes.)
We did consider the comments on
blending in the PPIS data for the above
physician groups as suggested by some
commenters. However, we are more
persuaded by the commenters who
indicated that determining the correct
blend would be difficult. We are
reluctant to assign utilization weights to
the mix of specialties that perform these
services in the absence of actual claims
data. We suggest that the commenters
who wish us to use the PPIS data for
these groups apply for a specialty code
using our normal process. If approved,
the claims data associated with the new
specialty code could be used to
incorporate the PPIS survey data for that
specialty.
Comment: A group of commenters
indicated that they were precluded from
participating in the PPIS. Some
commenters representing portable x-ray
suppliers indicated that an inability to
participate in the PPIS resulted in an
inappropriately low crosswalk for their
specialty to radiology.
Response: We did not exclude any
specialty from participating in PPIS.
Individual specialties made the decision
whether to participate. However, we
agree with the commenters representing
portable x-ray suppliers that radiology
may not be the most appropriate
crosswalk for their specialty given the
relatively low amount of physician time
in the services performed by the
specialty. In light of these comments,
we are changing the PE/HR crosswalk
for portable x-ray suppliers to IDTF, a
specialty similar with respect to the
physician time issue.
Comment: As noted earlier,
commenters representing freestanding
radiation oncology centers are opposed
to the use of the PPIS data. However, if
CMS were to use the PPIS data, these
commenters requested that CMS adjust
the PE/HR used for freestanding
radiation oncology centers by
eliminating the weighting of the data
and by eliminating 21 survey responses
whose physician hour information was
missing from the data and imputed. The
commenters also requested that we
update the weights used to blend the
hospital-based and freestanding
radiation oncology center survey data
based on more recent claims data.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that it would be more
consistent with the methodology used
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for other specialties to remove the 21
survey responses whose physician hour
information was missing from the data
and imputed. We also agree it is more
appropriate to update the weights used
to blend the hospital-based and
freestanding radiation oncology center
survey data based on more recent claims
data. However, we disagree that it is
appropriate to eliminate the weighting
of the survey data, especially with the
21 observations with imputed physician
practice hours removed from the survey
sample respondent mix. Consistent with
the weighting methodology for other
physician specialties, we applied the
AMA Masterfile weights to the data.
More details on our analysis of this
comment can be found on our Web site.
Comment: Some commenters
indicated that since, by statute,
registered dieticians are paid 85 percent
of what a physician would be paid for
providing medical nutrition therapy
services, the PPIS survey data for
registered dieticians should not be used
in calculation of PE RVUs; and that we
should, therefore, base the RVUs for
these services only on the physician
specialties that provide the service.
Response: We agree with commenters
that, under the current PE methodology,
the PPIS survey data for registered
dieticians should not be used in the
calculation of PE RVUs since they are
paid 85 percent of what a physician
would be paid for providing the service.
To include them in the PE calculation
would influence the rate setting to
include what the services would be paid
if performed by registered dieticians and
not strictly on what the payment rate
would be if provided by physicians. We
will crosswalk the specialty of
registered dietician to the ‘‘all
physician’’ PE/HR rate.
In summary, based on the decisions
described above, Table 2 shows the
indirect PE/HR for the specialties that
have PPIS survey data that we are
adopting to calculate the PE RVUs. Also
shown for these specialties is the
previous indirect PE/HR used to
calculate the PE RVUs. Note that for
oncology, clinical laboratories, and
IDTFs we are continuing to use the
supplemental survey data as described
above. Consistent with our past practice,
the previous indirect PE/HRs for these
specialties have been updated to CY
2006 using the MEI to put them on a
comparable basis with the PPIS survey
data.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61753
TABLE 2—INDIRECT PE/HR FOR THE SPECIALTIES THAT HAVE PPIS SURVEY DATA
Previous
indirect
PE/HR
Specialty
All Physicians ...................................................................................................................
Allergy and Immunology ..................................................................................................
Anesthesiology .................................................................................................................
Audiology .........................................................................................................................
Cardiology ........................................................................................................................
Cardiothoracic Surgery ....................................................................................................
Chiropractor .....................................................................................................................
Clinical Laboratory (Billing Independently) ......................................................................
Clinical Psychology ..........................................................................................................
Clinical Social Work .........................................................................................................
Colon & Rectal Surgery ...................................................................................................
Dermatology .....................................................................................................................
Emergency Medicine .......................................................................................................
Endocrinology ..................................................................................................................
Family Medicine ...............................................................................................................
Gastroenterology .............................................................................................................
General Practice ..............................................................................................................
General Surgery ..............................................................................................................
Geriatrics ..........................................................................................................................
Hand Surgery ...................................................................................................................
Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities .......................................................................
Internal Medicine .............................................................................................................
Interventional Pain Medicine ...........................................................................................
Interventional Radiology ..................................................................................................
Medical Oncology ............................................................................................................
Nephrology .......................................................................................................................
Neurology .........................................................................................................................
Neurosurgery ...................................................................................................................
Nuclear Medicine .............................................................................................................
Obstetrics/Gynecology .....................................................................................................
Ophthalmology .................................................................................................................
Optometry ........................................................................................................................
Oral Surgery (Dentist only) ..............................................................................................
Orthopaedic Surgery ........................................................................................................
Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy ..................................................................................
Otolaryngology .................................................................................................................
Pain Medicine ..................................................................................................................
Pathology .........................................................................................................................
Pediatrics .........................................................................................................................
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..............................................................................
Physical Therapy .............................................................................................................
Plastic Surgery .................................................................................................................
Podiatry ............................................................................................................................
Psychiatry ........................................................................................................................
Pulmonary Disease ..........................................................................................................
Radiation Oncology (Hospital Based & Freestanding) ....................................................
Radiology .........................................................................................................................
Rheumatology ..................................................................................................................
Urology .............................................................................................................................
Vascular Surgery .............................................................................................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
c. Equipment Utilization Rate
As part of the PE methodology
associated with the allocation of
equipment costs for calculating PE
RVUs, we currently perform these
calculations with an equipment usage
assumption of 50 percent. In the CY
2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR 38132),
we noted that if the assumed equipment
usage percentage is set too high, the
result would be an insufficient
allowance at the service level for the
practice costs associated with
equipment. If the assumed equipment
usage percentage is set too low, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
$59.04
153.29
19.76
59.04
131.02
61.75
49.60
66.46
29.07
29.07
53.93
158.49
36.85
49.60
52.79
101.30
52.79
53.93
49.60
98.56
466.16
49.60
59.04
118.48
141.84
49.60
66.05
89.64
118.48
69.74
103.28
59.04
96.01
98.56
59.04
96.01
59.04
59.80
51.52
84.92
35.17
99.32
59.04
29.07
44.63
114.00
118.48
84.92
119.57
60.10
result would be an excessive allowance
for the practice costs of equipment at
the service level. We acknowledged that
the current 50 percent usage assumption
does not capture the actual usage rates
for all equipment, but stated that we did
not believe that we had strong empirical
evidence to justify any alternative
approaches.
In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period, we summarized
comments received on this issue.
Commenters’ recommendations about
making adjustments to the 50 percent
utilization rate assumption varied. Some
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Final rule
indirect
PE/HR
86.36
162.68
29.36
72.17
88.04
67.83
65.33
68.32
20.07
17.80
90.84
184.62
38.36
84.39
90.15
96.78
78.59
82.73
54.14
148.78
501.45
84.02
156.79
82.56
145.81
66.00
110.39
115.76
39.80
99.32
170.07
88.02
173.19
131.40
53.93
141.54
122.42
74.98
76.27
110.13
57.26
134.81
74.76
30.10
55.26
165.10
95.60
98.08
97.01
83.98
Previous
indirect %
67
62
56
67
56
68
69
37
90
90
77
70
88
69
62
70
62
77
69
72
50
69
67
58
59
69
74
86
58
67
65
67
71
72
67
71
67
70
62
71
65
67
67
90
76
50
58
71
69
63
Final rule
indirect %
74
67
82
85
65
83
86
37
93
97
80
70
94
73
76
75
69
82
74
77
51
76
70
81
59
80
87
87
77
67
70
77
65
81
93
75
70
74
69
84
84
74
82
94
74
57
71
67
73
73
commenters recommended that we do
nothing until stronger empirical
evidence is available. Other commenters
recommended a decrease in the
utilization assumption while others
recommended an increase in the
utilization assumption. We agreed with
the commenters that the equipment
utilization rate should continue to be
examined for accuracy. We indicated
that we would continue to monitor the
appropriateness of the equipment
utilization assumption, and evaluate
whether changes should be proposed in
light of the data available.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61754
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33532), we acknowledged that since
the publication of the CY 2008 PFS final
rule with comment period, MedPAC
addressed this issue in its March 2009
Report to Congress (see https://
www.medpac.gov/documents/
Mar09_EntireReport.pdf). In part of its
discussion, MedPAC stated:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
In 2006, the Commission sponsored a
survey by NORC of imaging providers in six
markets, which found that MRI and CT
machines are used much more than the 25
hours per week that CMS assumes (Table 2B–
6). According to data from this survey, MRI
scanners are used 52 hours per week, on
average (median of 46 hours), and CT
machines are operated 42 hours per week, on
average (median of 40 hours) (NORC 2006).
Although the survey results are not
nationally representative, they are
representative of imaging providers in the six
markets included in the survey. We also
analyzed data from a 2007 survey of CT
providers by IMV, a market research firm
(IMV Medical Information Division 2008).
IMV data are widely used in the industry and
have also appeared in published studies
(Baker et al. 2008, Baker and Atlas 2004).
Using IMV’s data on 803 nonhospital CT
providers (imaging centers, clinics, and
physician offices), we calculated that the
average provider uses its CT scanner 50
hours per week, which is twice the number
CMS assumes. The IMV survey also found
that nonhospital providers increased the
average number of procedures per CT
machine by 31 percent from 2003 to 2007,
which indicates that providers either used
their machines more hours per day or
performed more scans per hour (IMV Medical
Information Division 2008) (p. 108).
In the proposed rule, we stated that
the studies cited by MedPAC indicated
that the current equipment usage rate
assumption is significantly understated,
especially with respect to the types of
high cost equipment that were the
subject of the studies. The current 50
percent utilization rate translates into
about 25 hours per week out of a 50hour work week. The median value of
46 hours for Magnetic Resonance
Imaging equipment from the first study
cited by MedPAC is equivalent to a
utilization rate of 92 percent on a 50hour week. For Computed Tomography
scanners, averaging the value from the
first study of 40 hours per week and the
value from the second study of 50 hours
per week yields 45 hours and is
equivalent to a 90 percent utilization
rate on a 50-hour work week. Therefore,
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed to increase the equipment
usage rate to 90 percent for all services
containing equipment that cost in
excess of $1 million dollars. We stated
that the studies cited by MedPAC
suggested that physicians and suppliers
would not typically make huge capital
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
investments in equipment that would
only be utilized 50 percent of the time.
We stated that we would continue to
explore data sources regarding the
utilization rates of equipment priced at
less than $1 million dollars, but we did
not propose a change in the usage rate
for this less expensive equipment.
The following is a summary of the
public comments received and our
responses.
Comment: We received comments
supporting our proposal to apply a 90
percent equipment utilization rate to
expensive equipment priced at more
than $1 million and comments opposing
our proposal. MedPAC stated:
‘‘The Commission supports CMS’s
proposal as it applies to diagnostic imaging
machines that cost more than $1 million, and
we encourage CMS to explore increasing the
equipment use factor for diagnostic imaging
machines that cost less than $1 million.
MedPAC did not contemplate applying the
policy to radiation therapy machines.’’
Commenters supporting our proposal
cited the MedPAC studies and the
rationale we provided in the proposed
rule.
Commenters opposing our proposal
stated that the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (BBA) directed CMS to ‘‘utilize, to
the maximum extent practicable,
generally accepted cost accounting
principles which: (1) Recognize all staff,
equipment, supplies and expense, not
just those which can be tied to specific
procedures; and (2) use actual data on
equipment utilization and other key
assumptions.’’ The commenters stated
that the equipment usage proposal
violates this provision of the BBA since
we lacked sufficient empirical
justification for the change. The
commenters indicated that the National
Opinion Research Center survey data,
which was one data source used by
MedPAC, was not nationally
representative, and was never intended
to determine equipment usage rates.
Some commenters referenced
information submitted by the Radiology
Benefit Management Association
(RBMA) based on a survey of its
members. The commenters stated that
the information supported maintaining
a 50 percent utilization usage rate
assumption for diagnostic imaging
equipment. The commenters also stated
that the information indicated
differences in utilization rates between
rural and urban areas and that our
proposal would create access issues,
especially in rural areas.
In MedPAC’s comment letter, it
agreed with CMS that ‘‘decreasing PE
RVUs for expensive diagnostic imaging
services should not affect access to care
in rural areas.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The AMA submitted summary
equipment utilization data from the
PPIS survey on MRI, CT, angiography,
IMRT, and gamma camera. It stated that
although there was a relatively small
sample size, the survey responses
suggest that equipment utilization varies
depending on the type of equipment
involved. The AMA requested that we
allow specialty societies to provide data
supporting lower utilization rates, if
appropriate. It stated that this would
allow for varying equipment utilization
rate assumptions depending on the type
of equipment being used, rather than a
single utilization assumption.
Some commenters indicated that even
if the available data did indicate a
higher utilization rate for certain types
of diagnostic equipment, we should not
apply the change to all types of
expensive diagnostic equipment. For
example, we should not apply the usage
rate to new imaging technology.
Some commenters requested that we
not change the equipment usage rate
assumption to 90 percent for any
equipment until additional data sources
can be identified. The commenters
suggested that the equipment usage rate
policy should not be limited to
increasing usage rate assumptions but
should also include potentially
decreasing equipment usage rate
assumptions when appropriate.
If we were to implement a higher
utilization rate, some commenters
suggested that the change be phased in
over a number of years.
Response: We appreciate all of the
comments received on this issue. At the
time that we published the proposed
rule, we had the data on MRI and CT
from the MedPAC analysis. We
indicated that the MedPAC studies
suggested that physicians and suppliers
would not typically make significant
capital investments in equipment that
would only be utilized 50 percent of the
time. Commenters opposed to our
proposal have questioned both the
validity of the MedPAC analysis for CT
and MRI and extrapolation of this data
to all expensive equipment, particularly
therapeutic equipment. While we are
persuaded by PPIS data on angiography,
IMRT, and Gamma Camera that the
extrapolation of the MRI and CT data to
all expensive equipment may be
inappropriate, we disagree with
commenters who indicated that we do
not have an empirical basis for applying
a 90 percent usage rate to MRIs and CTs.
As described earlier, the MedPAC
analysis was performed on two data
sources for different types of equipment.
The first data source was the survey
done by NORC for MRIs and CTs. The
second data source was the IMV data for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
CT scans. With respect to MRIs and CTs,
we have now also received summary
information from the RBMA and
summary PPIS survey data from the
AMA. The PPIS survey data results for
MRIs (n=97) and CTs (n=86) are
consistent with the findings from the
MedPAC studies on MRIs and CTs.
However, the data from the RBMA (17
members submitted a total of 46 center
surveys) indicates a lower utilization
rate for CT and MRI.
As we have described in section
II.A.2.b. of this final rule with comment,
the PPIS is the best available data source
currently available on PEs. Given the
corroboration of the MedPAC analysis
by the PPIS data, we are confident that
we are using the best data currently
available on the utilization of MRIs and
CTs (90 percent), consistent with the
BBA requirement that we use actual
data on equipment utilization.
We are open to receiving more
comprehensive data than the responses
of 16 RBMA members on this issue from
the RBMA or other members of the
public. We will evaluate any data
submitted for consideration in future
rulemaking.
We continue to agree with the
MedPAC analysis and comment
indicating that decreasing the PE
payments for expensive diagnostic
imaging services should not affect
access to care in rural areas.
We also agree with commenters that
it would be appropriate to transition the
new PE RVUs developed using the
higher 90 percent utilization rate for
MRIs and CTs. As discussed elsewhere
in this final rule, we are providing for
a 4-year transition (25/75, 50/50, 75/25,
100/0) to the new PE RVUs.
As indicated above, we are not
finalizing our proposal to increase the
utilization rate assumption for
expensive equipment other than MRIs
and CTs, including therapeutic
equipment. We are finalizing our
proposal to increase the utilization rate
to 90 percent for expensive diagnostic
equipment priced at more than $1
million.
d. Miscellaneous PE Issues
As we have discussed in the past
rulemaking (see the CY 2007 and CY
2008 PFS final rules with comment
period (71 FR 69647 and 72 FR 66236,
respectively), we continue to have
concerns about the issue of PE RVUs for
services which are utilized 24 hours a
day/7 days a week, such as certain
monitoring systems. For example, the
PE equipment methodology was not
developed with this type of 24/7
equipment in mind. As stated in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33532),
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
we are continuing to analyze the issue
of PEs for services, which are utilized 24
hours a day/7 days a week to identify
any modifications to our methodology
that would address the specific
‘‘constant use’’ issues associated with
these services. Services that are
currently contractor priced in CY 2009
would remain contractor priced in CY
2010. We also indicated that any
proposed changes will be
communicated through future
rulemaking.
Comments: We received three
comments regarding the proposal to
continue to contractor price these
services. All three commenters
supported the establishment of a
national price for cardiac outpatient
telemetry. The commenters also
indicated that they believe they were
the only ones that should be billing
these codes.
Response: We will finalize our
proposal to continue to contractor price
these services in 2010 so that we may
conduct further analysis. Any proposed
changes will be communicated through
future rulemaking.
As discussed in the proposed rule, (74
FR 33532) we received comments
regarding the PE direct cost inputs (for
example, supply costs and the useful
life of the renewable sources) related to
the high dose radiation therapy (HDRT)
and placement CPT codes (CPT codes
77785, Remote afterloading high dose
rate radionuclide brachytherapy; 1
channel, 77786, Remote afterloading
high dose rate radionuclide
brachytherapy; 2–12 channels, 77787,
Remote afterloading high dose rate
radionuclide brachytherapy; over 12
channels). Based on our review of these
codes and comments received, we
requested that the AMA RUC consider
these CPT codes for additional review.
Comment: The AMA RUC reviewed
these CPT codes based on our request
and recommended revisions to the
clinical labor staff type, supplies, and
equipment. The AMA RUC also
recommended further discussion
between the specialty and CMS
regarding a resolution regarding the
useful life of Iridium-192 source. The
AMA RUC and other commenters stated
that the useful life of the Iridium-192
source is 70 to 90 days. However, many
commenters stated that physician
offices enter into 1 year contracts for its
replacement.
Several commenters supported the
AMA RUC’s recommended changes to
the practice expense inputs for these
codes. The commenters agreed that
certain direct PE inputs were previously
omitted.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61755
Response: We accept the AMA RUC’s
recommendations regarding the direct
PE inputs for these CPT codes. Based on
the comments received and further
analysis, we are changing the useful life
of the Iridium-192 source from 5 years
to 1 year and it will be considered as
equipment. We are also revising the
direct PE inputs for clinical labor staff
type, supplies, and equipment.
e. AMA RUC Recommendations for
Direct PE Inputs
The AMA RUC provided
recommendations for PE inputs for the
codes listed in Table 3 (74 FR 33532).
TABLE 3—CODES WITH AMA RUC PE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CPT 1 code
37183
47382
50200
55873
93025
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Description
Remove hepatic shunt (tips).
Percut ablate liver rf.
Biopsy of kidney.
Cryoablate prostate.
Microvolt t-wave assess.
1 CPT codes and descriptions are Copyright
2009 American Medical Association.
In the proposed rule, we stated that
we were in agreement with the AMA
RUC recommendations for the direct PE
inputs for the codes listed in Table 3
and proposed to adopt these for CY
2010.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that it did not appear that we had
adopted the AMA RUC
recommendations for these codes.
Commenters requested that we review
their direct PE inputs to determine if we
had adopted the RUC’s
recommendations.
Response: We have reviewed the
direct PE inputs for these codes and it
appears that some were omitted in error.
We have now updated the PE inputs for
these codes consistent with the RUC
recommendation.
f. Practice Expense for Intranasal
Vaccine Administration Codes (CPT
Codes 90467, 90468, 90473, and 90474)
Comment: We received a comment
from a manufacturer that the payment
for the intranasal vaccine administration
codes (represented by CPT codes 90467,
90468, 90473, and 90474) is
approximately half the rate of the
injected vaccine administration codes
(represented by CPT codes 90465,
90466, 90471, and 90472). The
commenter stated that the apparent
source of the difference is the clinical
staff time inputs of the PE component of
the RVUs for these codes. The
commenter noted that these codes are
used to administer the intranasal form
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61756
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of the influenza vaccine to healthy
individuals between 2 to 49 years of age.
Response: We responded to a similar
comment in the CY 2008 PFS final rule
with comment period (72 FR 66242). At
that time, we stated that a manufacturer
had expressed concern that the PE RVUs
for intranasal administration of vaccines
(CPT codes 90467/8 and 90473/4) are
inappropriately low and should be
equalized to the injectable
immunization administration PE RVUs.
The commenter stated that when the
codes were re-evaluated in 2004 there
was not enough experience in the office
to fully understand the time associated
with providing an intranasal vaccine.
The commenter stated that specialty
organizations have indicated that this
issue is worth reexamining and
indicated that they had been encouraged
to communicate with the AMA RUC in
support of equalizing payment for the
codes. In our response we stated that we
appreciated the commenter’s concerns
about the disparity in the PE RVUs for
the intranasal and injectable
immunization administration
procedures. To the extent that these
concerns related to the direct PE inputs,
we encouraged the commenters to work
with the specialty organizations to
determine if it was appropriate to bring
these codes forward for further AMA
RUC review.
The AMA RUC reviewed the
immunization administration services
(CPT codes 90465 through 90474) in
February 2008. It recommended similar
PE inputs for the intramuscular and
intranasal immunization administration
codes. In the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 38512), we
stated that we accepted all of the AMA
RUC recommendations, except for
inclusion of the clinical staff time
related to quality activities for the
codes. In the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69736), we
stated that we had reexamined the issue
and that there was evidence to support
the inclusion of QA time in this case.
We revised the PE database to reflect
QA time for these codes.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs): Locality Discussion
1. Update—Expiration of 1.0 Work GPCI
Floor
Section 1848(e)(1)(A) of the Act
requires us to develop separate
Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs) to measure resource cost
differences among localities compared
to the national average for each of the
three fee schedule components (that is,
work, PE and malpractice). While
requiring that the PE and malpractice
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
GPCIs reflect the full relative cost
differences, section 1848(e)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Act requires that the physician work
GPCIs reflect only one-quarter of the
relative cost differences compared to the
national average.
Section 1848(e)(1)(C) of the Act
requires us to review and, if necessary,
adjust the GPCIs at least every 3 years.
This section also specifies that if more
than 1 year has elapsed since the last
GPCI revision, we must phase in the
adjustment over 2 years, applying only
one-half of any adjustment in each year.
As discussed in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR
69740), the CY 2009 adjustment to the
GPCIs reflected the fully implemented
fifth comprehensive GPCI update. We
noted that a 1.0 work GPCI floor was
enacted and implemented for CY 2006,
and was set to expire on June 30, 2008.
We also noted that section 134 of the
MIPPA extended the 1.0 work GPCI
floor from July 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2009. Additionally,
section 1848(e)(1)(G) of the Act, as
amended by section 134(b) of the
MIPPA, set a permanent 1.5 work GPCI
floor in Alaska for services furnished
beginning January 1, 2009. Therefore, as
required by the MIPPA, beginning on
January 1, 2010, the 1.0 work GPCI floor
will be removed. However, the 1.5 work
GPCI floor for Alaska will remain in
place. See Addenda D and E of this final
rule for the GPCIs and summarized
geographic adjustment factors (GAFs),
respectively.
Comment: A few commenters urged
us to make the 1.0 work GPCI floor
permanent.
Response: With regard to the 1.0 work
GPCI floor, we do not have the authority
to extend this provision beyond
December 31, 2009. As explained in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33533), section 134 of the MIPPA only
extended the 1.0 work GPCI floor from
July 1, 2008, through December 31,
2009.
2. Payment Localities
a. Background
As stated above in this section,
section 1848(e)(1)(A) of the Act requires
us to develop separate GPCIs to measure
resource cost differences among
localities compared to the national
average for each of the three fee
schedule components (this is, work, PE,
and malpractice). Payments under the
PFS are based on the relative resources
involved in furnishing physicians’
services, and are adjusted for differences
in relative resource costs among
payment localities using the GPCIs. As
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a result, PFS payments vary between
localities.
The current PFS locality structure was
developed and implemented in 1997.
There are currently 89 localities
including 37 higher-cost areas; 16 Rest
of State areas (comprising the remaining
counties not located in a higher-cost
area within a State); 34 Statewide areas;
and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
which are designated as ‘‘territorywide’’ localities. The development of
the current locality structure is
described in detail in the CY 1997 PFS
proposed rule (61 FR 34615) and the
subsequent final rule (61 FR 59494).
As we have frequently noted, any
changes to the locality configuration
must be made in a budget neutral
manner within a State and can lead to
significant redistributions in payments.
For many years, we have not considered
making changes to localities without the
support of a State medical association in
order to demonstrate consensus for the
change among the professionals whose
payments would be affected (with some
increasing and some decreasing).
However, we have recognized that, over
time, changes in demographics or local
economic conditions may lead us to
conduct a more comprehensive
examination of existing payment
localities.
Payment Locality Approaches Discussed
in the CY 2008 PFS Proposed Rule
For the past several years, we have
been involved in discussions with
California physicians and their
representatives about recent shifts in
relative demographics and economic
conditions among a number of counties
within the current California payment
locality structure. In the CY 2008 PFS
proposed and final rules with comment
period, we described three potential
options for changing the payment
localities in California (72 FR 38139 and
72 FR 66245, respectively).
After reviewing the comments on
these options, we decided not to
proceed with implementing any of them
at that time. We explained that there
was no consensus among the California
medical community as to which, if any,
of the options would be most
acceptable. We also received
suggestions from the Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission (MedPAC) for
developing changes in payment
localities for the entire country and
other States expressed interest in having
their payment localities reconfigured as
well. In addition, other commenters
wanted us to consider a national
reconfiguration of localities rather than
just making changes one State at a time.
Because of the divergent views
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
expressed in comments, we explained
in the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period that we intended to
conduct a thorough analysis of potential
approaches to reconfiguring localities
and would address this issue again in
future rulemaking.
Interim Study of Alternative Payment
Localities Under the PFS
As a follow-up to the CY 2008 PFS
final rule with comment period, we
contracted with Acumen, LLC
(Acumen), to conduct a preliminary
study of several options for revising the
payment localities on a nationwide
basis. The contractor’s interim report
was posted on the CMS Web site on
August 21, 2008, and we requested
comments from the public. The report
entitled, ‘‘Review of Alternative GPCI
Payment Locality Structures,’’ is still
accessible from the CMS PFS Web page
under the heading ‘‘Interim Study of
Alternative Payment Localities under
the PFS.’’ The report may also be
accessed directly from the following
link: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/
10_Interim_Study.asp#TopOfPage. We
accepted comments on the interim
report through November 3, 2008. The
alternative locality configurations
discussed in the report are described
briefly below in this section.
Option 1: CMS Core Based Statistical
Area (CBSA) Payment Locality
Configuration
This option uses the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB’s)
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
designations for the payment locality
configuration. MSAs would be
considered as urban CBSAs.
Micropolitan Areas (as defined by OMB)
and rural areas would be considered as
non-urban (rest of State) CBSAs. This
approach would be consistent with the
inpatient hospital prospective payment
system (IPPS) pre-reclassification CBSA
assignments and with the geographic
payment adjustments used in other
Medicare payment systems. This option
would increase the number of localities
from 89 to 439.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Option 2: Separate High Cost Counties
From Existing Localities (Separate
Counties)
Under this approach, higher cost
counties are removed from their existing
locality structure and they would each
be placed into their own locality. This
option would increase the number of
localities from 89 to 214 using a 5
percent GAF differential to separate
high cost counties.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Option 3: Separate MSAs From
Statewide Localities (Separate MSAs)
This option begins with Statewide
localities and creates separate localities
for higher cost MSAs (rather than
removing higher cost counties from
their existing locality as described in
option 2). This option would increase
the number of localities from 89 to 130
using a 5 percent GAF differential to
separate high cost MSAs.
Option 4: Group Counties Within a State
Into Locality Tiers Based on Costs
(Statewide Tiers)
This option creates tiers of counties
(within each State) that may or may not
be contiguous but share similar practice
costs. This option would increase the
number of localities from 89 to 140
using a 5 percent GAF differential to
group similar counties into Statewide
tiers.
Additionally, as discussed in the
interim locality study report, our
contractor, Acumen, applied a
‘‘smoothing’’ adjustment to the current
PFS locality structure, as well as to each
of the alternative locality configurations
(except option 4: Statewide Tiers). The
‘‘smoothing’’ adjustment was applied to
mitigate large payment differences (or
payment ‘‘cliffs’’) between adjacent
counties. Since large payment
differences between adjacent counties
could influence a physician’s decision
on a practice location (and possibly
impact access to care), the ‘‘smoothing’’
adjustment was applied to ensure that
GAF differences between adjacent
counties do not exceed 10 percent. (For
more information on the ‘‘smoothing’’
adjustment see the interim locality
study report on the PFS Web page via
the link provided above).
b. Summary of Public Comments on
Interim Locality Study Report
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (73
FR 38514), we encouraged interested
parties to submit comments on the
options presented both in the proposed
rule and in the interim report posted on
our Web site. We also requested
comments and suggestions on other
potential alternative locality
configurations (in addition to the
options described in the report).
Additionally, we requested comments
on the administrative and operational
issues associated with the various
options under consideration. We also
emphasized that we would not be
proposing any changes to the current
PFS locality structure for CY 2009 and
that we would provide extensive
opportunities for public comment before
proposing any change.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61757
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33533), we noted that approximately
200 industry comments were submitted
on the alternative locality options
discussed in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
rule and on the interim locality study
report. Comments were submitted from
various specialty groups, medical
societies, state medical associations,
individual practitioners, and
beneficiaries. Commenters generally
commended us for acknowledging the
need to reconfigure PFS payment
localities and expressed support for our
study of alternative locality
configurations. Some urged us to
expedite any changes while other
commenters requested that we take a
cautious approach.
Several commenters who supported
the adoption of an MSA-based PFS
locality structure suggested that option
3 could be used as a transition to the
CMS CBSA locality configuration
(option 1). Many commenters from the
State of California supported option 3
(Separate High Cost MSAs) because the
commenters believe it would improve
payment accuracy (over the current
locality configuration) and mitigate
possible payment reductions to rural
areas as compared to option 1 (CMS
CBSA) and option 4 (Statewide Tiers.
Because of the payment reductions to
rural areas, most commenters did not
support option 4 (Statewide Tiers).
Many commenters also acknowledged
the significant redistribution of
payments that would occur under each
option and requested that we minimize
the payment discrepancy between urban
and rural areas to ensure continued
access to services. One medical
association stated that ‘‘budget neutral
redistributions would only exacerbate
an already flawed and under-funded
Medicare PFS’’ and suggested that
States with a Statewide locality be given
the option of remaining a Statewide
locality. The commenter also requested
that we continue our policy of allowing
any State the option of converting to a
Statewide locality.
For a more detailed discussion of the
comments submitted on the interim
locality study, see the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33534).
We did not make a specific proposal
for changing the PFS locality structure
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule. As
noted by the commenters and reflected
in the report, significant payment
redistribution would occur if a
nationwide change in the PFS locality
configuration were undertaken. All four
of the potential alternative payment
locality configurations reviewed in the
report would increase the number of
localities and separate higher cost,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61758
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
typically urban areas from lower cost,
typically rural ‘‘Rest of State’’ areas. In
general, payments to urban areas would
increase while rural areas would see a
decrease in payment under each of the
options studied because they would no
longer be grouped with higher cost
‘‘urbanized’’ areas. We intend to
continue our review of the suggestions
made by the commenters and consider
the impact of each of the potential
alternative locality configurations.
Comment: We received some
comments on the locality discussion
from various specialty groups and
medical societies. A few commenters
expressed support for our decision to
defer proposing changes to the PFS
locality reconfiguration and
recommended that we continue
pursuing a cautious approach. One State
Medical Association stated that it is
hopeful that the Congress will provide
a method to update all payment
localities in a manner that prevents cuts
to payments in lower-cost counties.
However, in the event the Congress does
not provide additional funding to hold
lower cost counties harmless, the
commenter supports a PFS locality
configuration based on MSAs. Another
commenter noted that the redistribution
of payments could have a negative
impact on access to care. The
commenter stated that geographic
location should not be a detriment as to
whether a physician can provide care to
a Medicare beneficiary. One specialty
group stated that changes in localities
should only be made to improve the
relative accuracy of Medicare payment.
In the event we make a proposal to
change the PFS locality structure, the
commenter urged us to provide
sufficient data for the public to ascertain
the impact on specific geographic areas.
Response: We agree that a nationwide
locality reconfiguration requires a
cautious approach and will carefully
consider the commenter’s suggestion
regarding an MSA-based locality
configuration. We would also like to
thank the public again for the many
thoughtful comments on the interim
locality study report entitled, ‘‘Review
of Alternative GPCI Payment Locality
Structures’’. A final report will be
posted to the CMS Web site after further
review of the studied alternative locality
approaches. As explained in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule, we are not
proposing changes in the PFS locality
structure at this time. In the event we
decide to make a specific proposal for
changing the locality configuration, we
would provide data on the impact of the
changes. We would also provide
extensive opportunities for public input
(for example, Town Hall meetings or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Open Door Forums, as well as
opportunities for public comments
afforded by the rulemaking process).
C. Malpractice Relative Value Units
(RVUs)
1. Background
Section 1848(c) of the Act requires
that each service paid under the PFS be
comprised of three components: Work,
PE, and malpractice. From 1992 to 1999,
malpractice RVUs were charge-based,
using weighted specialty-specific
malpractice expense percentages and
1991 average allowed charges.
Malpractice RVUs for new codes after
1991 were extrapolated from similar
existing codes or as a percentage of the
corresponding work RVU. Section
4505(f) of the BBA required us to
implement resource-based malpractice
RVUs for services furnished beginning
in 2000. Initial implementation of
resource-based malpractice RVUs
occurred in 2000. The statute also
requires that we review, and if
necessary adjust, RVUs no less often
than every 5 years. The first review and
update of resource based malpractice
RVUs was addressed in the CY 2005
PFS final rule (69 FR 66263). Minor
modifications to the methodology were
addressed in the CY 2006 PFS final rule
(70 FR 70153). In the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule, we proposed to
implement the second review and
update of malpractice RVUs.
2. Methodology for the Revision of
Resource-Based Malpractice RVUs
The proposed malpractice RVUs were
developed by Acumen, LLC (Acumen)
under contract to us (74 FR 33537).
The methodology used in calculating
the proposed second review and update
of resource-based malpractice RVUs
largely parallels the process used in the
CY 2005 update. The calculation
requires information on malpractice
premiums, linked to the physician work
conducted by different specialties that
furnish Medicare services. Because
malpractice costs vary by State and
specialty, the malpractice premium
information must be weighted
geographically and across specialties.
Accordingly, the malpractice expense
RVUs that we proposed are based upon
three data sources:
• Actual CY 2006 and CY 2007
malpractice premium data.
• CY 2008 Medicare payment data on
allowed services and charges.
• CY 2008 Geographic adjustment
data for malpractice premiums.
Similar to the previous update of the
resource-based malpractice expense
RVUs, we proposed to revise the RVUs
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
using specialty-specific malpractice
premium data because they represent
the actual malpractice expense to the
physician. In addition, malpractice
premium data are widely available
through State Departments of Insurance.
We proposed to use actual CY 2006 and
CY 2007 malpractice premium data
because they are the most current data
available (CY 2008 malpractice
premium data were not consistently
available during the data collection
process). Accounting for market share,
three fourths of all included rate filings
were implemented in CY 2006 and CY
2007. The remaining rate filings were
implemented in CY 2003 through CY
2005 but still effective in CY 2006 and
CY 2007. Carriers submit rate filings to
their State Departments of Insurance
listing the premiums and other features
of their coverage. The rate filings
include an effective date, which is the
date the premiums go into effect. Some
States require premium changes to be
approved before their effective date;
others just require the rate filings to be
submitted. We attempted to capture at
least 2 companies and at least 50
percent of the market share, starting
with the largest carriers in a State.
The primary determinants of
malpractice liability costs continue to be
physician specialty, level of surgical
involvement, and the physician’s
malpractice history. We collected
malpractice premium data from 49
States and the District of Columbia for
all physician specialties represented by
major insurance providers. Rate filings
were not available through Departments
of Insurance in Mississippi or Puerto
Rico. Premiums were for $1 million/$3
million, mature, claims-made policies
(policies covering claims made, rather
than services furnished during the
policy term). A $1 million/$3 million
liability limit policy means that the
most that would be paid on any claim
is $1 million and that the most that the
policy would pay for several claims over
the timeframe of the policy is $3
million. We collected data from
commercial and physician-owned
insurers and from joint underwriting
associations (JUAs). A JUA is a State
government-administered risk pooling
insurance arrangement in areas where
commercial insurers have left the
market. Adjustments were made to
reflect mandatory surcharges for patient
compensation funds (PCFs) (funds to
pay for any claim beyond the statutory
amount, thereby limiting an individual
physician’s liability in cases of a large
suit) in States where PCF participation
is mandatory. We sought to collect
premium data representing at least 50
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
percent of physician malpractice
premiums paid in each State as
identified by State Departments of
Insurance and by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners
(NAIC).
Rather than select the top 20
physician specialties as we did when
the malpractice RVU were originally
established and updated, we included
premium information for all physician
and surgeon specialties, and risk
classifications available in the collected
rate filings. Most insurance companies
provided crosswalks from insurance
service office (ISO) codes to named
specialties; we matched these
crosswalks to CMS specialty codes. We
also preserved information obtained
regarding surgery classes, which are
categorizations that affect premium
rates. For example, many insurance
companies grouped general practice
physicians into nonsurgical, minorsurgical and major-surgical classes, each
with different malpractice premiums.
Some companies provided additional
surgical subclasses; for example,
distinguishing general practice
physicians that conducted obstetric
procedures, which further impacted
malpractice rates. We standardized this
information to CMS specialty codes.
We proposed a resource based
methodology for developing malpractice
RVUs for technical component (TC)
services (for example diagnostic tests).
Currently, the MP RVUs for TC services
and the TC portion of global services are
based on historical allowed charges and
have not been made resource based due
to a lack of available malpractice
premium data for nonphysician
suppliers. Over the last few years, we
have requested malpractice premium
data for nonphysician suppliers, but had
not received any data prior to last year.
In response to our request in last year’s
rulemaking cycle, one commenter did
provide information on one of the
largest insurance companies that
provides liability insurance for medical
physicists employed by imaging
facilities. After our contractor, Acumen,
verified the medical physicist premium
information submitted in response to
last year’s proposed rule, we proposed
to use the medical physicist premium
data as a proxy for the malpractice
premiums paid by all entities providing
TC services; primarily independent
diagnostic testing facilities (IDTFs).
Other than the change in methodology
for developing malpractice RVUs for TC
services, our proposed methodology for
updating malpractice RVUs
conceptually followed the same
approach, with some minor refinements,
used to originally develop the resource
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
based malpractice RVUs in CY 2000 and
used in the CY 2005 update. These
refinements included an expansion in
the malpractice premium data collection
to include additional specialties, a
distinction between major and minor
surgical risk factors, and a proposal to
use the malpractice risk factor of the
specialty that performs a given service
the most (dominant specialty) for
services with less than 100 occurrences.
We solicited comments on our proposed
methodology for updating the
malpractice RVUs and posted the
Acumen report, ‘‘Interim Report on
Malpractice RVUs for the CY 2010
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule
Proposed Rule’’ on the CMS Web site.
The interim report on Malpractice RVUs
for the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule and
Malpractice premium amounts and risk
factors by specialty, which was
produced by Acumen, LLC under
contract to CMS, is accessible from the
CMS PFS Web page under the heading
‘‘Interim Report on Malpractice RVUs
for the CY 2010 Medicare PFS Proposed
rule.’’ The report and malpractice
premiums may also be accessed directly
on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
05_Malpractice_Report.asp#TopOfPage.
A more detailed explanation of our
proposed malpractice RVU update can
be found in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33537).
We received over 250 industry
comments on the CY 2010 proposed
malpractice RVU update.
Comment: Many commenters
commended us for employing an
expanded data collection that included
premium information for all physician
specialties, rather than just the top 20
Medicare physician specialties.
Commenters also applauded our use of
the most current PLI premium data
available from State filings.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the use of the most
current PLI data and the expanded data
collection is appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the use of medical physicist
data as a proxy for developing
malpractice RVUs for TC services. The
commenters expressed their belief that
using medical physicist data provide a
better reflection of PLI premiums paid
by entities furnishing TC services than
the current charge-based approach or
cross-walking to physician specialties.
Many commenters did not support the
proposed change to resource-based MP
RVUs for TC services because premium
amounts paid by medical physicists
were used as a proxy for all entities
furnishing TC services. The commenters
objected to our proposed use of medical
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61759
physicist data, stating that the use of
this data will result in inappropriately
low MP RVUs for the affected services.
The commenters indicated that we
should use premium data from the
suppliers of these TC services, such as
IDTFs and audiologists. Some
commenters requested that we work
with the Radiology Business
Management Association (RBMA) to
obtain PLI premium information for
IDTFs. Other suppliers of TC services,
including suppliers of imaging services
and remote cardiac monitoring services,
also submitted liability policy
information. Several commenters
requested that we use the current
charge-based malpractice RVUs until
data from TC suppliers can be collected.
Response: We appreciate all the
comments received on this issue. While
we agree with the commenters who
stated that the medical physicist data
provide a better reflection of PLI
premiums paid by entities furnishing
TC services than the current chargebased approach or crosswalking to
physician specialties, we also agree with
the commenters who indicated that we
should use premium data from the
suppliers of these services, if the data
are available and meet the same
standards as the other premium data
collected for use in the development of
the malpractice RVUs. As noted earlier,
we have repeatedly requested PLI data
sources for suppliers of TC services. Our
proposal for TC services was based on
the first verifiable data source provided
to us. In the comment period,
alternative PLI sources were
recommended for use with the TC
services. In some circumstances, the
information submitted by the
commenters included insurance
coverage beyond the scope of the
malpractice RVUs (for example,
property liability, errors and omissions
liability) and/or coverage limits beyond
the $1 million/$3 million coverage
malpractice premium collection
parameters used for professional
services. However, these same
commenters also submitted the names
of several insurance companies who
provide malpractice insurance for
IDTFs. We contacted these insurance
companies in an attempt to collect
premium data for the suppliers of TC
services. We were able to verify the
premium information for IDTFs
consistent with the information
collected for physician specialties.
Therefore, we are using this verified
premium data in the calculation of the
malpractice RVUs for TC services.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that all services have some level of
malpractice risk and that it was
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61760
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
inappropriate for CMS to allow
rounding to result in zero malpractice
RVUs for some services.
Response: After considering the
comments on this issue, we agree that
it would be inappropriate for services to
receive zero payment for malpractice
due to rounding. These services will be
assigned 0.01 malpractice RVUs for CY
2010.
Comment: One commenter did not
support the use of work RVUs to
account for differences in risk-of-service
for drug administration services and
that these services were being
inappropriately penalized in the
malpractice risk allocation.
Response: When developing the
current resource-based PE RVU
methodology, we received similar
comments since the work RVUs are also
a component of the indirect PE
allocation. In response to those
comments, we modified the resourcebased PE methodology to allow the
allocation to be done using the greater
of the clinical labor involved in the
service or the work RVUs. In light of
similar comments on this issue in the
malpractice allocation, we will make a
similar modification. Specifically, we
will use the greater of the clinical labor
involved in the service or the work
RVUs in the malpractice allocation.
Comment: The AMA RUC and other
commenters requested that we use the
generally lower malpractice survey data
from the Physician Practice Information
Survey (PPIS) for NPPs instead of
crosswalking NPPs to the lowest
physician specialty (allergy/
immunology). One commenter also
noted that the average premiums
collected for diagnostic radiology were
lower than the average reported
premium from the AMA PPIS data.
Response: The resource-based
malpractice RVUs are based on
verifiable PLI premium data. We do not
believe it would be appropriate to base
the malpractice RVUs for nonphysician
specialties or selected specialties on
survey data and use premium data for
all other specialties. Therefore, we do
not agree with the commenters who
suggested the use of survey data for
NPPs or selected specialties.
Comment: The AMA RUC and two
other commenters requested that we
crosswalk gynecologic oncology to
general surgery and surgical oncology
(instead of crosswalking it to medical
oncology) because gynecologic
oncologists are predominantly cancer
surgeons.
Response: We agree with the
commenters and will crosswalk
gynecologic oncology to general surgery
premium data.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Comment: Some commenters raised
questions about our proposal to
crosswalk maxillofacial surgery and oral
surgery to allergy/immunology. The
commenters suggested that we use PLI
data collected from the American
Association of Maxillofacial Surgery
(AAOMS) or the PPIS data instead of
crosswalking to the lowest physician
specialty.
Response: As noted earlier, the
resource-based malpractice RVUs are
based on verifiable premium data. We
do not agree with the commenters who
suggested the use of unverified
maxillofacial surgery and oral surgery
PLI information. However, we do agree
that it would be more appropriate to use
a surgical specialty’s premium data
rather than allergy/immunology
premium data for surgical specialties.
Therefore, we will crosswalk these
specialties to the similar specialty of
plastic surgery.
Comment: Some commenters did not
support using the global surgery
indicator for assigning the major or
minor risk factor to surgical procedures.
The commenters stated that using this
methodology for determining the
surgical class will not adequately
address all the instances in which a
surgical procedure should be classified
as major. The commenters requested
that we work with PLI insurance
companies and the AMA RUC to
determine a more comprehensive
definition of major and minor surgical
classifications. One commenter
requested that we assign the surgical
risk factor to injection procedures
performed during cardiac
catheterization as described by CPT
codes 93501 through 93572.
Response: For the original
implementation of resource-based MP
RVUs (CY 2000), we assigned one of two
risk factors to each service based on
code range: surgery and nonsurgery (the
surgery risk factor did not distinguish
between major and minor). This
methodology of assigning risk factors to
specific services was also used in the
first Five-Year Review. For the second
malpractice RVU update, we proposed
to assign each service code to one of the
following three risk factors:
Nonsurgical; minor surgical; and major
surgical (74 FR 33539). Risk factor
classes for each service were assigned
based on procedure code ranges and
whether or not the service had a 90-day
global period. The 90-day global period
was used to assign surgical codes to
major surgery.
After consideration of the comments,
we will not finalize our proposal but
will continue to use our current
approach for assigning risk factors to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
individual services while we study this
issue further. We will consider the
request to assign the surgical risk factor
to injection procedures as part of our
further study and would propose any
changes through future rulemaking.
As is done under the current
methodology, we will continue to assign
each service to either a nonsurgical or
surgical risk factor based on CPT code
ranges: Surgery (CPT code range 10000
through 69999; 92980 through 92998;
93501 through 93536; 92973 through
92974; 93501 through 93533; 93580
through 93581; 93600 through 93613;
93650 through 93652; 92975; 92980
through 92998; 93617 through 93641);
and nonsurgery (all other CPT codes).
Consistent with current practice, the
surgery risk factor would not
distinguish between major and minor.
Comment: While commenters agreed
with most of our proposed claims based
dominant specialty designations for
codes with less than 100 allowed
services, the commenters disagreed with
our proposal for some services. The
commenters believe that the claims have
been miscoded, resulting in erroneous
specialty designations.
Response: Service specific
malpractice RVUs are determined based
on the weighted average risk factor(s) of
the specialties that furnish the service.
For rarely-billed Medicare services (that
is, when allowed services are less than
100), we proposed to use the risk factor
of the dominant specialty as reflected in
our claims data. In the past, we had
used all the specialties performing these
low volume services as reflected in our
claims data. Approximately 2,000
services met the criteria for ‘‘low
volume.’’ The dominant specialty for
each ‘low volume’ service was
determined from CY 2008 Medicare
claims data.
By using the dominant specialty from
our claims data to assign the specialty
for these low volume services, we
attempted to strike a balance between
our preference for the empirical,
objective use of all of our claims data in
the development of the malpractice
RVUs and the desire of commenters to
override our claims data for these low
volume services using less objective
criteria. After careful consideration of
the comments, we continue to believe
that a more balanced approach between
the complete reliance on all of the
specialties in our claims data and the
subjective review of each low volume
service is the most appropriate way of
approaching the development of
malpractice RVUs for these low volume
services. We disagree with the
commenters that we should override the
dominant specialty from the claims data
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
with the recommended specialty.
Therefore, we will finalize our proposal
to use Medicare claims data to assign a
dominant specialty to low volume
services.
D. Medicare Telehealth Services
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Requests for Adding Services to the
List of Medicare Telehealth Services
Section 1834(m)(4)(F) of the Act
defines telehealth services as
professional consultations, office visits,
and office psychiatry services, and any
additional service specified by the
Secretary. In addition, the statute
requires us to establish a process for
adding services to or deleting services
from the list of telehealth services on an
annual basis.
In the December 31, 2002 Federal
Register (67 FR 79988), we established
a process for adding services to or
deleting services from the list of
Medicare telehealth services. This
process provides the public with an
ongoing opportunity to submit requests
for adding services. We assign any
request to make additions to the list of
Medicare telehealth services to one of
the following categories:
• Category #1: Services that are
similar to professional consultations,
office visits, and office psychiatry
services. In reviewing these requests, we
look for similarities between the
requested and existing telehealth
services for the roles of, and interactions
among, the beneficiary, the physician
(or other practitioner) at the distant site
and, if necessary, the telepresenter. We
also look for similarities in the
telecommunications system used to
deliver the proposed service, for
example, the use of interactive audio
and video equipment.
• Category #2: Services that are not
similar to the current list of telehealth
services. Our review of these requests
includes an assessment of whether the
use of a telecommunications system to
deliver the service produces similar
diagnostic findings or therapeutic
interventions as compared with the
face-to-face ‘‘hands on’’ delivery of the
same service. Requestors should submit
evidence showing that the use of a
telecommunications system does not
affect the diagnosis or treatment plan as
compared to a face-to-face delivery of
the requested service.
Since establishing the process, we
have added the following to the list of
Medicare telehealth services:
psychiatric diagnostic interview
examination; ESRD services with two to
three visits per month and four or more
visits per month (although we require at
least one visit a month to be furnished
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
in-person ‘‘hands on’’, by a physician,
clinical nurse specialist (CNS), nurse
practitioner (NP), or physician assistant
(PA) to examine the vascular access
site); individual medical nutrition
therapy; neurobehavioral status exam;
and follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations.
Requests to add services to the list of
Medicare telehealth services must be
submitted and received no later than
December 31 of each calendar year to be
considered for the next rulemaking
cycle. For example, requests submitted
before the end of CY 2009 are
considered for the CY 2011 proposed
rule. Each request for adding a service
to the list of Medicare telehealth
services must include any supporting
documentation you wish us to consider
as we review the request. Because we
use the annual PFS rulemaking process
as a vehicle for making changes to the
list of Medicare telehealth services,
requestors should be advised that any
information submitted is subject to
disclosure for this purpose. For more
information on submitting a request for
an addition to the list of Medicare
telehealth services, including where to
mail these requests, visit our Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/telehealth/.
2. Submitted Requests for Addition to
the List of Telehealth Services
We received requests in CY 2008 to
add the following services as Medicare
telehealth services effective for CY 2010:
(1) Health and behavior assessment and
intervention (HBAI) procedures; and (2)
nursing facility services. In addition, we
received a number of requests to add
services that we did not approve as
Medicare telehealth services in previous
PFS rules. These requested services
include critical care services; initial and
subsequent hospital care; group medical
nutrition therapy; diabetes selfmanagement training; speech and
language pathology services; and
physical and occupational therapy
services.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33543), we responded to these
requests. We proposed to add individual
HBAI services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services, and we proposed to
revise our regulations at § 410.78 and
§ 414.65 accordingly. We proposed to
revise § 410.78 to restrict physicians and
practitioners from using telehealth to
furnish the physician visits required
under § 483.40(c). We proposed to
revise § 410.78 to specify that the Gcodes for follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations (as described by HPCPCS
codes G0406 through G0408) include
follow-up telehealth consultations
furnished to beneficiaries in hospitals
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61761
and SNFs. We did not propose to add
group HBAI, family-with-patient HBAI,
nursing facility services, critical care
services, or any of the other requested
services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services. The following is a
summary of the discussion from the
proposed rule, a summary of comments
we received, and our responses.
a. Health and Behavior Assessment and
Intervention (HBAI)
The American Psychological
Association (APA) submitted a request
to add HBAI services (as described by
HCPCS codes 96150 through 96154) to
the list of approved telehealth services.
The APA asked us to evaluate and
approve HBAI services as a Category #1
service because they are comparable to
the psychotherapy services currently
approved for telehealth.
As discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33543), clinical
psychologists furnish HBAI services to
beneficiaries to help them manage or
improve their behavior in response to
physical problems. Elements of HBAI
services typically include interviewing,
observing, and counseling beneficiaries
to help them modify their behavior.
These elements are also common to the
office psychiatry services currently
approved for telehealth. In the proposed
rule, we stated that we believe the
interaction between a practitioner and a
beneficiary receiving individual HBAI
services (as described by HCPCS codes
96150 through 96152) is similar to the
assessment and counseling elements of
the individual office psychiatry services
currently approved for telehealth.
Therefore, we proposed to revise
§ 410.78 and § 414.65 to include
individual HBAI services as Medicare
telehealth services.
With regard to group HBAI (as
described by HCPCS code 96153) or
family-with-patient HBAI (as described
by HCPCS code 96154), we noted that
group services are not currently
approved as Medicare telehealth
services. Group counseling services
have a different interactive dynamic
between the physician or practitioner
and his or her patients as compared to
individual services. Since the
interactive dynamic for group HBAI
services is not similar to that for
individual HBAI services or any other
approved telehealth services, we stated
that we do not believe that group HBAI
or family-with-patient HBAI services
should be considered as Category #1
requests. To be considered as a Category
#1 request, a service must be similar to
the current list of Medicare telehealth
services. (See 70 FR 45787 and 70157,
and 73 FR 38516 and 69743). Instead,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61762
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
we believe that group HBAI and familywith-patient HBAI must be evaluated as
Category #2 services. Accordingly, we
need to evaluate whether these are
services for which telehealth can be an
adequate substitute for a face-to-face
encounter. The requestor did not submit
evidence suggesting that the use of a
telecommunications system to deliver
these services would produce similar
diagnostic findings or therapeutic
interventions as compared to the faceto-face delivery of these services.
Therefore, we did not propose to add
group HBAI (as described by HCPCS
code 96153) or family-with-patient
HBAI (as described by HCPCS code
96154) to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services.
Comment: The APA stated that it was
pleased that we proposed to add
individual HBAI to the list of approved
telehealth services and that it may wish
to resume the discussion of adding other
HBAI services in the future. Other
commenters were also pleased that we
proposed to add individual HBAI to the
list of approved telehealth services.
However, they disagreed with our
proposal not to add the other HBAI
services to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services. The commenters
noted that CMS has no evidence that it
is not appropriate to furnish group
services via telehealth. In addition, the
commenters believe that the
involvement of family members in
patient counseling can often be critical
in developing an appropriate plan of
care.
Response: Office psychiatry services
currently approved for telehealth are
individual rather than group services.
There are no group services approved
for telehealth. In order to add services
for Medicare telehealth that are not
similar to the existing list of Medicare
telehealth services, we evaluate
comparative studies to assess whether
the use of an interactive audio and
video telecommunications system is an
adequate substitute for the in-person
(face-to-face) delivery of the requested
service. Requestors did not submit
sufficient comparative analyses showing
that the use of a telecommunications
system is an adequate substitute for
group counseling services furnished in
person.
b. Nursing Facility Services
Section 149 of the MIPPA added SNFs
as telehealth originating sites effective
for services furnished on or after
January 1, 2009. We received a request
from the American Telemedicine
Association (ATA) to add subsequent
nursing facility care; nursing facility
discharge services; and other nursing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
facility services to the list of approved
telehealth services. The Center for
Telehealth and e-Health Law submitted
a request to add the same nursing
facility services and indicated its
support of ATA’s request. We also
received a request from the Marshfield
Clinic to add the same services
requested by the ATA, plus the initial
nursing facility care services.
The procedure codes included in
these requests are used to report
evaluation and management (E/M)
services furnished onsite to patients in
SNFs. The requestors drew analogies to
the E/M services currently approved for
Medicare telehealth, and they provided
evidence in support of their belief that
the use of telehealth could be a
reasonable surrogate for the face-to-face
delivery of this type of care.
As discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33543), the longterm care regulations at § 483.40 require
that residents of SNFs receive initial
and periodic personal visits. These
regulations insure that at least a
minimal degree of personal contact
between a physician or a qualified NPP
and a resident is maintained, both at the
point of admission to the facility and
periodically during the course of the
resident’s stay. We believe that these
Federally-mandated visits should be
conducted in-person, and not as
Medicare telehealth services. We
proposed to revise § 410.78 to restrict
physicians and practitioners from using
telehealth to furnish the physician visits
required under § 483.40(c).
We reviewed the use of telehealth for
each of the subcategories of nursing
facility services included in these
requests. We identified the E/M services
that fulfill Federal requirements for
personal visits under § 483.40 and we
did not propose to add any procedure
codes that are used exclusively to
describe these Federally-mandated
visits.
Initial Nursing Facility Care
The initial nursing facility care
procedure codes (as described by
HCPCS codes 99304 through 99306) are
used to report the initial E/M visit in a
SNF or NF that fulfills Federallymandated requirements under
§ 483.40(c). We did not propose to add
the initial nursing facility care services
(as described by HCPCS codes 99304
through 99306) to the list of approved
Medicare telehealth services because
these procedure codes are used
exclusively to describe E/M services
that fulfill Federal requirements for
personal visits under § 483.40.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Subsequent Nursing Facility Care
The subsequent nursing facility care
procedure codes (as described by
HCPCS codes 99307 through 99310) are
used to report either a Federallymandated periodic visit under
§ 483.40(c), or any E/M visit, prior to
and after the initial physician visit, that
is reasonable and medically necessary to
meet the medical needs of the
individual resident. In the past, we have
not added hospital E/M visits to the list
of approved Medicare telehealth
services because of our concern
regarding the use of telehealth for the
ongoing E/M of a high-acuity hospital
inpatient. (See 69 FR 47511, 69 FR
66276, 72 FR 38144, 72 FR 66250, 73 FR
38517, and 73 FR 69745.) Many
residents of SNFs also require medically
complex care, and we have similar
concerns about allowing physicians or
NPPs to furnish E/M visits via telehealth
to residents of SNFs.
The complexity of care required by
many residents of SNFs may be
significantly greater than the complexity
of care generally associated with
patients receiving the office visits
approved for telehealth. Accordingly,
we do not consider E/M visits furnished
to residents of SNFs similar to the office
visits on the current list of Medicare
telehealth services. Therefore, we
believe the use of subsequent nursing
facility care for medically necessary
E/M visits that are in addition to
Federally-mandated periodic personal
visits must be evaluated as a Category
#2 service.
We evaluated whether these are
services for which telehealth can be an
adequate substitute for a face-to-face
encounter. The requestors submitted
supporting documentation to
demonstrate that the use of telehealth
could be a reasonable surrogate for the
face-to-face delivery of this type of care.
However, we did not receive sufficient
comparative analysis or other
compelling evidence to demonstrate
that furnishing E/M visits via telehealth
to residents of SNFs is an adequate
substitute for the face-to-face encounter
between the practitioner and the
resident, especially in cases where the
resident requires medically complex
care. We were also concerned that one
study demonstrated that services
provided via telehealth do not elicit
adequate participation in informed
medical decision-making from residents
with low to moderate illness when
compared to face-to-face encounters. We
determined that telehealth is not an
adequate substitute for the face-to-face
delivery of E/M visits to residents of
SNFs. Therefore, we did not propose to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
add subsequent nursing facility care
services to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Nursing Facility Discharge Day
Management
The nursing facility discharge day
management codes (as described by
HCPCS codes 99315 and 99316) are
used to report an E/M visit that prepares
a resident for discharge from a nursing
facility. We note that there is no
Medicare Part B requirement to furnish
and bill an E/M visit in preparation for
a resident’s discharge from a SNF.
However, if a physician or qualified
NPP bills a Nursing Facility Discharge
Services code, we believe that a face-toface encounter will better insure that the
resident is prepared for discharge. We
do not have evidence that nursing
facility discharge services furnished via
telehealth are equivalent to face-to-face
provision of this service. We did not
propose to add the nursing facility
discharge day management services to
the list of approved Medicare telehealth
services.
Other Nursing Facility Service
In 2006, CPT added a procedure code
for Other Nursing Facility Service (CPT
code 99318) to describe an annual
nursing facility assessment. An annual
assessment is not one of the required
visits under the long-term care
regulations at § 483.40. For Medicare
purposes, this code can be used in lieu
of a Subsequent Nursing Facility Care
code to report a Federally-mandated
periodic personal visit furnished under
§ 483.40(c). An annual assessment visit
billed using CPT code 99318 does not
represent a distinct benefit service for
Medicare Part B physician services, and
it cannot be billed in addition to the
required number of Federally-mandated
periodic personal visits. Under
Medicare Part B, we cover this
procedure code if the visit fully meets
the CPT code 99318 requirements for an
annual nursing facility assessment. In
order to cover and pay for this service,
we also require that this annual
assessment falls on the 60-day
mandated visit cycle. We did not
propose to add the other nursing facility
care services described by this code to
the list of approved Medicare telehealth
services because this code is payable by
Medicare only if the visit is substituted
for a Federally-mandated visit under
§ 483.40(c). We believe all of the
Federally-mandated periodic visits must
be conducted in person.
Follow-up Inpatient Consultations
Prior to 2006, follow-up inpatient
consultations (as described by CPT
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
codes 99261 through 99263) were
approved telehealth services. In 2006,
the CPT Editorial Panel of the American
Medical Association (AMA) deleted the
codes for follow-up inpatient
consultations. In the hospital setting,
the AMA advised practitioners to bill
for services that would previously have
been billed as follow-up inpatient
consultations using the procedure codes
for subsequent hospital care (as
described by CPT codes 99231 through
99233). In the nursing facility setting,
the AMA advised practitioners to bill
for these services using the procedure
codes for subsequent nursing facility
care (as described by CPT codes 99307
through 99310).
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69745), we
created follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultation codes (as described by
HCPCS codes G0406 through G0408) to
furnish care to hospital inpatients, and
we added these G-codes to the list of
Medicare telehealth services. These
HCPCS codes are limited to the range of
services included in the scope of the
previous CPT codes for follow-up
inpatient consultations, and the
descriptions limit the use of such
services for telehealth.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33547), we stated that if the former
codes for follow-up consultations (as
described by CPT codes 99261 through
99263) still existed, these procedure
codes would also be available to
practitioners providing follow-up
consultations via telehealth to SNF
patients. Although we did not receive a
public request to add follow-up
inpatient consultations for SNF patients
to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services, we stated that we
also recognized a need to establish a
method for practitioners to provide
these services. For CY 2010, we
proposed to revise § 410.78 to specify
that the G-codes for follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultations (as described by
HCPCS codes G0406 through G0408)
include follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations furnished to beneficiaries
in SNFs, as well as in hospitals. The
HCPCS codes clearly designate these
services as follow-up consultations
provided via telehealth, and not as
subsequent care used for E/M visits.
Utilization of these codes for patients in
SNFs will facilitate payment for these
services, as well as enable us to monitor
whether the codes are used
appropriately. (See the CMS InternetOnly Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, Chapter 12,
Section 190, for the definition of followup inpatient telehealth consultations.)
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61763
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding our
proposed decisions on Nursing Facility
Services.
Comment: Commenters supported our
proposal to restrict physicians and
practitioners from using telehealth to
furnish the physician visits required
under § 483.40(c). Commenters also
supported our proposal to expand the
definition of Follow-Up Inpatient
Telehealth Consultations (as described
by HCPCS codes G0406–G0408) to allow
their use for residents of SNFs.
Commenters noted that this change
would be a positive step towards
increasing access to care for Medicare
beneficiaries in rural areas.
Some commenters disagreed with our
proposal not to add Nursing Facility
Services to the list of approved
Medicare telehealth services.
Commenters acknowledged
Congressional intent expressed in
section 413 of the MMA that the use of
telehealth should not be a substitute for
the Federally-mandated periodic
personal visits required under
§ 483.40(c). All commenters agreed with
our proposal not to add any procedure
codes that are used exclusively to
describe these Federally-mandated
visits. Commenters stated that they
believed that the Congress intended to
allow the use of telehealth to furnish
E/M medically necessary visits onsite to
residents of SNFs that are in addition to
Federally-mandated periodic personal
visits. Some commenters also noted that
due to health professional shortages in
rural areas, many SNFs lack essential
onsite services. Some commenters
believe adding nursing facility visits to
the list of approved telehealth services
will improve the quality of care
furnished to residents of SNFs.
Commenters also noted that not adding
nursing facility visits to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services
will not prevent the use of telehealth to
furnish services to residents of SNFs,
including those residents requiring
medically complex care. These same
residents could be transported to
physicians’ offices or hospitals where
they could receive similar E/M visits via
telehealth.
Response: We did not receive
sufficient comparative analysis or other
compelling evidence to demonstrate
that furnishing E/M visits via telehealth
to residents of SNFs is an adequate
substitute for the face-to-face encounter
between the practitioner and the
resident, especially in cases where the
resident requires medically complex
care. We are further concerned that the
use of telehealth may not elicit adequate
participation from residents of SNFs in
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61764
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
making informed medical decisions
with their clinicians when compared to
face-to-face encounters.
We agree with the commenters who
noted that expanding the definition of
Follow-Up Inpatient Telehealth
Consultations (G0406–G0408) to allow
their use for residents of SNFs will
increase access to care for Medicare
beneficiaries in rural areas. We believe
the availability of inpatient
consultations to furnish care via
telehealth to residents of SNFs is
consistent with the addition of SNFs as
approved telehealth originating sites.
Physicians and NPPs who furnish
inpatient consultations via telehealth
complement the care provided by the
SNF and furnished onsite by the
attending physician or physician of
record.
c. Critical Care Services
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69744), we did
not add critical care services to the list
of approved Medicare telehealth
services. In 2009, Philips Healthcare
submitted an expanded request to add
critical care services to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
It stated that critical care services can be
approved as a Category #1 service based
on their similarity to the inpatient
consultation services currently
approved for Medicare telehealth. The
requestor also stated that many of the
components of critical care are similar
to a high-level inpatient consultation
service, which is currently approved for
Medicare telehealth. Common
components include obtaining a patient
history, conducting an examination, and
engaging in complex medical decisionmaking for patients who may be
severely ill. Because we classified
critical care as a Category #2 service last
year, the requestor also submitted
evidence to support its belief that the
use of telehealth could be a reasonable
surrogate for the face-to-face delivery of
this type of care.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33548), we stated that remote critical
care services are different than the
telehealth delivery of critical care (as
described by HCPCS codes 99291 and
99292). We did not propose adding
critical care services (as described by
HCPCS codes 99291 and 99292) to the
list of approved Medicare telehealth
services. We reiterated that our decision
not to add critical care services to the
list of approved telehealth services does
not preclude physicians from furnishing
telehealth consultations to critically ill
patients.
Comment: A commenter disagreed
with our proposal not to add critical
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
care services to the list of approved
Medicare telehealth services. The
commenter submitted a new study to
support its belief that these services are
comparable to critical care furnished inperson. The commenter asserted that the
role of the intensivist, whether inperson or remotely, is to provide the
required expertise and ability to direct
onsite clinical staff to perform any
necessary hands-on intervention, not
necessarily to effectuate them
personally. To support this, the
commenter submitted a vignette
describing critical care services,
including an analysis detailing the types
of services furnished when critical care
(as described by HCPCS codes 99291
and 99292) was billed by a sample of
intensivists. The commenter noted that
the critical care services included in this
sample did not require hands-on
intervention.
Another commenter who submitted
the CY 2009 request submitted
descriptions of telestroke technology to
support the assertion that the elements
of a stroke-related neurological
assessment performed by a neurologist
are effectively the same whether
furnished in-person or via telehealth.
The commenter acknowledges that some
telestroke services satisfy the criteria for
billing consultations via telehealth, but
noted that the payment is less than the
same neurological assessment furnished
in-person and billed as a critical care
service. The commenter requested that
we consider adding critical care services
to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services when the underlying
diagnosis is stroke-related.
Response: We continue to believe that
remote critical care services are different
from the telehealth delivery of critical
care services (as described by HCPCS
codes 99291 and 99292). The AMA
created remote critical care tracking
codes. Such codes track utilization of a
service, facilitating data collection on,
and assessment of, new services and
procedures. We believe that the data
collected for these tracking codes will
help provide useful information on how
to best categorize and value remote
critical care services in the future.
We did not find the studies submitted
during the comment period persuasive
that telehealth can be an adequate
substitute for the face-to-face delivery of
critical care services (as described by
HCPCS codes 99291 and 99292). As
described in these studies, the role of
the physician furnishing remote critical
care services includes monitoring
patients and directing on-site staff to
intervene, as necessary. Within the
current standards of practice, we believe
that critical care services (as described
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by HCPCS codes 99291 and 99292)
require the physical presence of a
physician who is available to furnish
any hands-on intervention. We continue
to believe that remote critical care
services are different services than the
telehealth delivery of critical care (as
described by HCPCS codes 99291 and
99292). As noted above, we believe that
the data collected for the remote critical
care tracking codes will help provide
useful information on how to best
categorize and value remote critical care
services in the future.
d. Other Requests
We received a number of requests to
add services that we reviewed and did
not accept in previous PFS Rules. The
following are brief summaries of our
discussions from the proposed rule,
summaries of comments received, and
our responses.
Initial and Subsequent Hospital Care
We received a request to add initial
hospital care (as described by HCPCS
codes 99221 through 99223) and
subsequent hospital care (as described
by HCPCS codes 99231 through 99233)
to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services. In response to
previous requests, we did not add initial
or subsequent hospital care to the list of
approved telehealth services because of
our concern regarding the use of
telehealth for the ongoing E/M of a highacuity hospital inpatient. (See 69 FR
47510 and 66276, 72 FR 38144 and
66250, and 73 FR 38517 and 69745.) We
did not receive any new information
with this request that would alter our
previous decision. Therefore, we did not
propose adding initial hospital care or
subsequent hospital care to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
We did not receive any comments on
this proposal.
Group Medical Nutrition Therapy
Services
We received a request to add group
medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services (as described by HCPCS codes
G0271 and 97804) to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
In response to a previous request, we
did not add group MNT to the list of
approved telehealth services because we
believe that group services are not
appropriately delivered through
telehealth. (See 70 FR 45787 and
70157.) We did not receive any new
information with this request that
would alter our previous decision.
Therefore, we did not propose adding
group MNT to the list of approved
Medicare telehealth services. We did
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
not receive any comments on this
proposal.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Diabetes Self-Management Training
(DSMT)
We received a request to add diabetes
self-management training (DSMT) (as
described by HCPCS codes G0108 and
G0109) to the list of approved telehealth
services. In response to previous
requests, we did not add DSMT to the
list of approved telehealth services
because of the statutory requirement
that DSMT include teaching
beneficiaries to self-administer
injectable drugs. Furthermore, DSMT is
often performed in group settings and
we believe that group services are not
appropriately delivered through
telehealth. (See 70 FR 45787 and 70157,
and 73 FR 38516 and 69743.) We did
not receive any new information with
this request that would alter our
previous decision. Therefore, we did not
propose to add DSMT to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
Comment: We received two comments
opposing our proposal not to add DSMT
to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services. The American
Association of Diabetes Educators
(AADE) agrees that telehealth is not an
appropriate venue for initial DSMT
when it includes teaching beneficiaries
to self-administer injectable drugs. One
commenter submitted studies to support
its belief that the use of a
telecommunications system was
equivalent to the face-to-face delivery of
follow-up DSMT.
Response: We believe that skill-based
training, such as teaching patients how
to inject insulin, would be difficult to
accomplish effectively without the
physical presence of the teaching
practitioner. We disagree that this
training element should be carved out of
individual DSMT for purposes of
providing Medicare telehealth services.
The training involved in teaching
beneficiaries the skills necessary for the
self-administration of injectable drugs is
a key component of this statutorily
described benefit (and therefore
inherent in the codes that describe
DSMT). We continue to believe that it
would not be appropriate to add
individual follow-up DSMT to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
Speech and Language Pathology
Services
We received a request to add various
speech and language pathology services
to the list of approved telehealth
services. Speech-language pathologists
are not permitted under current law to
furnish and receive payment for
Medicare telehealth services. Therefore,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
we did not propose to add any speech
and language pathology services to the
list of approved Medicare telehealth
services. (For further discussion, see 69
FR 47512 and 66276, and 71 FR 48995
and 69657.)
Comment: The American SpeechLanguage Hearing Association (ASHA)
commented that telehealth has been
successfully applied to speech-language
pathology and audiology services.
ASHA requested that CMS support
expansion of Medicare telehealth
coverage for speech-language
pathologists in communications with
Congress. The American Academy of
Audiology commented on the shortage
of audiologists in rural areas. The group
requested that we use our
administrative authority to add
audiology services to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
Response: It is not within our
administrative authority to pay speechlanguage pathologists and audiologists
for services furnished via telehealth.
The statute authorizes the Secretary to
pay only for telehealth services
furnished by a physician or a
practitioner as those terms are defined
in the statute.
Physical and Occupational Therapy
Services
We received a request to add various
physical and occupational therapy
services to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services. The statute does not
authorize Medicare payment to physical
and occupational therapists for
Medicare telehealth services. Therefore,
we did not propose to add any physical
and occupational therapy services to the
list of approved Medicare telehealth
services. (For further discussion, see 71
FR 48995 and 69657.)
e. Summary: Result of Evaluation of
2010 Requests
We will finalize our proposal to add
the individual HBAI services (as
described by HCPCS codes 96150
through 96152) and not to add group
HBAI (as described by HCPCS code
96153) or family-with-patient HBAI (as
described by HCPCS code 96154) to the
list of approved Medicare telehealth
services. We will also finalize our
proposal to add individual HBAI
services to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services at § 410.78 and
§ 414.65.
We will finalize our proposal to revise
§ 410.78 to restrict physicians and
practitioners from using telehealth to
furnish the physician visits required
under § 483.40(c). We will finalize our
proposal not to add Nursing Facility
Services (as described by HCPCS codes
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61765
99304 through 99318) to the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services.
We will also finalize our proposal to
revise § 410.78 to specify that the Gcodes for follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations (as described by HPCPCS
codes G0406 through G0408) include
follow-up telehealth consultations
furnished to beneficiaries in hospitals
and SNFs.
We will finalize our proposals not to
add critical care services (as described
by HCPCS codes 99291 and 99292) or
any of the other requested services to
the list of approved Medicare telehealth
services.
3. Other Issues
We received other comments on
matters related to Medicare telehealth
services that were not the subject of
proposals in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule. We thank the commenters for
sharing their views and suggestions.
Because we did not make any proposals
regarding these matters, we do not
generally summarize or respond to such
comments in this final rule. However,
we have chosen to summarize and
respond to the following comments in
order to furnish more information.
Comment: The American Society of
Nephrology requested clarification on
whether Medicare would pay for kidney
disease patient education furnished via
telehealth. Other commenters
specifically requested that we add
kidney disease patient education
services to the list of approved
telehealth services.
Response: Kidney disease patient
education services are not approved
Medicare telehealth services. Any
interested parties may submit requests
to add services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services. Requests submitted
before the end of CY 2009 will be
considered for the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule. Requestors should be
advised that each request to add a
service to the list of Medicare telehealth
services must include any supporting
documentation the requestor wishes us
to consider as we review the request.
For more information on submitting a
request for an addition to the list of
Medicare telehealth services, including
where to directly mail these requests,
visit our Web site at https://www.cms.
hhs.gov/telehealth.
Comment: We received a few
comments that questioned our criteria
and process for reviewing requests to
add to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services. The commenters
stated that our standards interfere with
appropriate physician medical judgment
under section 1801 of the Act. One
commenter noted that since the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61766
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
standards are not specified in regulation
text, we can change them without
formal rulemaking.
Response: Our established criteria and
process for reviewing requests to add to
the list of approved Medicare telehealth
services were subject to full notice and
comment procedures in the CY 2003
PFS proposed and final rules. Since we
did not make any proposals relating to
the criteria or process, any potential
revisions to the process for adding or
deleting services from the list of
approved Medicare telehealth services
are outside the scope of this final rule.
Comment: We received a request to
provide a list of physician services that
can be furnished without an in-person
examination.
Response: General guidance regarding
physician services that can be furnished
by visualizing some aspect of the
patient’s condition without an in-person
examination is provided in the CMS
Internet-Only Medicare Benefits Policy
Manual, Pub. 100–02, Chapter 15, § 30.
E. Specific Coding Issues Related to the
Physician Fee Schedule
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Canalith Repositioning
In 2008, the CPT Editorial Panel
created a new code for canalith
repositioning (CRP). This procedure is a
treatment for vertigo which involves
therapeutic maneuvering of the patient’s
body and head in order to use the force
of gravity to redeposit the calcium
crystal debris in the semicircular canal
system.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69896), new
CPT code 95992, Canalith repositioning
procedure(s) (e.g., Epley maneuver,
Semont maneuver), per day, was
assigned the bundled status indicator
(B). We explained that this procedure
previously was billed as part of an
evaluation and management (E/M)
service or under a number of CPT codes,
including CPT code 97112, Therapeutic
procedure, one or more areas, each 15
minutes; neuromuscular reeducation of
movement, balance, coordination,
kinesthetic sense, posture, and/or
proprioception for sitting and/or
standing activities. We also explained
that because neurologists and therapists
are the predominant providers of this
service to Medicare patients (each at 22
percent), it was assigned as a
‘‘sometimes therapy’’ service under the
therapy code abstract file.
After publication of the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period, we
received comments on this issue from
an organization representing physical
therapists, as well as others expressing
opposition to our decision to bundle the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
new code. Commenters stated that they
believe that our decision to bundle CPT
code 95992 was flawed since physical
therapists are unable to bill E/M
services. One commenter also stated
that therapists would be precluded from
using another code for billing for this
service because CPT correct coding
instructions require that the provider/
supplier select the procedure that most
accurately defines the service provided.
Based upon the commenters’
feedback, we realized that we had failed
to address how therapists would bill for
the service since they cannot bill E/M
services. In order to address this
situation so that access to this service
would not be impacted we released a
MedLearn article informing PTs to
continue using one of the more
generally defined ‘‘always therapy’’ CPT
codes (97112) as a temporary measure.
See https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
transmittals/downloads/R1691CP.pdf
and https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
MLNMattersArticles/downloads/
MM6397.pdf.
In response to the concerns raised and
upon additional review of this issue in
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed to change the status indicator
for this code from B (Bundled) to I (Not
valid for Medicare purposes). We
proposed that physicians would
continue to be paid for CRP as a part of
an E/M service. Physical therapists
would continue to use one of the more
generally defined ‘‘always therapy’’ CPT
codes (97112). We stated that we believe
that this will enable beneficiaries to
continue to receive this service while at
the same time it will address our
concerns about the potential for
duplicate billing for this service to the
extent that this service is paid as a part
of an E/M service. As a result of this
proposal, CPT code 95992 would be
removed as a ‘‘sometimes’’ therapy code
from the therapy code list.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
canalith repositioning proposal.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that the canalith repositioning treatment
requires 20 minutes of intraservice time
as valued by the AMA RUC and that the
pre-time was specifically removed
because the service is typically
performed with an E/M code. The
commenters also stated that they believe
we expected physicians to forgo
payment for CRP and asked that we pay
it separately from an E/M service. The
commenters requested that CMS
recognize the service as separate and
distinct from an E/M service.
Response: As we stated in the CY PFS
final rule (73 FR 69896) canalith
repositioning has been billed using E/M
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
codes and therapy service codes in the
past and we believe it should continue
to be billed this way. Physicians will
continue to be paid for the work
performed when CRP is billed using
E/M codes.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
designating CPT code 95992 as not valid
for Medicare purposes. The commenters
stated that the code was developed to
describe and value CRP and that it
should be utilized. Another commenter
stated that it is not consistent with CPT
coding principles to direct therapists to
use a less specific code.
Response: As stated in the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule we initially decided
to bundle this code, but upon further
review proposed to change the status
indicator to ‘‘I’’ (not valid for Medicare
purposes). Physicians will continue to
be paid for CRP as part of an E/M
service. Physical therapists will
continue to use an ‘‘always therapy’’
CPT code as they have in the past. The
code will be removed from the
‘‘sometimes’’ therapy list. This change
will address our concerns about the
potential for duplicate billing of this
service while still allowing physicians
and therapists to perform the service.
Comment: Some commenters are
concerned that audiologists have no
way to bill for CRP. They requested that
CMS reconsider allowing payment to
audiologists for this treatment.
Response: Audiological tests are
covered under the benefit category for
other diagnostic tests. There is no
statutory authority to allow audiologists
to bill Medicare for treatment services,
such as CRP. CRP may be covered under
the benefit category for physician
services or physical therapy services. If
covered as a physician service, it may be
furnished incident to a physician’s
service by any qualified staff.
We will finalize our proposal to
designate CPT code 95992 as ‘‘I’’, not
valid for Medicare purposes. We will
also remove it from the ‘‘sometimes’’
therapy code list in order to allow
therapists to bill appropriately for the
service, using one of the more generally
defined ‘‘always therapy’’ codes.
2. Payment for an Initial Preventive
Physical Examination (IPPE)
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed to increase the payment for an
initial preventive physical examination
(IPPE) furnished face-to-face with the
patient and billed with HCPCS code
G0402, Initial preventive physical
examination; face-to-face visit, services
limited to new beneficiary during the
first 12 months of Medicare enrollment
beginning January 1, 2010. The IPPE
service includes a broad array of
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
components and focuses on primary
care, health promotion, and disease
prevention.
Section 101(b) of the MIPPA changed
the IPPE benefit by adding to the IPPE
visit the measurement of an individual’s
body mass index and, upon an
individual’s consent, end-of-life
planning. Section 101(b) of the MIPPA
also removed the screening
electrocardiogram (EKG) as a mandatory
service of the IPPE.
In order to implement this MIPPA
provision, in the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69870), we
created HCPCS code G0402 as a new
HCPCS code and retained, on an interim
basis, the work RVUs of 1.34 assigned
to HCPCS code G0344, the code that
was previously used to bill for the IPPE.
While we did not believe the revisions
to the IPPE required by MIPPA
impacted the work RVUs associated
with this service, we solicited public
comments on this issue, as well as
suggested valuations of this service to
reflect resources involved in furnishing
the service. (For a summary of the
comments received on the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period, see the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33549)).
Based on a review of the comments
received on the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period and upon further
evaluation of the component services of
the IPPE, we stated in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule that we believe the
services, in the context of work and
intensity, contained in HCPCS code
G0402 are most equivalent to those
services contained in CPT code 99204,
Evaluation and management new
patient, office or other outpatient visit,
and proposed increasing the work RVUs
for HCPCS code G0402 to 2.30 effective
for services furnished beginning on
January 1, 2010.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed increase to the payment for
the IPPE billed with HCPCS code
G0402.
Comment: All commenters strongly
supported CMS’ proposal to increase the
payment for the IPPE. Commenters
believe that the CY 2010 payment will
fairly account for the services rendered.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to increase the work RVUs for
the IPPE to 2.30 effective for services
furnished beginning January 1, 2010.
audiology codes with which we agreed
(that is, CPT codes 92620, 92621, 92625,
92626, 92627, and 92640). We also
noted that in the Medicare program,
audiology services are covered under
the diagnostic test benefit and that some
of the work descriptors for these
services include ‘‘counseling,’’
‘‘potential for remediation,’’ and
‘‘establishment of interventional goals.’’
Since audiology services fall under
the diagnostic test benefit, aspects of
services that are therapeutic or
management activities are not payable
to audiologists. This distinction is of
particular importance since CPT codes
92620, 92621, 92626, 92627, and 92640
are ‘‘timed’’ codes. These codes are
billed based on the actual time spent
furnishing the service.
We noted that we do not believe these
aspects fit within the diagnostic test
benefit. We solicited comments on this
issue. For a summary of the comments
received and our responses to those
comments, see the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33550).
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
policy clarification of existing CPT
codes for audiology services.
Comment: We received additional
comments reiterating the comments to
which we had responded previously in
the proposed rule that ‘‘counseling,’’
‘‘potential for remediation,’’ and
‘‘establishment of interventional goals’’
were part of the diagnostic test and were
not therapeutic or management
activities. Other commenters agreed
with the clarification as it was presented
in the proposed rule.
Response: After a careful
consideration of all the comments, we
are finalizing the clarification of
audiology services with respect to CPT
codes 92620, 92621, 92625, 92626,
92627, 92640, and other audiologist
services as discussed in the proposed
rule. Although we understand that test
results are sometimes appropriately and
briefly conveyed to the patient at the
time of the diagnostic test, any
therapeutic activities or activities that
should be billed as E/M services
associated with these audiology codes
are not payable to audiologists because
they do not fall within the benefit
category under which these tests are
covered.
3. Audiology Codes: Policy Clarification
of Existing CPT Codes
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69890), we
noted that the AMA RUC reviewed and
recommended work RVUs for 6
a. Background
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
4. Consultation Services
The current physician visit and
consultation codes were developed by
the American Medical Association
(AMA) Current Procedural Terminology
(CPT) Editorial Panel in November
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61767
1990. A consultation service is an
evaluation and management (E/M)
service furnished to evaluate and
possibly treat a patient’s problem(s). It
can involve an opinion, advice,
recommendation, suggestion, direction,
or counsel from a physician or qualified
NPP at the request of another physician
or appropriate source. (See the InternetOnly Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, chapter 12,
§ 30.6.10 A for more information.) A
consultation service must be
documented and a written report given
to the requesting professional.
Currently, consultation services are
predominantly billed by specialty
physicians. Primary care physicians
infrequently furnish these services.
The required documentation supports
the accuracy and medical necessity of a
consultation service that is requested
and provided. Medicare pays for a
consultation service when the request
and report are documented as a
consultation service, regardless of
whether treatment is initiated during
the consultation evaluation service. (See
the Internet-Only Medicare Claims
Processing Manual, Pub. 100–04,
chapter 12, § 30.6.10 B.) A consultation
request between professionals may be
done orally by telephone, face-to-face,
or by written prescription brought from
one professional to another by the
patient. The request must be
documented in the medical record.
In the Physician Fee Schedule Final
Rule issued June 5, 1991, (56 FR 25828)
we stated that the agency’s goal for the
development of the new visit and
consultation codes was that they meet
two criteria: (1) They should be used
reliably and consistently by all
physicians and carriers; that is, the same
service should be coded the same way
by different physicians; and (2) they
should be defined in a way that enables
us to properly crosswalk the new codes
to the relative values for the Harvard
vignettes so valid RVUs for work are
assigned to the new codes.
Based on requests from the physician
community to clarify our consultation
payment policy and to provide
consultation examples, we convened an
internal workgroup of medical officers
within CMS (then called the Health Care
Financing Administration, or HCFA)
and revised the payment policy
instructions in August 1999 in the
Medicare Claims Processing Manual (at
§ 30.6.10 as cited above). We provided
examples of consultation services and
examples of clinical scenarios that did
not satisfy Medicare criteria for
consultation services. Without explicit
instructions for every possible clinical
scenario outlined in national policy
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61768
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
instructions or in AMA coding
definitions or coding instructions, the
local policy interpretations by Medicare
contractors were not universally
equivalent or acceptable to the
physician community and resulted in
denials in different localities. Some
Medicare contractors would consider a
consultation service with treatment to
be an initial visit rather than a
consultation thus resulting in a denial
for the billed consultation. We clarified
in the 1999 revision that Medicare
would pay for a consultation whether
treatment was initiated at the
consultation visit or not. The physician
community has stated that terms such as
referral, transfer and consultation, used
interchangeably by physicians in
clinical settings, confuse the actual
meaning of a consultation service and
that interpretation of these words varies
greatly among members of that
community as some label a transfer as
a referral and others label a consultation
as a referral. Although we clarified the
terms referral and consultation in the
1999 revision, there was disagreement
with our policy by physicians in the
health care community and by AMA
CPT staff. We provided our
documentation guidance so physicians
would be in compliance with our
payment policy. The consultation
definition in the AMA CPT simply
stated that the consultant’s opinion or
other information must be
communicated to the requesting
physician.
Additional manual revisions in both
January and September 2001 (at
§ 30.6.10 as cited above) clarified that
NPPs can both request and furnish
consultation services within their scope
of practice and licensure requirements.
We continued to explain our
documentation requirements to the
physician community through our
Medicare contractors and in our
discussions with the AMA CPT staff.
Under our current policy and in the
AMA CPT definition, a consultation
service must have a request from
another physician or other professional
and be followed by a report to the
requesting professional. The AMA CPT
definition does not state that the request
must be written in the requesting
physician’s medical record. However,
we require the request to be
documented in the requesting
physician’s plan of care in the medical
record as a condition for Medicare
payment. The E/M documentation
guidelines which apply to all E/M visits
or consultations (https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNEdWebGuide/
25_EMDOC.asp) clearly state that when
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
referrals are made, consultations are
requested, or advice is sought, the
medical record should indicate to whom
and where the referral or consultation is
made or from whom the advice is
requested. Our Medicare contractors are
responsible for reviewing and paying
consultation claims when submitted.
When there is a question that triggers a
review of a consultation service, our
Medicare contractors will look at both
the requesting physician’s medical
record (where the request should be
noted) and the consultant’s medical
record where the consultation is
reported and at the report generated for
the requesting physician. Medicare
contractors do not look for evidence of
documentation on every claim, only
when there is a concern raised during
random sampling or during a specific
audit performed by a contractor. The
AMA CPT coding manual, which is not
a payment manual, does not specify
these requirements, and, therefore, as
we understand it, many physicians do
not agree with the CMS policy.
In March 2006, the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) published a
report entitled, ‘‘Consultations in
Medicare: Coding and Reimbursement’’
(OEI–09–02–00030). The stated purpose
of the report was to assess whether
Medicare’s payments for consultation
services were appropriate. While the
OIG study was being conducted, we
continued our ongoing discussions with
the AMA CPT staff for potential changes
to the consultation definition and
guidance in CPT. The findings in the
OIG report (based on claims paid by
Medicare in 2001) indicated that
Medicare allowed approximately $1.1
billion more in 2001 than it should have
for services that were billed as
consultations. Approximately 75
percent of services paid as consultations
did not meet all applicable program
requirements (per the Medicare
instructions) resulting in improper
payments. The majority of these errors
(47 percent of the claims reviewed) were
billed as the wrong type or level of
consultation. The second most frequent
error was for services that did not meet
the definition of a consultation (19
percent of the claims reviewed). The
third category of improperly paid claims
was a lack of appropriate
documentation (9 percent of the claims
reviewed). The OIG recommended that
CMS, through our Medicare contractors,
should educate physicians and other
health care practitioners about Medicare
criteria and proper billing for all types
and levels of consultations with
emphasis on the highest levels and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
follow-up inpatient consultation
services.
We agreed with the OIG findings that
additional education would help
physicians understand the differences
in the requirements for a consultation
service from those for other E/M
services. With each additional revision
from 1999 until the OIG study began, we
continually educated physicians
through the guidance provided by our
Medicare contractors. However, there
remained discrepancies with unclear
and ambiguous terms and instructions
in the AMA CPT definition of a
consultation, transfer of care and
documentation, and the feedback from
the physician community that indicated
they disagreed with Medicare guidance.
Prior to the official publication of the
OIG report, we issued a Medlearn
Matters article, effective January 2006,
to educate the physician community
about requirements and proper billing
for all types and levels of consultation
services as requested by the OIG in their
report. The Medlearn Matters article
reflected the manual changes we made
in 2006 and the AMA CPT coding
changes as noted below. (This article
and related documents can be accessed
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
MLNMattersArticles/2005MMA/
itemdetail.asp?filterType=none&filter
ByDID=-99&sortByDID=7&
sortOrder=ascending&
itemID=CMS053630&intNumPerPage=
2000.)
Our consultation policy revisions
continued as a work-in-progress over
several years as disagreements were
raised by the physician community. We
continued to work with AMA CPT
coding staff in an attempt to have
improved guidance for consultation
services in the CPT coding definition. In
looking at physician claims data (for
example, the low usage of confirmatory
consultation services) and in response
to concerns from the physician
community regarding how to correctly
use the follow-up consultation codes,
the AMA CPT Editorial Panel chose to
delete some of the consultation codes
for 2006. The Follow-Up Inpatient
Consultation codes (CPT codes 99261
through 99263) and the Confirmatory
Consultation codes (CPT codes 99271
through 99275) were deleted. During
our ongoing discussions, the AMA CPT
staff maintained that physicians did not
fully understand the use of these codes
and historically submitted them
inappropriately for payment as was
reflected in the OIG study.
We issued a manual revision in the
Medicare Claims Processing Manual (at
§ 30.6.10 as cited above) simultaneously
with the publication of AMA CPT 2006
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
coding changes removing the follow-up
consultation codes, and instructed
physicians to use the existing
subsequent hospital care code(s) and
subsequent nursing facility care codes
for visits following a consultation
service. The confirmatory consultation
codes (which were typically used for
second opinions) were also removed
and we instructed physicians to use the
existing E/M codes for a second opinion
service. We further clarified the
documentation requirements by making
it easier to document a request for a
consultation service from another
physician and to submit a consultation
report to the requesting professional.
Again, physicians stated that a
consultant has no control over what a
requesting or referring physician writes
in a medical record, and that they
should not be penalized for the behavior
of others. However, our consultation
policy instructions apply to all
physicians, whether they request a
consultation or furnish a consultation.
As noted above, documentation by both
the requesting physician and the
physician who furnishes the
consultation is required under the E/M
documentation guidelines. The E/M
documentation guidelines have been in
use since 1995. In our discussions with
the AMA CPT staff and physician
groups, and national physician open
door conference calls, we have
emphasized that the requesting
physician medical record is not
reviewed unless there is a specific audit
or random sampling performed. The
physician furnishing the consultation
service should document in the medical
record from whom a request is received.
We continue to hear from the AMA
and from specific national physician
specialty representatives that physicians
are dissatisfied with Medicare
documentation requirements and
guidance that distinguish a consultation
service from other E/M services such as
transfer of care. CPT has not clarified
transfer of care. Many physician groups
disagree with our requirements for
documentation of transfer of care.
Interpretation differs from one
physician to another as to whether
transfer of care should be reported as an
initial E/M service or as a consultation
service.
Despite our efforts, the physician
community disagrees with Medicare
interpretation and guidance for
documentation of transfer of care and
consultation. The existing consultation
coding definition in the AMA CPT
definition has been ambiguous and
confusing for certain clinical scenarios
and without a clear definition of transfer
of care. The CPT consultation codes are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
used by physicians and qualified NPPs
to identify their services for Medicare
payment. There has been an absence of
any guidance in the AMA CPT
consultation coding definition that
distinguishes a transfer of care service
(when a new patient visit is billed) from
a consultation service (when a
consultation service is billed). Although
Medicare has provided guidance, there
has continued to be disagreement with
our policy from AMA CPT staff and
some members of the physician
community. Because of the disparity
between AMA coding guidance and
Medicare policy, some physicians have
stated that they have difficulty in
choosing the appropriate code to bill.
The payment for both inpatient
consultation and office/outpatient
consultation services is higher than for
initial hospital care and new patient
office/outpatient visits. However, the
associated physician work is clinically
similar. Many physicians contend that
there is more work involved with a new
patient visit than a consultation service
because of the post work involvement
with a new patient. The payment for a
consultation service has been set higher
than for initial visits because a written
report must be made to the requesting
professional. However, all medically
necessary Medicare services require
documentation in some form in a
patient’s medical record. Over the past
several years, some physicians have
asked CMS to recognize the provision of
the consultation report via a different
form of communication in lieu of a
written letter report to the requesting
physician so as to lessen any paperwork
burden on physicians. We have eased
the consultation reporting requirements
by lessening the required level of
formality and permitting the report to be
made in any written form of
communication, (including submission
of a copy of the evaluation examination
taken directly from the medical record
and submitted without a letter format)
as long as the identity of the physician
who furnished the consultation is
evident. Although preparation and
submission of the consultant’s report is
no longer the major defining aspect of
consultation services, the higher
payment has remained. (See the
Internet-Only Medicare Claims
Processing Manual, Pub. 100–04,
chapter 12, § 30.6.10 F.)
Both AMA CPT coding rules and
Medicare Part B payment policy have
always required that there is only one
admitting physician of record for a
particular patient in the hospital or
nursing facility setting. (AMA CPT
2009, Hospital Inpatient Services, Initial
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61769
Hospital Care, p.12) This physician has
been the only one permitted to bill the
initial hospital care codes or initial
nursing facility codes. All other
physicians must bill either the
subsequent hospital care codes,
subsequent nursing facility care codes
or consultation codes. (See the InternetOnly Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, chapter 12,
§ 30.6.9.1 G.)
Beginning January 1, 2008, we ceased
to recognize office/outpatient
consultation CPT codes for payment of
hospital outpatient visits (72 FR 66790
through 66795). Instead, we instructed
hospitals to bill a new or established
patient visit CPT code, as appropriate to
the particular patient, for all hospital
outpatient visits. Regardless of all of our
efforts to educate physicians on
Medicare guidance for documentation,
transfer of care, and consultation policy,
disagreement in the physician
community prevails.
b. Summary of CY 2010 Proposal
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33551), we proposed, beginning
January 1, 2010, to budget neutrally
eliminate the use of all consultation
codes (inpatient and office/outpatient
codes for various places of service
except for telehealth consultation Gcodes) by increasing the work RVUs for
new and established office visits,
increasing the work RVUs for initial
hospital and initial nursing facility
visits, and incorporating the increased
use of these visits into our PE and
malpractice RVU calculations.
We noted that section 1834(m) of the
Act includes ‘‘professional
consultations’’ (including the initial
inpatient consultation codes ‘‘as
subsequently modified by the
Secretary’’) in the definition of
telehealth services. We recognize that
consultations furnished via telehealth
can facilitate the provision of certain
services and/or medical expertise that
might not otherwise be available to a
patient located at an originating site.
Therefore, for CY 2010, we proposed to
create HCPCS codes specific to the
telehealth delivery of initial inpatient
consultations. The purpose of these
codes would be solely to preserve the
ability for practitioners to provide and
bill for initial inpatient consultations
delivered via telehealth. These codes are
intended for use by practitioners when
furnishing services that meet Medicare
requirements relating to coverage and
payment for telehealth services.
Practitioners would use these codes to
submit claims to their Medicare
contractors for payment of initial
inpatient consultations provided via
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61770
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
telehealth. The proposed HCPCS codes
would be limited to the range of services
included in the scope of the CPT codes
for initial inpatient consultations, and
the descriptions would be modified to
limit the use of such services for
telehealth. The HCPCS codes would
clearly designate these as initial
inpatient consultations provided via
telehealth, and not initial hospital care
or initial nursing facility care used for
inpatient visits. Utilization of these
codes would allow us to provide
payment for these services, as well as
enable us to monitor whether the codes
are used appropriately.
We also stated that, if we create
HCPCS G-codes specific to the
telehealth delivery of initial inpatient
consultations, then we would crosswalk
the RVUs for these services from the
RVUs for initial hospital care (as
described by CPT codes 99221 through
99223). We believed this is appropriate
because a physician or practitioner
furnishing a telehealth service is paid an
amount equal to the amount that would
have been paid if the service had been
furnished without the use of a
telecommunication system. Since
physicians and practitioners furnishing
initial inpatient consultations in a faceto-face encounter to hospital inpatients
must continue to utilize initial hospital
care codes (as described by CPT codes
99221 through 99223), we believe it is
appropriate to set the RVUs for the
proposed inpatient telehealth
consultation G-codes at the same level
as for the initial hospital care codes.
We considered creating separate Gcodes to enable practitioners to bill
initial inpatient telehealth consultations
when furnished to residents of SNFs
and crosswalking the RVUs to initial
nursing facility care (as described by
CPT codes 99304 through 99306). For
the sake of administrative simplicity, if
we create HCPCS G-codes specific to the
telehealth delivery of initial inpatient
consultations, they will be defined in
§ 410.78 and in our manuals as
appropriate for use to deliver care to
beneficiaries in hospitals or skilled
nursing facilities.
We stated in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule that if we adopt this
proposal, we would then make
corresponding changes to our
regulations at § 410.78 and § 414.65. In
addition, we would add the definition
of these codes to the CMS Internet-Only
Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Pub.
100–02, Chapter 15, Medicare Claims
Processing Manual, Pub. 100–04,
Chapter 12, Section 190.
Outside the context of telehealth
services, physicians will bill an initial
hospital care or initial nursing facility
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
care code for their first visit during a
patient’s admission to the hospital or
nursing facility in lieu of the
consultation codes these physicians
may have previously reported. The
initial visit in a skilled nursing facility
and nursing facility must be furnished
by a physician except as otherwise
permitted as specified in § 483.40(c)(4).
In the nursing facility setting, an NPP
who is enrolled in the Medicare
program, and who is not employed by
the facility, may perform the initial visit
when the State law permits this. (See
this exception in the Internet-Only
Medicare Claims Processing Manual,
Pub. 100–04, chapter 12, § 30.6.13 A).
An NPP, who is enrolled in the
Medicare program, is permitted to
report the initial hospital care visit or
new patient office visit, as appropriate,
under current Medicare policy.
Because of an existing CPT coding
rule and current Medicare payment
policy regarding the admitting
physician, we will create a modifier to
identify the admitting physician of
record for hospital inpatient and
nursing facility admissions. For
operational purposes, this modifier will
distinguish the admitting physician of
record who oversees the patient’s care
from other physicians who may be
furnishing specialty care. The admitting
physician of record will be required to
append the specific modifier to the
initial hospital care or initial nursing
facility care code which will identify
him or her as the admitting physician of
record who is overseeing the patient’s
care. Subsequent care visits by all
physicians and qualified NPPs will be
reported as subsequent hospital care
codes and subsequent nursing facility
care codes.
We believe that the rationale for a
differential payment for a consultation
service is no longer supported because
documentation requirements are now
similar across all E/M services. To be
consistent with OPPS policy, as noted
above, we will pay only new and
established office or other clinic visits
under the PFS.
We proposed that this change would
be implemented in a budget neutral
manner, meaning it would not increase
or decrease PFS expenditures. We
proposed to make this change budget
neutral for the work RVUs by increasing
the work RVUs for new and established
office visits by approximately 6 percent
to reflect the elimination of the office
consultation codes and the work RVUs
for initial hospital and facility visits by
approximately 2 percent to reflect the
elimination of the facility consultation
codes. We crosswalked the utilization
for the office consultation codes into the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
office visits and the utilization of the
hospital and facility consultation codes
into the initial hospital and facility
visits. We proposed that this change
would be made budget neutral in the PE
and malpractice RVU methodologies
through the use of the new work RVUs
and the crosswalked utilization.
We solicited comments on the
proposal to eliminate payment for all
consultation services codes under the
PFS and to allow all physicians to bill,
in lieu of a consultation service code, an
initial hospital care visit or initial
nursing facility care visit for their first
visit during a patient’s admission to the
hospital or nursing facility.
Additionally, we solicited comments on
the proposal to create HCPCS G-codes to
identify the telehealth delivery of initial
inpatient consultations.
We received many comments on our
proposal. MedPAC also commented on
our proposal. The following is a
summary of the comments we received
regarding the discussion of the proposed
changes to consultation services and our
responses.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘there may be both advantages and
disadvantages to this proposal,’’ but
urged that we refrain from finalizing it
for January 1, 2010. The commenter
expressed concerns about whether there
would be sufficient time to educate
physicians who currently employ the
consultation codes in order to avoid ‘‘a
flood of claim denials and appeals.’’
Other commenters raised similar
concerns about whether there would be
adequate time to educate physicians and
billing personnel about the change and
to assess the effects of the proposal.
Response: We agree that adoption of
this proposal would call for appropriate
measures to educate physicians and
billing personnel about the change.
However, we do not believe that the
requisite educational efforts are
extensive and complex enough as to
warrant delaying implementation of the
proposal. Essentially, the proposal
would require physicians to cease
submitting the consultation codes on
their Medicare claims, and to employ
the appropriate visit codes in their
place. The determination of the
appropriate visit code would be made
solely on the basis of the existing rules
and guidelines for the use of these
codes, without any reference to the
guidelines that have been employed for
the use of the consultation codes. The
guidelines for use of the visit codes are
well established and well known and
used by nearly all physicians. It is not
necessary to develop any complicated
coding crosswalk or guidelines for
translating the consultation code
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
requirements for purposes of applying
the visit codes. The major effects of the
provision may actually simplify coding
because physicians will use the office
and hospital visit codes in place of
consultations and will not have to
determine whether the requirements to
bill a consult are met. For these reasons,
we believe the proposal should be
implemented beginning January 1, 2010.
Comment: Some commenters urged
delay or deferral of the proposal in order
to allow time to determine whether the
new CPT definition of ‘‘transfer of care’’
that goes into effect for 2010 would
address concerns about the use of
consultation codes. Other commenters
stated more generally that the proposed
change is not the appropriate way to
resolve the confusion about using
consultation codes versus patient visits.
Response: As we discussed in
presenting our proposal, the confusion
and disagreement about the proper use
of the consultation codes have persisted
for a long time. We discussed in detail
our efforts over a period of years to
clarify the guidelines and to resolve the
persistent disagreements. As a result of
this experience, we are skeptical that
any further changes in guidelines or
definitions would resolve these issues.
We appreciate the efforts by the CPT
committee to develop a new definition
of transfer of care. However, we do not
believe that this new definition will
clarify all the ambiguities and resolve
all the differences about the appropriate
use of these codes.
As we stated when we implemented
the PFS in 1992, one of our goals for the
development of new visit and
consultation codes was that they should
be used reliably and consistently by all
physicians and carriers, that is, that the
same service should be coded the same
way by different physicians. In addition,
as we discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule, we believe that the
confusion and disagreement about the
use of the consultation codes have
produced a situation in which that goal
is far from being met.
As we also discussed in the proposed
rule, we believe that a good deal of this
confusion and disagreement arises from
the use of terms such as referral,
transfer, and consultation which are
used sometimes interchangeably and
sometimes inconsistently, by physicians
in clinical settings.
The divergent interpretations and
uses of these terms have served to
confuse the meaning of a consultation
service, as some label a transfer as a
referral while others label a consultation
as a referral. Even with the new
definition of ‘‘transfer of care,’’ we
foresee many clinical situations in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
which two physicians may not agree as
to whether the referral was for
consultation or transfer of care, and it
may be difficult to resolve the issue
based upon the conflicting
interpretations reflected in the two
physicians’ medical records.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended a delay in order to
develop alternative approaches on this
issue. The commenters recommended
that we revise the consultation codes or
provide additional payments to
physicians who provide thorough
consultation reports to referring
physicians.
Response: As we discussed in the
proposed rule, we have considered
numerous approaches to the issues
posed by the use of the consultation
codes over a period of years, and we
have adopted some measures in an
attempt to resolve those issues. We
believe that, if there any other realistic
and reasonable resolution to the issues
surrounding the consultation codes, it
would have emerged by now during the
discussions that we have recounted
above. The specific proposal mentioned
by the commenter would have us pay
more to physicians that provide
thorough consultation reports to the
referring physicians. However, we
previously have tried to resolve the
issues surrounding consultations in part
by revising the documentation
requirements, with the result that the
documentation requirements for
consultation codes have been reduced to
the point where there is no longer a
sufficient difference between the
requirements for consultations and
those for visits to justify a payment
differential. The commenter’s idea
would have us return to increasing
documentation requirements to receive
higher payment for providing a
thorough consultation report. We
believe that any attempt to increase
documentation requirements again to
justify a payment differential will lead
to objections from some physicians, and
that it would be very difficult or
impossible to define the requirements
for a ‘‘detailed report’’ with sufficient
precision to justify the provision of an
additional payment.
Comment: Other commenters
disagreed with our assessment that there
is no substantial difference in work
between consultations and visits. The
commenters observed that consultations
necessarily involve more complex cases
that the referring physician is unable to
treat. Furthermore, the commenters
stated that these services require greater
cognitive work and more complex
medical decision making. Several
commenters emphasized that
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61771
consultation services required greater
knowledge and expertise, acquired
through additional training and
experience, than is required for initial
hospital and office visits. The
preparation of a written report to the
referring physician also requires
additional time, regardless of the format
in which the report is provided. One
commenter expressed disagreement
with our statement that ‘‘the higher
work value for consultations is entirely
related to the provision of a written
report to the requesting physicians.’’
However, other commenters agreed with
our assessment that there is no
substantial difference in work between
consultations and visits.
Response: To some degree, greater
complexity and cognitive effort may be
relative to the training and
specialization of the physician. A case
that presents clinical complexity and
complex medical decision-making for
one physician may be relatively simple
and straightforward to another
physician because of their repeated
experience evaluating the same or
similar problems. Evaluation and
management services, although similar
in the types of activities that occur
during the encounter, may vary widely
in the types of conditions being
evaluated. The major difference between
the work of a hospital or office visit and
a consultation is that the patient has
been referred to the consultant to obtain
a specialized opinion. However, with
the requirements lessened upon the
consultant, the actual work done during
the encounter with a patient for a
consultation or an office or hospital visit
has become harder to distinguish in
terms of clinical complexity and
medical decisionmaking. Further, many
physicians contend that a new patient
office visit may actually require more
work than a consultation service
because of the post work involvement
with a new patient. As we discussed in
the proposed rule, the documentation
requirements for consultation services
have been reduced to the point where it
is difficult to justify a payment
differential between consultations and
new visits. Therefore, for these reasons,
we support the view of those
commenters who contend that in most
cases, there is no substantial difference
in work between consultations and
visits.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the proposal on the grounds
that it constitutes an unprecedented
elimination of a set of CPT codes widely
used by large numbers of physicians.
Some commenters also stated that the
proposal circumvents the CPT and AMA
RUC processes.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61772
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We do not agree that
discontinuing the use of these codes for
Medicare purposes is unprecedented.
On the contrary, our proposal follows
existing program precedent. As we
noted in the proposed rule, beginning
January 1, 2008, we ceased to recognize
office/outpatient consultation CPT
codes for payment of hospital outpatient
visits (72 FR 66790 through 66795).
Instead, we instructed hospitals to bill
a new or established patient visit CPT
code, as appropriate to the particular
patient, for all hospital outpatient visits.
We also do not believe that we have in
any way circumvented the existing CPT
and AMA RUC processes. We described
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule the
numerous attempts that we have made
to resolve the relevant issues with AMA
CPT staff. Despite all of our efforts to
devise and implement relevant
guidance, and educate physicians
regarding documentation, transfer of
care, and consultation policy, there is
still substantial disagreement and
inconsistency within the physician
community regarding these issues.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that the overall payment decreases that
various specialists would face as a result
of the proposed change are
unwarranted.
Response: In making the proposal to
eliminate use of the consultation codes
under the PFS, it has not been our
intention to increase or to decrease
overall payments for any group or
groups of physicians. Rather, our intent
has been to provide for correct and
consistent coding for services provided
by physicians, as well as to provide for
appropriate payment for the specific
services that have been billed using the
consultation codes, specifically, as well
as the evaluation and management
codes. It is in the nature of any budget
neutral payment system for changes
such as this to have a somewhat
differential impact on various groups of
providers and/or practitioners. In this
particular case, we do not believe that
these impacts are disproportionate to
the goals we have sought to achieve in
making and finalizing this proposal. It is
important to keep in mind that, while
elimination of the differential payment
for consultation services will have a
greater negative impact on some
physician specialties than on others, all
physicians will benefit from the budget
neutral increase in the payment levels
for the visit codes.
For more information on the impact of
the changes in this rule, see section XIII.
of this final rule with comment period.
Comment: Some commenters objected
to our failure to increase the bundled
payments for post-operative visits
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
occurring over a 10-day or 90-day global
period. For example, one major
specialty society recommended
extending the incremental work RVU
increase to the E/M codes that are built
into the 10-day and 90-day global codes.
‘‘Arbitrarily changing the work RVUs for
some E/M codes without adjusting the
E/M components of other procedural
codes undermines the relative value
scale on which physician payment is
based.’’ The commenters otherwise
supported the proposal, but strongly
recommended that the global codes be
increased for the sake of consistency.
However, some other commenters who
supported the proposal urged us to
maintain this position in the final rule
on the grounds that these services, by
their very nature, were never billed as
consultations.
Response: Payment for major
surgeries includes bundled payment for
the related post-operative visits
occurring over a 10-day or 90-day global
period. Historically, when payments for
new and established office visits were
increased after the third Five-Year
Review, we also increased the bundled
payments for these post-operative visits
in the global period. However, we did
not propose to increase the payments for
the major surgeries to reflect the
increase in the visits. We agree with
those commenters who contended that
consistency requires that we increase
the bundled payments for these services
proportionately in order to account for
the increase in the visits that are
incorporated into these bundles. We
have accordingly increased the
payments for those services in
conjunction with finalizing our proposal
to eliminate use of the consultation
codes in the PFS. However, the
increases in the payments for these
services due specifically to this change
are quite small because visits are a
relatively small proportion of the total
global payment amount.
Comment: A few commenters
objected that we did not make available
the crosswalk we used to relate the
consultation codes to visit codes for
purposes of ensuring BN. Other
commenters expressed concerns about
the assumptions we used in
crosswalking the consultation codes to
existing E/M codes. For example, one
commenter stated that, for E/M services,
a physician must consider three
elements (extent of history obtained,
extent of examination performed, and
complexity of medical decision making)
in determining the appropriate code
level. However, for subsequent hospital
care or hospital outpatient E/M services,
only two of these three elements are
necessary. In contrast, all three elements
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
must be considered in determining the
appropriate coding level for
consultation services, both initial and
follow-up consultations. There is no
established patient visit code or
subsequent hospital care code that
adequately describes the work of
consultation codes (CPT codes 99245
and 99255) when a patient is seen for
follow-up consultation. One of these
commenters noted that while there are
five consultation codes, there are only
three initial visit codes, and expressed
concern that it would be difficult for
physicians to accurately employ the
visit codes for the services previously
billed under the consultation codes.
Another commenter observed that none
of the E/M codes reflect the face-to-face
times reflected in the highest level
consultation codes (for example, 80
minutes for CPT code 99245 and 110
minutes for CPT code 99255). Still other
commenters took issue with some
elements of the destination mapping in
our crosswalk, for example, the
assumption that 50 percent of the cases
represented as office consultation code
(CPT code 99245) would be coded as a
new patient office visit code (CPT code
99205), and 50 percent as an established
patient office visit code (CPT code
99215).
Response: We made the relevant
crosswalk available on our Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PhysicianFee
Sched/PFSFRN/itemdetail.asp?filter
Type=none&filterByDID=-99&sortByDID
=4&sortOrder=descending
&itemID=CMS1223902&intNumPer
Page=10.
As we have noted above, we did not
develop that crosswalk for purposes of
providing any guidelines or principles
for using the visit codes in place of the
consultation codes that physicians have
employed prior to the implementation
of this proposal. Rather, the crosswalk
was developed solely for purposes of
making the requisite BN calculations.
For purposes of coding specific cases,
adoption of this proposal will
essentially require physicians to cease
submitting the consultation codes on
their Medicare claims, and to employ
the appropriate visit codes in their
place. The determination of the
appropriate visit code should be made
solely on the basis of the existing rules
and guidelines for the use of the
relevant visit codes (for example, office
visit or inpatient visit), without any
reference to the guidelines that have
been employed for the use of the
consultation codes. The guidelines for
use of the visit codes are well
established and well understood.
Therefore, we do not believe that it is
necessary to provide any coding
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
crosswalk or guidelines for translating
the consultation code requirements into
the appropriate visit codes. Commenters
are correct that while there are five
consultation codes, there are only three
initial visit codes, that none of the E/M
codes reflect the face-to-face times
reflected in the highest level
consultation codes, and various other
differences between the two sets of
codes. Nevertheless, it remains possible
to determine the appropriate visit code
for the services in question by applying
the appropriate guidelines and
requirements for using those codes.
There are, for example, legitimate
coding measures to take into account
face-to-face times over and above the
times specified in the relevant visit
codes. Since we ordinarily refrain from
providing coding advice in this context,
we recommend that physicians, coders,
and billing personnel consult the
appropriate manuals and coding
authorities about how to make the
appropriate coding determinations for
services previously coded under the
consultation codes.
In crosswalking the codes for
purposes of making the requisite BN
calculations, we employed the same
estimating techniques that we normally
employ in such calculations. In the
absence of concrete data on certain
factors in the calculation, we also
employed standard assumptions that are
appropriate in a system based on
averages. For example, office
consultation CPT code 99245 was
employed to report consultations
provided to new or established patients
in a physician’s office or other
ambulatory setting. For purposes of
making the BN calculations, it was
necessary to apportion the utilization of
that code between the separate office
visit codes for new patients (CPT code
99205) and established patients (CPT
code 99215). In the absence of concrete
data on the number of new and
established patients reported under CPT
99245, we employed the standard
technique of assuming that half the
patients were new patients, and half the
patients were established patients. Such
an assumption minimizes the range of
potential error and negative impacts in
a system based of averages. Similarly,
with respect to the new or established
patient initial inpatient consultation
codes such as CPT code 99251, it was
necessary to apportion the utilization
estimates between inpatient visits in a
hospital setting and in nursing homes.
In this case, we believe that there would
be far fewer consultation visits in
nursing homes than in the inpatient
hospital setting. Therefore, we adopted
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
a standard assumption that 70 percent
of the cases would be in inpatient
hospitals (CPT initial hospital inpatient
visit code 99221) and 30 percent in
nursing homes (CPT initial nursing care
facility visit code 99304). We employed
similar assumptions throughout the
crosswalk.
Comment: Several commenters
maintained that we had not adequately
responded to the OIG report about the
use of consultation codes prior to
developing this proposal. These
commenters noted that the majority of
the billing errors detected by the OIG
were created by lack of documentation
and/or services that did not meet the
definition of consultation, and that the
OIG recommended education and
outreach to physicians to reduce such
errors. The commenters recommended
that we not proceed with the proposal
until we can demonstrate that education
and outreach efforts cannot improve the
situation.
Response: Prior to the official
publication of the OIG report, we issued
a Medlearn Matters article, effective
January 2006, to educate the physician
community about requirements and
proper billing for all types and levels of
consultation services as requested by
the OIG in their report. The Medlearn
Matters article reflected the manual
changes we made in 2006 and the AMA
CPT coding changes as noted below. We
have also answered numerous questions
and inquiries regarding the use of these
codes at open door forums and other
settings.
With each additional revision from
1999 until the OIG study began, we
made repeated efforts to educate
physicians through the guidance
provided by, and through, our Medicare
contractors. However, there were
continued discrepancies with unclear
and ambiguous terms and instructions
in the AMA CPT consultation coding
definition, transfer of care and
documentation, and the feedback from
the physician community indicated they
disagreed with Medicare guidance.
Despite our best, these disagreements
and misunderstandings among the
physician community with Medicare
interpretations and guidance relating to
documentation of transfer of care and
consultation have continued.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed concern about the effects of
this proposal on coordination of
payment between CMS and other
payers. The commenters believe that if
other payers continue to recognize
consultation codes, the result could be
confusion, erroneous billings, and
serious delays or even denials of
payment.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61773
Response: We do not have the
authority to determine which services
will be recognized and paid by other
third party payers. Some payers may
choose to adopt this policy subsequent
to this final rule. In cases where other
payers do not adopt this policy,
physicians and their billing personnel
will need to take into consideration that
Medicare will no longer recognize
consultation codes submitted on bills,
whether those bills are for primary or
secondary payment. In those cases
where Medicare is the primary payer,
physicians must submit claims with the
appropriate visit code in order to
receive payment from Medicare for
these services. In these cases, physicians
should consult with the secondary
payers in order to determine how to bill
those services in order to receive
secondary payment. In those cases
where Medicare is the secondary payer,
physicians and billing personnel will
first need to determine whether the
primary payer continues to recognize
the consultation codes. If the primary
payer does continue to recognize those
codes, the physician will need to decide
whether to bill the primary payer using
visit codes, which will preserve the
possibility of receiving a secondary
Medicare payment, or to bill the
primary payer with the consultation
codes, which will result in a denial of
payment for invalid codes.
Comment: One commenter stated that
we had not responded to several letters
over the last few years requesting
clarification of the confusion over
consultation and transfer of care, and
providing suggested language to clarify
the confusion. In addition, the
commenter stated that the agency has
never responded to a request that the
contractors suspend audits of
consultation services pending resolution
of the confusion.
Response: We have received many
similar requests and suggestions
regarding the confusion over
consultation and transfer of care over
many years. We have continuously
discussed these issues in the
appropriate forums, including proposed
and final rules, manual instructions,
Medlearn matters articles, and meetings
of the AMA CPT Committee. We
recounted this extensive history in the
proposed rule. As for the status of audits
of consultation services, we generally do
not discuss the specific audit measures
and priorities that we are currently
pursuing. In general, the goal of medical
review is to identify, through analysis of
data and evaluation of other
information, program vulnerabilities
concerning coverage and coding made
by individual providers and to take the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61774
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
necessary action to prevent or address
the identified vulnerabilities.
Comment: A few commenters stated
that it was inconsistent to continue
separate payment for consultation
services under the telehealth benefit,
but to discontinue them in other
contexts in which physician services are
provided. Some commenters also stated
that discontinuing the consultation
codes may be contrary to the statute.
Specifically, section 1845(c)(5) of the
Act, states:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Coding.—The Secretary shall establish a
uniform coding system for the coding of all
physician services. The Secretary shall
provide for an appropriate coding structure
for visits and consultations. The Secretary
may incorporate the use of time in the coding
for visits and consultations. The Secretary, in
establishing such coding system, shall
consult with the Physician Payment Review
Commission and other organizations
representing physicians.
Response: We note that section
1845(c)(5) of the Act calls for the
Secretary to provide for ‘‘an appropriate
coding structure for visits and
consultations.’’ We believe the use of
the adjective ‘‘appropriate’’ indicates
that the statute is granting the Secretary
discretion to determine the structure of
coding for these services. For the
reasons given above and in our
proposed rule, we believe that we are
creating an appropriate coding structure
for visits and consultations by
employing a set of codes that accurately
describes, and permits appropriate
payment for, those services. We also
note that discontinuing the use of the
consultation codes does not imply
discontinuing payment for consultation
services, but only discontinuing the
payment differential between
consultations and visits. These services
will continue to be reported, coded, and
paid under the PFS. On the other hand,
as we noted previously, section 1834(m)
of the Act merely states that the
definition of telehealth services
includes ‘‘professional consultations,’’
and points to the initial inpatient
consultation codes (‘‘as subsequently
modified by the Secretary’’) as part of
the coding structure for such services.
We believe it is more consistent with
legislative intent, as expressed in this
provision, to retain the separate
recognition of consultation services in
the context of telehealth services. We
believe that we have appropriately
exercised the Secretary’s discretion
under section 1845(c)(5) of the Act in
eliminating the consultation codes
under the PFS, while at the same time
respecting the legislative intent
underlying section 1834(m) of the Act
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
for separate recognition of consultation
services in the context of telehealth.
Comment: MedPAC commented that
the proposed change ‘‘seems an
appropriate policy response’’ to the
relaxation of documentation
requirements. However, the
Commission noted that:
* * * reduced consultation documentation
may not sufficiently meet the needs of the
requesting physician, and thus not help
achieve the goals and benefits of wellcoordinated care. While CMS’ proposed
payment policy for consultation may be
appropriate in the light of current practice, in
the future, the agency may wish to consider
whether to increase the requirements for
consultations in order to better coordinate
care and increase consultation payments
commensurately.
Other commenters expressed similar
concerns that the elimination of the
consultation codes might financially
discourage coordination of care and
communication among physicians.
Response: We appreciate MedPAC’s
evaluation that our proposal has merit
as a response to the reduction in the
documentation requirements for
consultation services. We also agree
with MedPAC that promoting effective
coordination of care must be an
essential goal of our payment systems.
However, we are not aware of any
evidence that the reduced consultation
documentation requirements are
currently failing to sufficiently meet the
needs of referring physicians, or that the
benefits of effective coordination of care
are otherwise not being realized as
result of these reduced requirements. If
we become aware of such evidence in
the future, we would certainly consider
whether there is an appropriate policy
response to promote more effective
coordination of care. It is, however,
premature to consider what the
appropriate responses might be until
and unless specific evidence of an issue
comes to our attention. Nevertheless, we
will certainly be attentive to any
concerns that develop about the effects
of this policy on the goal of promoting
effective coordination of care.
Comment: Many other commenters
supported the proposal. The
commenters agreed with us that the
documentation requirements are now
generally similar among consultation
services, office visits, and hospital and
facility visits. The commenters also
agreed that the proposed change would
simplify documentation and resolve the
confusion surrounding the billing of
consultation codes, ‘‘transfer of care,’’
and other matters.
Response: We appreciate the support
of the commenters, and we continue to
believe that the approach we proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is the most appropriate policy response
to the confusion, disagreement, and
problems that have beset the use of the
consultation codes under the PFS.
Accordingly, we are adopting our
proposal in this final rule.
Specifically, beginning January 1,
2010, we will eliminate the use of all
consultation codes (inpatient and office/
outpatient codes for various places of
service except for telehealth
consultation G-codes) on a budget
neutral basis by increasing the work
RVUs for new and established office
visits, increasing the work RVUs for
initial hospital and initial nursing
facility visits, and incorporating the
increased use of these visits into our PE
and malpractice RVU calculations.
Since section 1834(m) of the Act
includes ‘‘professional consultations’’
(including the initial inpatient
consultation codes ‘‘as subsequently
modified by the Secretary’’) in the
definition of telehealth services, we will
not eliminate the use of these codes in
the telehealth context. Therefore, for CY
2010, we will create HCPCS codes
specific to the telehealth delivery of
initial inpatient consultations.
Specifically, we are establishing the
following HCPCS codes to describe
initial inpatient consultations approved
for telehealth:
• G0425, Initial inpatient telehealth
consultation, typically 30 minutes
communicating with the patient via
telehealth.
• G0426, Initial inpatient telehealth
consultation, typically 50 minutes
communicating with the patient via
telehealth.
• G0427, Initial inpatient telehealth
consultation, typically 70 minutes or
more communicating with the patient
via telehealth.
The purpose of these codes is solely
to preserve the ability for practitioners
to provide and bill for initial inpatient
consultations delivered via telehealth.
These codes are intended for use by
practitioners when furnishing services
that meet Medicare requirements
relating to coverage and payment for
telehealth services. Practitioners will
use these codes to submit claims to their
Medicare contractors for payment of
initial inpatient consultations provided
via telehealth. The new HCPCS codes
will be limited to the range of services
included in the scope of the CPT codes
for initial inpatient consultations, and
the descriptions will limit the use of
such services for telehealth. Utilization
of these codes will allow us to provide
payment for these services, as well as
enable us to monitor whether the codes
are used appropriately.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
As we also stated in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule, we will crosswalk the
RVUs for these services from the RVUs
for initial hospital care (as described by
CPT codes 99221 through 99223). We
believed this is appropriate because a
physician or practitioner furnishing a
telehealth service is paid an amount
equal to the amount that would have
been paid if the service had been
furnished without the use of a
telecommunication system. Since
physicians and practitioners furnishing
initial inpatient consultations in a faceto-face encounter to hospital inpatients
must continue to utilize initial hospital
care codes (as described by CPT codes
99221 through 99223), we believe it is
appropriate to set the RVUs for the
proposed inpatient telehealth
consultation G-codes at the same level
as for the initial hospital care codes. As
we stated in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule, we also will make corresponding
changes to our regulations at § 410.78
and § 414.65. In addition, we will add
the definition of these codes to the CMS
Internet-Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, Chapter 12,
Section 190.
Outside the context of telehealth
services, physicians will bill an initial
hospital care or initial nursing facility
care code for their first visit during a
patient’s admission to the hospital or
nursing facility in lieu of the
consultation codes these physicians
may have previously reported. The
initial visit in a skilled nursing facility
and nursing facility must be furnished
by a physician except as otherwise
permitted as specified in § 483.40(c)(4).
In the nursing facility setting, an NPP
who is enrolled in the Medicare
program, and who is not employed by
the facility, may perform the initial visit
when the State law permits this. (See
this exception in the Internet-Only
Medicare Claims Processing Manual,
Pub. 100–04, chapter 12, § 30.6.13 A).
An NPP, who is enrolled in the
Medicare program is permitted to report
the initial hospital care visit or new
patient office visit, as appropriate,
under current Medicare policy. Because
of an existing CPT coding rule and
current Medicare payment policy
regarding the admitting physician, we
will create a modifier to identify the
admitting physician of record for
hospital inpatient and nursing facility
admissions. For operational purposes,
this modifier will distinguish the
admitting physician of record who
oversees the patient’s care from other
physicians who may be furnishing
specialty care. The admitting physician
of record will be required to append the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
specific modifier to the initial hospital
care or initial nursing facility care code
which will identify him or her as the
admitting physician of record who is
overseeing the patient’s care.
Subsequent care visits by all physicians
and qualified NPPs will be reported as
subsequent hospital care codes and
subsequent nursing facility care codes.
As proposed, this change will be
implemented in a budget neutral
manner, meaning that it will not
increase or decrease aggregate PFS
expenditures. We will make this change
budget neutral for the work RVUs by
increasing the work RVUs for new and
established office visits by
approximately 6 percent to reflect the
elimination of the office consultation
codes and the work RVUs for initial
hospital and facility visits by
approximately 0.3 percent to reflect the
elimination of the facility consultation
codes. As discussed above, in this final
rule we are also increasing the
incremental work RVUs for the E/M
codes that are built into the 10-day and
90-day global surgical codes. As we did
for the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
have crosswalked the utilization for the
office consultation codes into the office
visits and the utilization of the hospital
and facility consultation codes into the
initial hospital and facility visits. And,
as we proposed, this change will be
made budget neutral in the PE and
malpractice RVU methodologies
through the use of the new work RVUs
and the crosswalked utilization.
F. Potentially Misvalued Services Under
the Physician Fee Schedule
1. Valuing Services Under the Physician
Fee Schedule
As explained in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33554), the
American Medical Association’s (AMA)
Relative Value System Update
Committee (RUC) provides
recommendations to CMS for the
valuation of new and revised codes, as
well as codes identified as misvalued.
On an ongoing basis, the AMA RUC’s
Practice Expense (PE) Subcommittee
reviews direct PE (clinical staff, medical
supplies, medical equipment) for
individual services and examines the
many broad and methodological issues
relating to the development of PE
relative value units (RVUs).
To address concerns expressed by
stakeholders with regard to the process
we use to price services paid under the
PFS, the AMA RUC created the FiveYear Review Identification Workgroup.
As we stated in the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule (73 FR 38582), the
workgroup identified some potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61775
misvalued codes through several
vehicles. It focused on codes for which
there have been shifts in the site of
service (site of service anomalies), codes
with a high intra-service work per unit
of time (IWPUT), high volume codes,
new technology designation, and shifts
from practice expense to work. We also
identified other methods that the AMA
RUC could undertake to assist in
identifying potentially misvalued
services including reviewing the fastest
growing procedures, Harvard-valued
codes, and practice expense RVUs.
There were 204 potentially misvalued
services identified in 2008.
We believe that there are additional
steps we can take to address the issue
of potentially misvalued services. In the
CY 2009 PFS proposed rule, we
identified approaches to address this
issue including reviewing services often
billed together and the possibility of
expanding the multiple procedure
payment reduction (MPPR) to additional
nonsurgical procedures and the update
of high cost supplies.
Comment: We received several
comments concerning the misvalued
code initiative. One commenter,
representing a physician specialty
organization, expressed concern about
the ongoing misuse of intraservice work
per unit of time (IWPUT) as a means to
determine appropriate work values. The
commenter states that IWPUT was never
intended to compare intensity or work
across specialties and was to be used
only as a measure of relativity between
codes or in families of codes.
Commenters also expressed concern
about the need for transparency
concerning the development of values
for codes, including the review of PE
inputs; the need for CMS to consider the
underlying reasons why utilization for
certain services may increase; and the
economic and public health
implications of appropriate valuation of
services. A commenter also
recommended that the agency become
more proactive in identifying
problematic trends in utilization and in
re-evaluating new technology. The
commenter recognized that additional
resources would be needed and
acknowledged that the Congress may
need to ensure adequate resources are
available but believes that such an
investment could result in lower overall
costs in the system over the long-term.
Response: We thank the commenters
for sharing their concerns and will
consider them as we continue
examining the valuation of services
under the misvalued code initiative.
We also share some the concerns
expressed by the commenter with
regards to IWPUT, which is a
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61776
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
calculation that was used as the primary
tool to value physician services for some
codes during the third Five-Year
Review. This calculation poorly assesses
intensity for services that are short in
time duration and also services that are
short in time duration and of high
intensity. The IWPUT has also been
used to align procedures within a family
of codes. It has value in some instances,
such as in validating the RVUs for a
given procedure using the building
block methodology. However, the
IWPUT has not proven to be a valuable
tool in evaluating or validating cognitive
services. The building block
methodology is the accepted
methodology used by the AMA RUC
and CMS for valuing all physician
procedures and services. We believe
that the building block methodology
should be consistently used when the
AMA RUC considers valuation of
physician services for its
recommendations.
2. High Cost Supplies
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
33554), we referenced our CY 2009 PFS
proposal concerning updating prices for
high cost supplies (73 FR 38582) and
(73 FR 69882), and stated that we are
continuing to examine alternatives on
the best way to obtain accurate pricing
information and will propose a revised
process in future rulemaking.
The following is a summary of the
comments received to date regarding
high cost supplies and our response.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for this initiative. A
few commenters were disappointed that
we did not propose any new
methodologies in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule.
Commenters were in agreement that
we must ensure accurate pricing of
supplies, as the cost of supplies plays an
important role in the payment
calculation for services under the PFS.
Commenters also offered the
following suggestions for pricing high
cost supplies including:
• Identify high cost disposable
supplies (that is, over $200) with
separate HCPCS codes;
• Use the supply pricing
methodology used by the Veterans
Administration;
• Work with specialty societies to
obtain invoices for high priced items
from a designated group of physicians
that are geographically representative;
and
• Work with the industry or
physicians directly to get current
pricing information.
MedPAC stated it is important for us
to update the prices of higher priced
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
supplies on a regular basis as inaccurate
prices can distort PE RVUs over time.
MedPAC believes that prices drop over
time as items diffuse through the market
and as other companies begin to
produce them, and encouraged us to
regularly update information.
A few commenters also recommended
that any pricing proposal should be
available for public comment through
future rulemaking, possibly on an
annual basis. This would enable
stakeholders to evaluate and provide
feedback to the agency on pricing
accuracy as well as practical availability
of the item itself.
Response: We want to thank the
commenters for sharing their
suggestions and will take these
comments into consideration as we
explore the best way to address this
issue.
3. Review of Services Often Billed
Together and the Possibility of
Expanding the Multiple Procedure
Payment Reduction (MPPR) to
Additional Nonsurgical Procedures
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69882), we
stated that we planned to perform a data
analysis of nonsurgical CPT codes that
are often billed together. We stated that
we would identify whether there are
inequities in PFS payments that are a
result of variations between services in
the comprehensiveness of the codes
used to report the services or in the
payment policies applied to each (for
example, global surgery and MPPRs).
The rationale for the MPPR is that
certain clinical labor activities, supplies,
and equipment are not performed or
furnished twice when multiple
procedures are performed. The MPPR
currently applies to certain diagnostic
and surgical procedures (73 FR 38586).
We stated that we would consider
developing a proposal either to bundle
more services or expand application of
the MPPR to additional procedures.
Additionally, the Medicare Payment
Advisory Committee (MedPAC)
requested that we consider duplicative
physician work and PE in any
expansion of the MPPR.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33554), we stated that we planned to
analyze codes furnished together more
than 75 percent of the time, excluding
E/M codes. We also stated that we
planned to analyze both physician work
and PE inputs. If duplications are found,
we said that we would consider whether
to propose to implement an MPPR or to
bundle the services involved. We stated
that we would propose any changes
through future rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: Several commenters did
not support the analysis of codes
furnished together more than 75 percent
of the time. The commenters stated that
limiting the review to codes performed
together 90 to 95 percent of the time was
more appropriate. A few commenters
suggested that 75 percent should not be
the only criterion we use when
considering whether to implement an
MPPR or bundle services. Some
commenters requested that we postpone
our review of services that are often
billed together and rely on the work that
is being done in this area by the AMA
RUC. The commenters believe that the
work the AMA RUC is doing will be
informative regarding which services
should be considered in the future in
determining whether to propose to
expand the MPPR or to bundle services.
The AMA RUC stated that it wants to
work with CMS to accurately assess
these services.
A few commenters generally
supported the analysis of codes
furnished together more than 75 percent
of the time. One commenter stated that
almost all imaging procedures and
equipment have become more efficient
in recent years allowing more
procedures in a given time.
Most commenters were in agreement
that this policy should not be expanded
until CMS has additional data and there
is an opportunity for public comment
through future rulemaking.
Response: We appreciate the
comments received and will consider
these comments as we explore the best
way to address this issue. We also look
forward to working with the AMA RUC
to accurately assess these services.
4. AMA RUC Review of Potentially
Misvalued Codes
a. Site of Service
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69883), we said
that although we would accept the AMA
RUC valuation for these site of service
anomaly codes for 2009, we indicated
that we had concerns about the
methodology used by the AMA RUC to
review these services because they may
have resulted in removal of hospital
days and deletion or reallocation of
office visits without extraction of the
associated RVUs from the valuation of
the code. We also stated that we would
continue to examine these codes and
would consider whether it would be
appropriate to propose additional
changes in future rulemaking.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33554), we proposed work RVU
changes to several of the codes where
the valuation had been adjusted to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
reflect changes in the site of service but
the RVUs had not been extracted by the
AMA RUC. The proposed work RVUs
were recalculated based upon the AMA
RUC-recommended inputs (that is,
changes in pre-service and post-service
times and associated E/M services). The
proposed work RVUs for each CPT code
were recalculated using the pre-AMA
RUC review work RVUs as a starting
point, and adjusted for the addition or
extraction of pre-service and postservice times, inpatient hospital days,
discharge day management services and
outpatient visits as recommended by the
AMA RUC.
In addition to the proposed revisions
to the AMA RUC-recommended RVUs,
we encouraged the AMA RUC to utilize
the building block methodology as
described in the CY 2007 PFS proposed
rule (71 FR 37172) in the future when
revaluing codes with site of service
anomalies. We recognized that the AMA
61777
However, other commenters opposed
the proposed work RVUs and found the
methodology unclear and problematic
since some cases resulted in negative
work values. Many commenters
recommended the acceptance of the
AMA RUC recommended values and
encouraged CMS to work with them to
develop a clearer methodology.
Response: As a result of the
comments, we are not finalizing our
proposal to change the work RVUs for
codes with site of service anomalies that
were included in Table 8 of the CY 2010
proposed rule (74 FR 33555). Although
we still have concerns about the
methodology used by the AMA RUC to
review the services, we are accepting
the AMA RUC-recommended work
RVUs in the interim and request that the
AMA RUC utilize the building block
methodology to revalue the services
listed in Table 4.
RUC looks at families of codes and may
assign RVUs based on a particular code
ranking within the family. However, we
stated that we believed that the relative
value scale requires each service to be
valued based on the resources used in
furnishing the service.
We also sought public comment on
alternative methodologies that could be
used to establish work RVUs for codes
that would have a negative valuation
under the methodology we utilized to
develop proposed revisions to the AMA
RUC-recommended values described
above.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed revisions to the codes with
site of service anomalies.
Comment: Some commenters
supported CMS’ attempt to account for
recognized changes in physician work
for certain procedures in which the
typical site of service has changed.
TABLE 4—CY 2010 CMS INTERIM WORK RVUS FOR SITE OF SERVICE ANOMALIES REVIEWED BY THE AMA RUC IN CY
2009
CPT code 1
21025
23415
25116
42440
52341
52342
52343
52344
52345
52346
52400
52500
52640
53445
54410
54530
57287
62263
62350
63650
63685
64708
64831
65285
2009 AMA
RUC recommended
work RVU
Descriptor
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Excision of bone, lower jaw ......................................................
Release of shoulder ligament ...................................................
Remove wrist/forearm lesion ....................................................
Excise submaxillary gland .........................................................
Cysto w/ureter stricture tx .........................................................
Cysto w/up stricture tx ..............................................................
Cysto w/renal stricture tx ..........................................................
Cysto/uretero, stricture tx ..........................................................
Cysto/uretero w/up stricture ......................................................
Cystouretero w/renal strict ........................................................
Cystouretero w/congen repr ......................................................
Revision of bladder neck ..........................................................
Relieve bladder contracture ......................................................
Insert uro/ves nck sphincter ......................................................
Remove/replace penis prosth ...................................................
Removal of testis ......................................................................
Revise/remove sling repair .......................................................
Epidural lysis mult sessions ......................................................
Implant spinal canal cath ..........................................................
Implant neuroelectrodes ............................................................
Insrt/redo spine n generator ......................................................
Revise arm/leg nerve ................................................................
Repair of digit nerve ..................................................................
Repair of eye wound .................................................................
9.87
9.07
7.38
7.05
5.35
5.85
6.55
7.05
7.55
8.58
8.66
7.99
4.73
15.21
15.00
8.35
10.97
6.41
6.00
7.15
6.00
6.22
9.00
14.43
CMS
decision
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
2010 CMS
interim work
RVU 2
10.03
9.23
7.56
7.13
5.35
5.85
6.55
7.05
7.55
8.58
8.69
8.14
4.79
15.39
15.18
8.46
11.15
6.54
6.05
7.20
6.05
6.36
9.16
14.71
1 All
CPT codes copyright 2009 American Medical Association.
CMS Interim Work RVUs may differ from AMA RUC-recommended work RVU due to work increases in 10 and 90 day global codes as
a result of the elimination of the consultation codes.
2 2010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
b. ‘‘23-Hour’’ Stay
Services that are performed in the
hospital outpatient setting and require a
stay of less than 24 hours are considered
outpatient services. We received
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for inclusion of inpatient services for
services that are typically performed in
an outpatient setting.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
In the 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33556), we stated that we believed the
use of E/M codes for services rendered
in the post-service period for procedures
requiring less than a 24-hour hospital
stay would result in overpayment for
pre- and post-service work that would
not be provided. Therefore, we stated
that we would not allow an additional
E/M service to be billed for care
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
furnished during the post procedure
period when care is furnished for an
outpatient service requiring less than a
24-hour hospital stay.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed revisions to the ‘‘23-Hour’’
stay.
Comment: The majority of
commenters disagreed with CMS’
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61778
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
proposal because they believed it would
result in surgeons not being paid for the
work they perform. Commenters urged
CMS to engage in a discussion at CPT
and/or the AMA RUC regarding
alternative E/M coding solutions.
Response: As a result of the
comments, we are not finalizing our
proposal and will work with CPT and
the AMA RUC regarding alternative E/
M coding solutions to address our
concerns about using inpatient hospital
visit codes as a proxy for the work being
performed.
c. AMA RUC Review of Potentially
Misvalued Codes for CY 2010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
We are addressing the AMA RUC’s
recommendations from the February
and April 2009 meetings for potentially
misvalued codes in this final rule with
comment period in a manner consistent
with the way we address other AMA
RUC recommendations. Specifically, we
completed our own review of the AMA
RUC recommendations and we describe
the AMA RUC’s recommendations,
indicate whether or not we accept them,
and provide a rationale for our decision
in this final rule with comment period.
The values for these services are interim
values for the next calendar year.
The AMA RUC continued its review
of potentially misvalued codes using
various screens, including codes with
site of anomalies, high IWPUT, high
volume, fastest growing procedures, and
other CMS requests. For CY 2010, the
AMA RUC submitted recommendations
for 113 codes. Of those codes 1 was
recommended for a reduction in
valuation; 7 were recommended for an
increase in valuation; 11 were
recommended to maintain the same
valuation; 45 were referred to CPT for
further code clarification, 33 were
recommended for PE changes and 16
were recommended for clinical labor
revisions.
We have agreed to accept the
valuation for these codes for CY 2010 as
interim, including the conforming
changes to the PE inputs for these codes,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
as applicable with the exception of CPT
92597, Evaluation for use and/or fitting
of voice prosthetic device to supplement
oral speech. With the enactment of the
MIPPA, speech-language pathologists
were able to bill the Medicare program
independently as private practitioners
effective July 1, 2009. In response,
speech-language pathologists requested
that the AMA RUC value the work of
certain codes. Previously, the work of
the speech-language pathologists had
been accounted for and paid under the
PE component for these codes. CPT
code 92597 was evaluated by the AMA
RUC, after which the AMA RUC
recommended a work RVU of 1.48 based
upon a survey that included speechlanguage pathologists and
otolaryngologists, the most frequent
providers of the service. The work
description for CPT code 92597
includes initial fitting of a prosthesis.
The code descriptor for CPT code
31611, Construction of
tracheoesophageal fistula and
subsequent insertion of an alaryngeal
speech prosthesis (eg, voice button,
Blom-Singer prosthesis), with a work
RVU of 5.92 also includes insertion or
fitting of a speech prosthesis.
Otolaryngologists perform this service a
majority of the time. It appears that both
codes include fitting a prosthesis and
that there is an overlap of work between
CPT codes 92597 and 31611. To account
for the overlap of work between these
two codes, for CPT code 92597 we have
assigned a work RVU value at the 25th
percentile, 1.26 work RVUs. We note
that the work RVU for CPT code 31611
may not have been reviewed by the RUC
since 1995. We invite the RUC to review
these two codes and any others for
which work may overlap.
We continue to have concerns about
the methodology used by the AMA RUC
to review services with site of service
anomalies. We request that the AMA
RUC utilize the building block
methodology to revalue these services.
The AMA RUC also recommended
that we review claims data for CPT
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
codes 76970, Ultrasound study followup (specify), 94450, Breathing response
to hypoxia (hypoxia response curve),
94014, Patient-initiated spirometric
recording per 30-day period of time;
includes reinforced education,
transmission of spirometric tracing, data
capture, analysis of transmitted data,
periodic recalibration and physician
review and interpretation, 94015,
Patient-initiated spirometric recording
per 30-day period of time; recording
(includes hook-up, reinforced
education, data transmission, data
capture, trend analysis, and periodic
recalibration) and 94016, Patientinitiated spirometric recording per 30day period of time; physician review
and interpretation only. We will take
the AMA RUC’s suggestions under
consideration and further investigate
these claims.
5. PE Issues—Arthoscopy
Previously, the AMA RUC
recommended that an arthoscopic
procedure (CPT code 29870,
Arthroscopy, knee, diagnostic, with or
without synovial biopsy (separate
procedure)) not be valued in the nonfacility setting because they believed the
procedure was unsafe to perform
outside of the facility setting. In the CY
2008 PFS final rule (72 FR 66238), we
deferred proposing non-facility inputs
for these types of procedures. We stated
that the physicians performing
arthroscopic services in the non-facility
setting should be given the opportunity
to have a multi-specialty review by the
AMA RUC.
Comment: We have received many
inquiries about why CPT code 29870
was not valued in the non-facility
setting. For CY 2010, in response to a
request from CMS, the AMA RUC has
recommended PE inputs for CPT code
29870.
Response: We accept the AMA RUC’s
recommended PE inputs for this
procedure and are valuing this code in
the non-facility setting.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61779
ER25NO09.175
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.176
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61780
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61781
ER25NO09.177
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.178
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61782
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61783
ER25NO09.179
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.180
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61784
61785
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.181
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61786
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
6. Establishing Appropriate Relative
Values for Physician Fee Schedule
Services
In MedPAC’s March 2006 Report to
Congress, MedPAC made a number of
recommendations to improve the review
of the relative values for PFS services.
Since that time, we have taken
significant actions to improve the
accuracy of the RVUs. As MedPAC
noted in its recent March 2009 Report
to Congress, ‘‘CMS and the AMA RUC
have taken several steps to improve the
review process’’ in the intervening years
since those initial recommendations.
Many of our efforts to improve the
accuracy of RVUs have also resulted in
substantial increases in the payments
for primary care services.
The original March 2006
recommendation was summarized in
the March 2008 Report to Congress:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
We also recommended that CMS establish
a group of experts, separate from the AMA
RUC, to help the agency conduct these and
other activities. This recommendation was
intended not to supplant the AMA RUC but
to augment it. To that end, the panel should
include members who do not directly benefit
from changes to Medicare’s payment rates,
such as experts in medical economics and
technology diffusion and physicians who are
employed by managed care organizations and
academic medical centers.
The idea of a group of experts
separate from the AMA RUC, to help the
agency improve the review of relative
values, raises a number of issues. In the
proposed rule, we solicited input on
specific points concerning the creation
of such a group, including:
• How could input from a group of
experts best be incorporated into
existing processes of rulemaking and
agency receipt of AMA RUC
recommendations?
• What specifically would be the
roles of a group of experts (for example,
identify potentially misvalued services,
provide recommendations on valuation
of specified services, review AMA RUC
recommendations selected by the
Secretary, etc.)?
• What should be the composition of
a group of experts? How could such a
group provide expertise on services that
clinician group members do not
furnish?
• How would such a group relate to
the AMA RUC and existing Secretarial
advisory panels such as the Practicing
Physician Advisory Committee?
We also requested comments on the
resources required to establish and
maintain such a group. We stated that
we would consider these comments as
we consider the establishment of a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
group of experts to assist us in our
ongoing reviews of the PFS RVUs.
Comments: We received comments
from many organizations, specialty
societies, and groups, including the
AMA, the AMA RUC, and MedPAC
concerning the creation of a group of
experts.
Some commenters expressed support
of such a panel. The commenters offered
suggestions concerning its
establishment and operations. The
commenters stated that adequate
resources and funding would be needed.
The commenters viewed the panel as a
vehicle to independently assess the
AMA RUC recommendations. Several
commenters stressed the importance of
including consumers or purchasing
representatives on such a panel and that
the current process is too narrowly
focused on resource costs. Commenters
stated there is a need to restructure the
payment system so that it appropriately
values coordinated care delivery,
encourages appropriate use of services,
and rewards value and not volume.
Other commenters opposed creation
of such a panel. The commenters stated
that the current process has been
successful, is transparent, and the
rulemaking process provides additional
oversight of the AMA RUC’s
recommendations. The commenters also
stated that the AMA RUC has the
technical knowledge and objective
judgment to assist CMS in maintenance
of the RVUs and that a superimposed
panel would lack its insight.
Commenters also stated that the
addition of a separate group would
increase demands on CMS; create
coordination problems; and would be
fiscally unsound and imprudent.
Commenters noted that CMS and the
AMA RUC have made strides in the
misvalued codes initiative. Some of the
commenters suggested that we consider
enhancing the existing refinement panel
process used to address the comments
received on interim work RVUs (see
section III for additional information on
this process). Some commenters
expressed concern that the refinement
panels have not been adequately
developed and that there is a lack of
transparency.
MedPAC stated there are valid
reasons that a panel should be
established. It stated that CMS needs a
regular source of expertise available to
assist in valuing services and that such
expertise is not solely the domain of the
AMA RUC.
Response: We appreciate all of the
comments and suggestions provided
regarding the creation of a group of
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
experts. We will take these comments
into consideration as we continue to
explore this issue.
We also appreciate the comments
raised concerning the existing
refinement panel process. Any revisions
to this process would be discussed in
future rulemaking.
G. Issues Related to the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
This section addresses certain
provisions of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L.
110–275). We proposed to revise our
policies and regulations as described
below in order to conform them to the
statutory amendments.
1. Section 102: Elimination of
Discriminatory Copayment Rates for
Medicare Outpatient Psychiatric
Services
Prior to the enactment of the MIPPA,
section 1833(c) of the Act provided that
for expenses incurred in any calendar
year in connection with the treatment of
mental, psychoneurotic, and personality
disorders of an individual who is not an
inpatient of a hospital, only 62c percent
of such expenses are considered to be
incurred under Medicare Part B when
determining the amount of payment and
application of the Part B deductible in
any calendar year. This provision is
known as the outpatient mental health
treatment limitation (the limitation),
and has resulted in Medicare paying
only 50 percent of the approved amount
for outpatient mental health treatment,
rather than the 80 percent that is paid
for most other outpatient services.
Section 102 of the MIPPA amends the
statute to phase out the limitation on
recognition of expenses incurred for
outpatient mental health treatment,
which will result in an increase in the
Medicare Part B payment for outpatient
mental health services to 80 percent by
CY 2014. When this section is fully
implemented in 2014, Medicare will
pay for outpatient mental health
services at the same level as other Part
B services. For CY 2010, section 102 of
the MIPPA provides that Medicare will
recognize 68d percent of expenses
incurred for outpatient mental health
treatment, which translates to a
payment of 55 percent of the Medicareapproved amount. Section 102 of the
MIPPA specifies that the phase out of
the limitation will be implemented as
shown in Table 6 provided that the
patient has satisfied his or her
deductible.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61787
TABLE 6—IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 102 OF THE MIPPA
Recognized
incurred
expenses
Calendar year
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
2009
2010
2012
2013
2014
and prior calendar years ..............................................................................................
and CY 2011 ................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
At present, § 410.155(c) of the
regulations includes examples to
illustrate application of the current
limitation. We proposed to remove these
examples from the regulations and,
instead, provided examples in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33521),
in our manual, and under provider
education materials as needed. (See the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33557) for the examples illustrating the
application of the limitation in various
circumstances as it is gradually reduced
under section 102 of the MIPPA.)
Section 102 of the MIPPA did not make
any other changes to the outpatient
mental health treatment limitation.
Therefore, other aspects of the
limitation will remain unchanged
during the transition period between
CYs 2010 and 2014. The limitation will
continue to be applied as it has been in
accordance with our regulation at
§ 410.155(b) which specifies that the
limitation applies to outpatient
treatment of a mental, psychoneurotic,
or personality disorder, identified under
the International Classification of
Diseases (ICD) diagnosis code range
290–319. We use this ICD diagnosis
code range, place of service code, and
the procedure code to identify services
to which the limitation applies.
Additionally, we proposed to make
technical corrections to § 410.155(b)(2)
in order to update and clarify the
services already under these regulations
to which the limitation does not apply.
We proposed the following technical
changes:
• Under § 410.155(b)(2)(ii), revise the
regulation to specify the HCPCS code,
M0064 (or any successor code), that
represents the statutory exception to the
limitation for brief office visits for the
sole purpose of monitoring or changing
drug prescriptions used in mental
health treatment.
• At § 410.155(b)(2)(iv), we proposed
to revise the regulation to add
neuropsychological tests and diagnostic
psychological tests to the examples of
diagnostic services that are not subject
to the limitation when performed to
establish a diagnosis.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
• Under § 410.155(b)(2)(v), we
proposed to revise the regulation to
specify the CPT code 90862 (or any
successor code) that represents
pharmacologic management services to
which the limitation does not apply
when furnished to treat a patient who is
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a
related disorder.
Finally, we proposed to add a new
paragraph (c) to § 410.155 that provides
a basic formula for computing the
limitation during the phase-out period
from CY 2010 through CY 2013, as well
as after the limitation is fully removed
from CY 2014 onward.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed implementation of section 102
of the MIPPA.
Comment: All of the comments on
section 102 of the MIPPA support the
enactment by the Congress and
implementation by CMS of this
provision that will eventually achieve
parity in payment for outpatient mental
health services under the Medicare Part
B program with the program’s payment
for other outpatient services. Most of the
commenters describe the limitation as
discriminatory and inequitable, and
believe that it should have been
eliminated a long time ago. The majority
of the commenters believe that the
elimination of the limitation will
increase access to outpatient mental
health services in the Medicare
population. Therefore, elimination of
the limitation will have a positive
impact on Medicare beneficiaries
because they will have to pay less outof-pocket. Also, commenters believe
that physicians and other providers of
outpatient mental health care will be
‘‘held harmless’’ with respect to this
change because, although they will
collect less from the patient, they will
ultimately be able to collect from the
program the full Medicare approved
amount for outpatient mental health
services. The commenters that embrace
our proposal to implement section 102
of the MIPPA, request that we maintain
our proposal in the final rule, and
encourage CMS to finalize section 102
of the MIPPA in a timely fashion.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62.50%
68.75%
75.00%
81.25%
100.00%
Patient pays
50%
45%
40%
35%
20%
Medicare pays
50%
55%
60%
65%
80%
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comments received on our
proposal to implement section 102 of
the MIPPA and the encouragement to
finalize our proposal. Also, we are
grateful for the offerings made by a few
commenters to assist in educating the
provider community about section 102
of the MIPPA.
Comment: One commenter opposed
two of our technical corrections to
current regulations on the limitation at
§ 410.155(b)(2) and provided suggested
changes. Specifically, under
§ 410.155(b)(2)(iv), we proposed to
insert neuropsychological tests along
with diagnostic tests that are performed
to establish a diagnosis as diagnostic
services that are not subject to the
limitation. While this commenter has no
issue with including
neuropsychological tests, the
commenter believes that a complete list
of services would include outpatient
consultation codes, all outpatient new
patient and initial visit evaluation and
management (E/M) codes, and the
psychiatric diagnostic and evaluation
interview codes (90801 and 90802).
Accordingly, the commenter believes
that if we expand the list of identified
services not subject to the limitation by
inserting neuropsychological tests only,
without including the complete listing
of services, we could be subjecting
services inappropriately to the
limitation.
On this particular technical
correction, another commenter
suggested that we should consider
including a definition of ‘‘diagnostic
services’’ to provide further guidance to
the field on this issue.
The other technical correction that the
commenter opposed is the provision
under § 410.155(b)(2)(v) that lists
medical management services billed
under CPT code 90862 (or its successor
code), as opposed to psychotherapy, as
not being subject to the limitation when
furnished to treat a patient who is
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a
related disorder. The commenter
believes that medical management
services are not limited to those billed
under CPT code 90862, but also
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61788
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
includes E/M of a patient with a mental
illness using the outpatient E/M codes
(CPT codes 99211 through 99215), and
in a nursing facility, the subsequent
nursing facility care E/M CPT codes
(CPT codes 99307 through 99310).
Hence, this commenter suggests that the
proposed technical correction would
unnecessarily and improperly limit the
exception to only those instances when
CPT code 90862 is billed. This
commenter urged that the exception to
the limitation for the treatment of a
patient who is diagnosed with
Alzheimer’s disease or a related
disorder should continue to include all
non-psychotherapy services.
Accordingly, this commenter suggested
that the current language under
regulations should be retained or that
new language clarify that any outpatient
service including CPT code 90862, E/M
codes, and any other non-psychotherapy
service provided to a patient with
Alzheimer’s disease or a related
condition is not subject to the
limitation.
One commenter who supports our
implementation of the MIPPA provision
commented that it is appropriate to
update the list of services to which the
limitation does not apply by specifying
HCPCS code M0064,
neuropsychological tests and diagnostic
psychological tests, as well as CPT code
90862 when reporting services provided
to a patient with Alzheimer’s disease or
a related disorder.
Response: The intent of our technical
corrections to § 410.155 was to clarify,
not to expand, our current policy. We
intended to amend the existing
regulations in a way that would update
and clarify the already stated policy.
Diagnostic psychological and
neuropsychological tests are diagnostic
services that are excluded from the
limitation when performed to establish
a diagnosis. The neuropsychological test
codes were established years after the
CPT codes for diagnostic psychological
tests and that is why the reference to
neuropsychological tests had not been
included under current regulations.
Additionally, in the context of
psychiatric mental health services, the
specific diagnostic services for which
we have national policy regarding the
limitation are the psychiatric diagnostic
services under CPT codes 90801 and
90802, and, the CPT codes for
diagnostic psychological and
neuropsychological testing. In the
absence of national policy concerning
application of the limitation to
diagnostic services billed under the
outpatient consultation codes or the
outpatient new patient and initial visit
E/M codes, contractors use their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
discretion in making decisions about
whether the limitation should be
applied to such services under a variety
of circumstances. To list these
additional outpatient consultation and
E/M codes as suggested by the
commenter would represent an
expansion of the current regulatory
exception at § 410.155(b)(2)(iv).
However, we believe that if we revise
the wording under § 410.155(b)(2)(iv) to
specify that psychiatric diagnostic
services billed under CPT codes 90801
and 90802 (or successor codes) and
diagnostic psychological and
neuropsychological tests billed under
CPT code range 96101 through 96125
(or any successor code range) that are
performed to establish a diagnosis are
not subject to the limitation, we will
address the commenter’s concerns.
Also, such a change will provide the
field with specific guidance on our
definition of ‘‘diagnostic services’’ in
terms of mental health services.
We agree with the commenter that our
technical correction to § 410.155(b)(2)(v)
might have been read to restrict
application of the exception to CPT
code 90862. We will refrain from
addressing specifically in the regulation
outpatient E/M codes or nursing facility
E/M codes. Rather, we will continue to
leave in the hands of our contractors
decisions as to whether the exception
applies for these codes under particular
circumstances. We have provided policy
guidance to our contractors that medical
management services furnished under
CPT code 90862 to treat a patient
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a
related disorder are not subject to the
limitation. Therefore, we believe it is
consistent with current national policy
to amend the regulatory exception
under § 410.155(b)(2)(v) to read,
‘‘medical management such as that
furnished under CPT code 90862 (or its
successor code), as opposed to
psychotherapy, furnished to a patient
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a
related disorder.’’
We received comments on issues that
are outside the scope of our proposals
for section 102 of MIPPA. These
comments are not addressed in this final
rule with comment.
2. Section 131: Physician Payment,
Efficiency, and Quality Improvements—
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
The Physician Quality Reporting
Initiative (PQRI) is a voluntary reporting
program that provides an incentive
payment to eligible professionals who
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
satisfactorily report data on quality
measures for covered professional
services during a specified reporting
period. Under section 1848(k)(3)(B) of
the Act, the term ‘‘eligible professional’’
means any of the following a: (1)
physician; (2) practitioner described in
section 1842(b)(18)(C); (3) physical or
occupational therapist or a qualified
speech-language pathologist; or (4)
qualified audiologist. The PQRI was first
implemented in 2007 as a result of
section 101 of Division B of the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006—the
Medicare Improvements and Extension
Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–432) (MIEA–
TRHCA), which was enacted on
December 20, 2006. The PQRI was
extended and further enhanced as a
result of the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L.
110–173) (MMSEA), which was enacted
on December 29, 2007, and the MIPPA,
which was enacted on July 15, 2008.
Changes to the PQRI as a result of these
laws, as well as information about the
PQRI in 2007, 2008, and 2009, are
discussed in detail in the CY 2008 PFS
proposed rule (72 FR 38196 through
38204), CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 66336 through
66353), CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (73
FR 38558 through 38575), and CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period (73
FR 69817 through 69847). In addition,
detailed information about the PQRI is
available on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
We received several comments from
the public on the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule related to the PQRI. General
comments about the PQRI are addressed
immediately below.
Comment: Many commenters
supported proposed program changes
for 2010, in particular those that make
reporting flexible and less burdensome
such as changes to the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of measures
groups (specifically, the removal of the
requirement to report on consecutive
patients), the proposed electronic health
record-based (EHR-based) reporting
mechanism, and the group practice
reporting option.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of the changes
proposed for the 2010 PQRI, many of
which are finalized herein. We agree
with commenters that many of the
changes that we are finalizing for the
2010 PQRI, including the ones listed
above, provide eligible professionals
with greater flexibility and make
reporting less burdensome.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that we consider and
recommend to the Congress a modified
version of the proposed option
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
presented by the Senate Finance
Committee in the April 29, 2009,
‘‘Description of Policy Options,
Transforming the Health Care Delivery
System: Proposals to Improve Patient
Care and Reduce Health Care Costs’’ to
add a new participation option allowing
eligible professionals to receive PQRI
incentive payments for 3 successive
years if, on a triennial (every 3 year)
basis, the eligible professional: (1)
participates in a qualified American
Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS)
certification known as the Maintenance
of Certification (MOC), or equivalent
programs; and (2) completes a qualified
MOC practice assessment. Such practice
assessments typically consist of the use
of performance measures to evaluate
practice activities, which includes
documentation of evidence of practice
changes to improve quality, and reevaluation to determine the effect of a
change in the practice process or
structure of care.
Response: Section 1848(m)(1) of the
Act specifies the PQRI incentive amount
for each program year and how the
incentive payment amount is to be
calculated for each reporting period
during the program year. We do not
have the authority to change how the
incentive payment amount is
determined and, therefore, cannot
continue payments beyond the
authorized program year.
With respect to the commenters’
suggestion to provide PQRI incentive
payments to eligible professionals who
participate in an ABMS MOC program
and complete a qualified MOC practice
assessment, section 1848(m)(3)(A) of the
Act dictates the criteria that eligible
professionals must meet in order to be
treated as satisfactorily submitting data
on quality measures. These criteria
include the reporting, by eligible
professionals, of quality data on a
standardized set of national consensusbased measures. For years after 2009,
section 1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act gives us
the discretion to revise the criteria for
satisfactorily submitting data on quality
measures. The proposed criteria for
2010, which did not explicitly include
the option suggested by the
commenters, were discussed in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33565
through 33569). We believe that basing
criteria for satisfactory reporting solely
on participation in an ABMS MOC and
completion of a qualified MOC practice
assessment without the submission of
PQRI measures results would defeat the
ability of CMS to analyze and compare
eligible professional performance based
on a standardized set of measures. PQRI
is not based upon such qualifications,
but rather on the submission of data on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
quality measures to measure eligible
professional performance.
However, to the extent that ABMS
member certification boards collect
information on PQRI quality measures
from eligible professionals, the ABMS
member boards may qualify as registries
under the PQRI and report such
information to CMS on behalf of eligible
professionals. Currently, one of the
ABMS member boards has qualified as
a CMS PQRI registry and successfully
submitted data on PQRI measures on
behalf of eligible professionals. This
would allow eligible professionals to
concurrently participate in an ABMS
MOC and PQRI.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that we expand our education
and outreach efforts so that
professionals can gain a better
understanding of the program, coding,
and how to participate satisfactorily.
Specifically, commenters suggested that
we:
• Publish a list of professions that
have participated in PQRI.
• Communicate potential incentive
amounts that could be earned by an
individual participant.
• Work with the AMA and other
national stakeholder organizations to
increase education and outreach for
professionals about the requirements for
satisfactorily reporting under various
options.
• Use provider-neutral language, such
as ‘‘clinician’’ or ‘‘provider’’ in
describing the array of eligible
professionals.
Response: We value the input
received from stakeholders and
participants who have provided
constructive feedback and have
collaborated with us to disseminate
educational PQRI materials to eligible
professionals in the health care
community. We will continue to work
with national and regional stakeholder
organizations to educate their members
on program requirements for satisfactory
reporting.
We also plan to continue to host
monthly national provider calls in
which we expect to provide guidance on
specific topics, including having our
PQRI subject matter experts available to
answer questions on the PQRI.
Information about upcoming calls can
be obtained from the CMS Sponsored
Calls page of the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.
gov/PQRI/04_CMSSponsoredCalls.asp#
TopOfPage. We will continue to make
PQRI educational materials and other
resources available on the PQRI section
of the CMS Web site at https://www.cms.
hhs.gov/PQRI as well. Updated
educational materials and resources for
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61789
the 2010 PQRI will be made available as
soon as possible following publication
of this final rule with comment period.
Where appropriate, we will consistently
use inclusive terminology such as
‘‘eligible professionals’’ rather than
‘‘physicians’’ in PQRI educational
resources and related documents. We
encourage eligible professionals to visit
this Web site and to review the
frequently asked questions (FAQs)
found on this Web site. Eligible
professionals are also encouraged to join
the physician listserv to obtain periodic
updates about the PQRI. Instructions for
joining the listserv can be found at
https://list.nih.gov/archives/physicians1.html.
Finally, we anticipate conducting and
publishing an evaluation of the 2008
PQRI similar to the ‘‘PQRI 2007
Reporting Experience’’ posted on the
PQRI section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/
Downloads/PQRI2007Report
Final12032008CSG.pdf. Although we
have not yet finalized the operational
details of our evaluation strategy, we
expect the report to include
participation rates by specialty/
profession, associated trends in clinical
performance and beneficiary outcomes,
and other observable impacts on
participants, the Medicare program, and
beneficiaries.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we provide more detailed
educational resources well in advance
of the 2010 PQRI start date and provide
enough lead time so that electronic
systems may be updated to allow data
capture for new or revised 2010 PQRI
measures.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that it is desirable to
provide final measure specifications and
other educational resources sufficiently
in advance of the start of a new program
year to allow reasonable time for
professionals to analyze new or revised
reporting options and measures, and
implement any needed changes in their
office workflows so that they may
accurately capture and satisfactorily
submit data on a selection of measures
applicable to their practice. We are
aware that such lead time would also
help the eligible professionals’ specialty
or professional societies to prepare to
support the professionals’ selection of
relevant measures. Having detailed
information on measures available in
advance also enhances the ability of
vendors (such as practice-management
software, billing services, and electronic
health record vendors) to support
professionals’ successful
implementation of revised data capture
processes for the measures. We are
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61790
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
targeting finalization and publication of
the detailed specifications for all 2010
PQRI measures on the CMS Web site, by
November 15, 2009, but no later than
December 31, 2009. The detailed
specifications include instructions for
reporting and identifying the
circumstances in which each measure is
applicable. The specifications for
measures in the final listing for the 2010
PQRI, including a measure’s title,
remain potentially subject to corrections
until the start of the 2010 reporting
period. We are also committed to
making other educational resources for
the 2010 PQRI available on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI as quickly as
possible after publication of this final
rule with comment period.
As discussed below, to assist eligible
professionals who may need additional
time to make updates to their electronic
systems or practice workflows, we also
are finalizing a 6-month reporting
period beginning July 1, 2010, for
claims-based reporting of individual
measures. Thus, the 6-month reporting
period will be available for both those
who wish to report individual measures,
as well as measures groups through
claims or a qualified registry.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we provide detailed data
used to determine that a professional
failed to report on 80 percent of eligible
cases and to inform them about what
they need to do to rectify errors.
Response: We considered
recommendations about PQRI
participant feedback reports as part of
an ongoing dialogue with the
stakeholder and participant community.
We convened a multi-specialty focus
group and have revised the design and
content of the 2008 PQRI feedback
reports, which were recently released.
These revised feedback reports include
more detailed information at the
individual eligible professional level
than was provided in the 2007 PQRI
feedback reports.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the 2007 feedback reports were too
difficult to obtain, did not provide
sufficient detailed information to allow
correction, and were not available on an
interim basis to prevent eligible
professionals from making the same
errors in the following program year.
Response: To address concerns
expressed about our secure method used
to obtain the feedback reports (which
requires eligible professionals to register
and obtain an Individuals Authorized
Access to CMS Computer Services, or
IACS, account), we identified an
alternative feedback report request
process for individual eligible
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
professionals requesting NPI level
reports, which allows an individual
participant to obtain his or her own
feedback report through their carrier or
MAC after providing appropriate
identification. Information about this
new process is available on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site and was
discussed on the October 15, 2009, PQRI
national provider call.
We have assessed the feasibility of
providing some type of interim feedback
report to participants. We have
determined, however, detailed,
accurate, participant-level interim
feedback reports cannot be provided in
an appropriately secure access
environment. However, given that the
most prevalent underlying reasons for
failure to meet incentive eligibility are
due to (1) failure by the professional to
identify and report on at least 80
percent of denominator-eligible cases
for the measures selected, and (2)
quality data code errors due to incorrect
or insufficient coding, we have
determined that an aggregate-level
quality data submission error report
could be published on a quarterly basis
on the PQRI section of the CMS Web
site, to provide information on the types
of submission errors found for each
measure. Following the posting of the
‘‘PQRI 2007 Reporting Experience’’
report, we have continued to post
updated error reports on a quarterly
basis on the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI.
Comment: Several commenters who
participated in the 2008 PQRI have
commented on the lack of timely
feedback reports and incentive
payments.
Response: For claims-based reporting,
PQRI analysis of individual
professionals’ claims begins after the
conclusion of the program year when all
claims have been processed. Conducting
individual-level analysis on a portion of
a professional’s claims during the
program year would result in inaccurate
data and presents a significant expense
to CMS. We acknowledge participating
professionals’ need for interim
information on the accuracy of their
quality reporting through claims.
Therefore, we have posted aggregatelevel information on the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site on a quarterly basis
describing quality-data code submission
errors that we observe on claims for
each PQRI measure and anticipate
continuing to do so in the future.
In addition, many registries provide
interim feedback to their clients.
Therefore, eligible professionals who
participate in PQRI through a qualified
registry may be able to receive interim
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
feedback from the registry and have the
opportunity to correct those errors prior
to the program year data submission
deadline.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we establish a formal
appeals process for those professionals
who participate in PQRI but do not
qualify for the incentive payment.
Response: Section 1848(m)(5)(e) of the
Act provides that with respect to the
PQRI there shall be no administrative or
judicial review under section 1869,
section 1879, or otherwise of (1) The
determination of measures applicable to
services furnished by eligible
professionals; (2) the determination of
satisfactory reporting; and (3) the
determination of any incentive
payment. Since 2007, we have
addressed inquiries about the PQRI
through the question-and-answer
sessions held during monthly PQRI
national provider calls and open door
forums. More recently, a dedicated Help
Desk has been implemented to respond
to participants’ inquiries related to all
aspects of the PQRI, including assisting
eligible professionals in understanding
why they did not receive a PQRI
incentive payment. The Help Desk is
available from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT and
can be reached by phone at (866) 288–
8912 or via e-mail at
qnetsupport@sdps.org.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed the need to evaluate the
impact of PQRI and make evaluation
results available to stakeholders. Some
commenters stated that an evaluation of
outcomes achieved is needed before
deciding whether to expand the
program, impose penalties, or make
participation mandatory. One
commenter noted that such an
evaluation is needed to restore
confidence in the PQRI since the
program’s validity within the eligible
professional community has been
compromised due to the PQRI being
rushed. Other commenters urged us to
provide medical specialty organizations
with the PQRI data files so that they
may perform an independent analysis to
assist CMS to improve the clinical
appropriateness of physician quality
measures and better understand or
correct potential barriers to satisfactory
reporting.
Response: We have conducted and
published an evaluation of the 2007
PQRI and have posted the ‘‘PQRI 2007
Reporting Experience’’ on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/Downloads/
PQRI2007ReportFinal12032008CSG.pdf.
We anticipate conducting a similar
evaluation of the 2008 PQRI and expect
to include participation rates by
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
specialty/profession, associated trends
in clinical performance and beneficiary
outcomes, and other observable impacts
on participants, the Medicare program,
and beneficiaries. Although we have not
yet finalized the operational details of
our evaluation strategy for the 2008
PQRI and beyond, we do anticipate
making the results of the evaluation, at
the national level, available to the
public. We also may make publicly
available the results of such analyses
aggregated at other meaningful levels
(for example, State, specialty, or
profession). We do not at this time plan
to make results publicly available in a
format or with content that would
enable identification of individual
professionals or specific practices’
reporting or performance results.
Comment: Several commenters urged
CMS to expand PQRI in a manner that
would allow participation by therapy
professionals who practice in
institutional settings such as hospitals,
rehabilitation facilities, and skilled
nursing facilities and submit their
individual National Provider Identifier
(NPI) either through claims or through
registry-based reporting.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2008 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 69820 through 69821), we
agree with the goal of offering the
opportunity to participate in PQRI to as
many eligible professionals as feasible
and practical, consistent with the
statutory requirements. Except for group
practices participating in the group
practice reporting option, which begins
in 2010, the determination of
satisfactory reporting and the
calculation of any earned incentive
payment amount must be determined at
the individual professional level,
regardless of the method of reporting
quality data. For therapy professionals
who practice in institutional settings,
we cannot make the determination of
satisfactory reporting and calculate
earned incentive payment amounts at
the individual eligible professional level
without extensive modifications to the
claims processing systems of CMS and
providers, which would represent a
material administrative burden to us
and to providers. It would also require
modifications to the industry standard
claims formats, which would require
substantial time to effect through
established processes and structures
that we do not maintain or control. We
have also found that most institutions
that employ therapists do not tie the
individual therapist to the service
rendered to an individual patient.
Instead, therapists are hired for a fixed
number of hours per day per week. In
this case, there are no provider
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
identifiers available to use in processing
these claims.
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that we should convert PQRI
from a pay-for-reporting program to a
pay-for performance program, stating
that reporting on quality measures is not
sufficient and that consumers need
performance data for informed choice
based on quality and value.
Response: Our plans for a report to
Congress on transitioning to a physician
value-based purchasing program are
discussed in section II.G.4. of this final
rule with comment period.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that the impact
analysis of the estimated costs for
participation by professionals for
claims-based, registry-based, and EHRbased reporting contained in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33664
through 33665) are too low or inaccurate
and should be rectified in the final rule.
One commenter noted that one estimate
of the cost for a practice to participate
in PQRI ranges from $55,000 to $1.3
million. Other commenters cited an
example from a practice with 1 full-time
eligible professional and 1 part-time
eligible professional where it was
determined that the cost for claimsbased reporting in PQRI was $1,780 per
year, or $1,186 per eligible professional.
Some commenters suggested that we
conduct a survey of successful PQRI
participants and/or data submission
vendors to determine all participation
costs and publish survey results in
future rules.
Response: As stated in the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33664),
individual eligible professionals and
group practices may have different
processes for integrating the PQRI into
their practices’ work flows. Therefore, it
is difficult for us to accurately quantify
the cost burden because it would vary
with each eligible professional by the
number of measures applicable to the
eligible professional, the number of
measures on which an eligible
professional chooses to report, the
complexity of the measure(s) chosen by
the eligible professional, the eligible
professional’s patient population and
how frequently the professional’s
selected measure(s) apply to the
professional’s patient population, the
eligible professional’s familiarity,
understanding, and experience with the
PQRI, and the reporting option selected
by the eligible professional. To be able
to provide any cost estimates we had to
use certain assumptions with respect to
the number of measures reported on and
the number of reporting instances per
eligible professional. Given that
practices vary in size and patient
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61791
population, these assumptions will not
hold true for every practice participating
in PQRI and some practices’ costs
associated with PQRI participation will
exceed the estimates provided in our
cost estimates while other practices will
have costs below our estimates. We
cannot assess the examples offered by
commenters without additional
information on the number of measures
reported by each eligible professional in
the practice and the number of reporting
instances per eligible professional. We
will consider, however, the
commenters’ suggestions for future
years but believe that it would be
unlikely that we would be able to obtain
a representative sample of survey
respondents given the many variables
that impact participation costs.
Comment: A specific concern cited by
commenters with respect to the impact
analysis was that reliance on historical
data from the Physician Voluntary
Reporting Program (PVRP) is
inappropriate and does not take into
consideration the development and
maintenance of new workflows
necessary to participate in PQRI and the
new measure, measure specification
changes and reporting option changes
that occur on an annual basis.
Response: Information from the PVRP
was used solely for developing cost
estimates for participation in PQRI
through the claims-based reporting
mechanism; not through other reporting
mechanisms. To develop our cost
estimates for claims-based reporting, we
applied information from PVRP on how
much time it takes one eligible
professional, in a median practice, to
report one measure one time through
claims to our assumptions. We
recognize that the PVRP cost estimates
are historical, but we do not believe that
the process for reporting measures
through claims has changed
significantly from PVRP to PQRI in a
way to considerably change the amount
of time it takes one eligible professional
to report one measure one time through
claims. However, for our impact
analysis, we did use a higher average
practice labor cost than what was
indicated in the information from the
PVRP (that is, we used $55 per hour
instead of $50 per hour) to account for
increases in labor costs over time (74 FR
33655).
Comment: Other commenters had
specific concerns about the estimates
provided for participation in PQRI via
registries. Some commenters offered
anecdotal information that the annual
cost to one practice of participating in
a specific registry is approximately
$3,000. Another commenter believed
that more than 5 minutes is needed for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61792
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
an eligible professional to authorize a
registry to submit quality measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on their behalf. Other commenters
were concerned that our estimate of
$1,500 to $5,000 to purchase an EHR
product was too low. One commenter
noted that EHR systems have capital
costs of over $1 million per year.
Another commenter noted that
researchers recently found that it would
cost about $124,000 for a single doctor
or small practice to upgrade to EHRs
over 5 years.
Response: We appreciate the input
from commenters and have taken the
additional information provided by
commenters into consideration to revise
the estimates associated with registry
and EHR reporting where appropriate in
sections XIII.E.2 and XI. of this final
rule with comment period.
For registry reporting, however, we
note that many registries offer
additional services beyond what is
required to participate in PQRI. In the
example provided by commenters, it is
not clear whether those costs that are
not related to reporting PQRI quality
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on PQRI measures
have been taken into consideration and
excluded. Our impact analysis is limited
to the incremental cost of participating
in PQRI.
b. Incentive Payments for the 2010 PQRI
For 2010, section 1848(m)(1)(B) of the
Act authorizes the Secretary to provide
an incentive payment equal to 2.0
percent of the estimated total Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges (based on
claims submitted not later than 2
months after the end of the reporting
period) for all covered professional
services furnished during the reporting
period for 2010. Although PQRI
incentive payments are only authorized
through 2010 under section
1848(m)(1)(A) of the Act, section
1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act provides for the
use of consensus-based quality
measures for the PQRI for 2010 and
subsequent years.
The PQRI incentive payment amount
is calculated using estimated Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges for all
covered professional services, not just
those charges associated with the
reported quality measures. ‘‘Allowed
charges’’ refers to total charges,
including the beneficiary deductible
and coinsurance, and is not limited to
the 80 percent paid by Medicare or the
portion covered by Medicare where
Medicare is secondary payer. Amounts
billed above the PFS amounts for
assigned and non-assigned claims will
not be included in the calculation of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
incentive payment amount. In addition,
since, by definition under section
1848(k)(3)(A) of the Act, ‘‘covered
professional services’’ are limited to
services for which payment is made
under, or is based on, the PFS and
which are furnished by an eligible
professional, other Part B services and
items that may be billed by eligible
professionals but are not paid under or
based upon the Medicare Part B PFS are
not included in the calculation of the
incentive payment amount.
Under section 1848(m)(6)(C) of the
Act, the ‘‘reporting period’’ for the 2008
through 2011 PQRI is defined to be the
entire year, but the Secretary is
authorized to revise the reporting period
for years after 2009 if the Secretary
determines such ‘‘revision is
appropriate, produces valid results on
measures reported, and is consistent
with the goals of maximizing scientific
validity and reducing administrative
burden.’’
We are also required by section
1848(m)(5)(F) of the Act to establish
alternative criteria for satisfactorily
reporting and alternative reporting
periods for registry-based reporting and
for reporting measures groups.
Therefore, eligible professionals who
meet the alternative criteria for
satisfactorily reporting for registry-based
reporting and for reporting measures
groups for the 2010 alternative reporting
periods for registry-based reporting and
for reporting measures groups will also
be eligible to earn an incentive payment
equal to 2.0 percent of the estimated
total Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all covered professional
services furnished by the eligible
professional during the alternative
reporting periods for 2010 PQRI
registry-based reporting or for reporting
measures groups.
Prior to 2010, the PQRI was an
incentive program in which
determination of whether an eligible
professional satisfactorily reported
quality data was made only at the
individual professional level, based on
the NPI. Although the incentive
payments were made to the practice(s)
represented by the Tax Identification
Number (TIN) to which payments are
made for the individual professional’s
services, there were no incentive
payments made to the group practice
based on a determination that the group
practice, as a whole, satisfactorily
reported PQRI quality measures data. To
the extent individuals (based on the
individuals’ NPIs) satisfactorily reported
data on PQRI quality measures that were
associated with more than one practice
or TIN, the determination of whether an
eligible professional satisfactorily
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reported PQRI quality measures data
was made for each unique TIN/NPI
combination. Therefore, the incentive
payment amount was calculated for
each unique TIN/NPI combination and
payment was made to the holder of the
applicable TIN.
However, section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act requires that by January 1, 2010,
the Secretary establish and have in
place a process under which eligible
professionals in a group practice (as
defined by the Secretary) shall be
treated as satisfactorily submitting data
on quality measures for the PQRI for
covered professional services for a
reporting period, if, in lieu of reporting
measures under subsection (k)(2)(C), the
group practice reports measures
determined appropriate by the
Secretary, such as measures that target
high-cost chronic conditions and
preventive care, in a form and manner,
and at a time, specified by the Secretary.
Therefore, beginning with the 2010
PQRI, group practices that satisfactorily
submit data on quality measures also
would be eligible to earn an incentive
payment equal to 2.0 percent of the
estimated total Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services furnished by the
group practice during the applicable
reporting period. As required by section
1848(m)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act, payments
to a group practice by reason of the
process described above would be in
lieu of the PQRI incentive payments that
would otherwise be made to eligible
professionals in the group practice for
satisfactorily submitting data on quality
measures. Therefore, an individual
eligible professional who is
participating in the group practice
reporting option as a member of a group
practice would not be able to separately
earn a PQRI incentive payment as an
individual eligible professional under
that same TIN (that is, for the same TIN/
NPI combination).
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
2010 PQRI incentive payment amount.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support of the proposed extension of the
PQRI incentive related to the group
practice reporting option.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of the extension of
the PQRI incentive to group practices.
Commenter: One commenter
expressed a concern that the PQRI
incentive payment is calculated as a
percentage of the total Medicare billing
of the individual eligible professional.
The commenter expressed concern that
for an equal amount of relative value
unit work, eligible professionals in
lower GPCI localities will receive as
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
much as 38 percent less PQRI payment
for the same work, time, and effort used
in providing quality care than eligible
professionals in higher GPCI localities.
The commenter suggested that PQRI
incentive payment calculations should
not be geographically adjusted and
recommended that we change the basis
of the incentive to RVUs rather than
dollars billed to Medicare.
Response: While we acknowledge the
effect of the GPCI on the calculation of
the PQRI incentive amount, we do not
have authority to change the basis for
the calculation of the incentive amount,
which is defined by section 1848(m)(1)
of the Act.
Comment: A commenter requested
clarification on whether
radiopharmaceuticals are included in
the PQRI and electronic prescribing
incentive payments (see section II.G.5.
of this final rule with comment period
for further discussion of the EPrescribing Incentive Program).
Response: Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for
radiopharmaceuticals have been
included for determining the PQRI and
electronic prescribing incentive
payments. Radiopharmaceuticals are
included as part of section 1861(s)(4) of
the Act, which is incorporated into the
list of PFS services cited in section
1848(j)(3) of the Act, and therefore, are
part of the PQRI and electronic
prescribing incentive calculations.
The relevant radiopharmaceutical
codes are paid on the basis of invoices
submitted by physicians. Such invoices
are considered similar to contractor
priced items or services. In addition,
radiopharmaceuticals are classified as A
codes (A9500–A9699) which
inadvertently have not previously been
included in Addendum B. Commencing
with CY 2010, radiopharmaceuticals
will be included in Addendum B as
MPFSDB covered charges.
Furthermore, FAQ 8545, which can be
accessed via the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site, states that for ‘‘PQRI
participants who report satisfactorily,
radiopharmaceuticals furnished as part
of a covered professional service will be
included in the basis of total Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges on which
the incentive is calculated.’’
No changes in radiopharmaceutical
payment will be necessary. Payment
will continue to be contractor-priced on
the basis of invoices under the
physician fee schedule.
c. 2010 Reporting Periods for
Individual Eligible Professionals
As we indicated above, section
1848(m)(6)(C) of the Act defines
‘‘reporting period’’ for 2010 to be the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
entire year. Section 1848(m)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act, however, authorizes the
Secretary to revise the reporting period
for years after 2009, if the Secretary
determines such revision is appropriate,
produces valid results on measures
reported, and is consistent with the
goals of maximizing scientific validity
and reducing administrative burden. In
addition, section 1848(m)(5)(F) of the
Act requires, for 2008 and subsequent
years, the Secretary to establish
alternative reporting periods for
reporting groups of measures and for
registry-based reporting.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33560), we proposed that the 2010
PQRI reporting period for the reporting
of individual PQRI quality measures
through claims or a qualified EHR
would be the entire year (that is, January
1, 2010 through December 31, 2010). We
also proposed to retain the 2 alternative
reporting periods from the 2008 and
2009 PQRI for reporting measures
groups and for registry-based reporting:
(1) the entire year; and (2) a 6-month
reporting period beginning July 1.
We solicited comments on these
proposals and the decision not to
propose a 6-month reporting period for
claims-based reporting of individual
PQRI quality measures. The following is
a summary of the comments received
regarding the proposed reporting
periods.
Comment: Although a majority of the
commenters supported the proposed
reporting periods, we received several
comments requesting that CMS retain or
add a 6-month reporting period for
claims-based reporting of individual
measures. Many commenters requested
this additional reporting period because
they believe that doing so would
encourage PQRI participation by
allowing more time for eligible
professionals to implement PQRI into
their practice workflows and providing
an opportunity for those who are
hesitant to continue participating in
PQRI until they receive feedback from
the previous year to do so as well. Many
commenters noted that reporting
measures groups or reporting through a
registry is not an option for them. Other
commenters suggested that we maintain
the 6-month reporting period for claimsbased reporting of individual measures
to maintain flexibility and uniformity in
reporting periods for all PQRI reporting
options to reduce confusion since many
eligible professionals already believe
that they can start claims-based
reporting of individual measures in July.
Some commenters also requested that
we have a 6-month reporting period for
claims-based reporting of individual
measures for situations in which an
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61793
eligible professional who was planning
to report through an alternative
reporting mechanism may have to revert
to claims-based reporting during the
year, such as when an eligible
professional’s EHR system requires reinstallation or significant maintenance
or upgrades or when it takes longer for
a practice to acquire a new EHR system
than anticipated.
Response: Although many
commenters requested that we ‘‘retain’’
the 6-month reporting period for claimsbased reporting of individual measures,
we would like to clarify there was no 6month reporting period for claims-based
reporting of individual quality measures
available for either the 2008 or 2009
PQRI. In the 2008 and 2009 PQRI, the
6-month reporting period beginning July
1 was only available to eligible
professionals who chose to report on
measures groups or chose registry-based
reporting (of either individual measures
or measures groups). Prior to 2010 we
did not have the authority to change the
reporting period for claims-based
reporting of individual measures, which
is defined by section 1848(m)(6)(C)(i)(II)
of the Act to be the entire year for 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2011. The only program
year in which the reporting period was
defined by statute to be the 6-month
period beginning July 1 was the 2007
PQRI.
However, as a result of the compelling
arguments presented by commenters,
we will exercise our authority under
section 1848(m)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to
revise the reporting period for the 2010
PQRI. Thus, in addition to the 12-month
reporting period beginning January 1,
2010, we are finalizing a 6-month
reporting period beginning July 1, 2010,
available for claims-based reporting of
individual measures for the 2010 PQRI.
Comment: One commenter supported
not adding a 6-month reporting period
for claims-based reporting of individual
measures based on the assumption that
we would eliminate claims-based
reporting after 2010.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33561),
our ability to reduce or eliminate our
reliance on claims-based reporting is
contingent on there being an adequate
number and variety of registries
available and/or EHR reporting options.
Since it is unlikely that there will be an
adequate number of measures available
for EHR reporting in 2011 for us to
solely rely on registry and EHR
reporting, we anticipate continuing to
offer claims-based reporting options for
the PQRI beyond 2010. Therefore, for
the reasons discussed above, we believe
that a 6-month reporting period for
claims-based reporting of individual
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61794
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
measures should be available to the
extent that claims-based reporting of
individual measures continues to be an
available option for eligible
professionals.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we provide a ‘‘clarifying definition
of the term ‘qualified’ ’’ with respect to
the proposed 2010 PQRI reporting
periods. The commenter noted that
there is a similar term in industry use
and a definition would help to avoid
confusion.
Response: We are unclear as to how
the term ‘‘qualified’’ relates to the PQRI
reporting periods and believe that the
commenter may be referring to our use
of the term ‘‘qualified’’ with respect to
registry and EHR reporting. As proposed
for the 2010 PQRI (74 FR 33563 through
33565), for purposes of the PQRI, a
‘‘qualified’’ registry is one that has selfnominated to be able to submit PQRI
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on PQRI quality
measures or measures groups on behalf
of eligible professionals and that has
been vetted by CMS to ensure the
registry’s meets certain technical and
other requirements. Similarly, a
‘‘qualified’’ EHR vendor is one that has
self-nominated to have one or more of
its EHR products vetted by CMS to
ensure that the product(s) meets certain
technical and other requirements.
Eligible professionals who wish to
submit PQRI measures via an EHR may
only use qualified EHR products to do
so.
For the reasons discussed above and
based on the comments, for 2010, we
will retain a 12-month reporting period
beginning January 1, 2010, which will
be available for all reporting
mechanisms and regardless of whether
an individual eligible professional
chooses to report on 2010 PQRI
individual measures or measures
groups. In addition, we are adopting a
6-month reporting beginning July 1,
2010, for claims-based and registrybased reporting of 2010 PQRI individual
measures or measures groups. This 6month reporting period will not be
available for EHR-based reporting in
2010. Once we have additional
experience with EHR reporting in PQRI
we may consider including a 6-month
reporting period for EHR reporting in
future years.
In addition, an eligible professional
who satisfactorily reports 2010 PQRI
measures or measures groups through
claims or a qualified registry for the 6month reporting period will qualify to
earn a PQRI incentive payment equal to
2.0 percent of his or her total estimated
Medicare Part B PFS allowed charges for
covered professional services furnished
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
between July 1, 2010 and December 31,
2010 only. As required by section
1848(m)(1)(A) of the Act, the incentive
payment will be calculated based on the
eligible professional’s charges for
covered professional services furnished
during the applicable reporting period
only.
d. 2010 PQRI Reporting Mechanisms for
Individual Eligible Professionals
When the PQRI was first implemented
in 2007, there was only 1 reporting
mechanism available to submit data on
PQRI quality measures. For the 2007
PQRI, the only way that eligible
professionals could submit data on
PQRI quality measures was by reporting
the appropriate quality data codes on
their Medicare Part B claims (claimsbased reporting). For the 2008 PQRI, we
added a second reporting mechanism as
required by section 1848(k)(4) of the
Act, so that eligible professionals could
submit data on PQRI quality measures
to a qualified PQRI registry and request
the registry to submit PQRI quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the 2008 PQRI
quality measures or measures groups on
their behalf (registry-based reporting).
For the 2009 PQRI, we retained the 2
reporting mechanisms used in the 2008
PQRI (that is, claims-based reporting
and registry-based reporting) for
reporting individual PQRI quality
measures and for reporting measures
groups.
To promote the adoption of EHRs, we
also conducted limited testing of a third
reporting mechanism for the 2008 and
2009 PQRI, which was the submission
of clinical quality data extracted from an
EHR, or the EHR-based reporting
mechanism. No incentive payment was
available to those eligible professionals
who participated in testing the EHRbased reporting mechanism.
For the 2010 PQRI, we proposed to
retain the claims-based reporting
mechanism and the registry-based
reporting mechanism. In addition, we
proposed to accept PQRI quality
measure data extracted from a qualified
EHR product (that is, an EHR
successfully completing the 2009 EHR
Testing Program) for a limited subset of
the proposed 2010 PQRI quality
measures, as identified in Table 20 of
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule,
contingent upon the successful
completion of our 2009 EHR data
submission testing process and a
determination based on that testing
process that accepting data from EHRs
on quality measures for the 2010 PQRI
is practical and feasible. We solicited
comments on the proposed reporting
mechanisms for the 2010 PQRI,
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including the proposal to add an EHRbased reporting mechanism to the 2010
PQRI, contingent upon the successful
completion of our 2009 EHR data
submission testing process and a
determination that accepting data from
EHRs on quality measures for the 2010
PQRI is practical and feasible.
We also discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule how we may consider
significantly limiting the claims-based
mechanism of reporting clinical quality
measures for the PQRI after 2010. We
solicited comments on our intent to
lessen our reliance on the claims-based
reporting mechanism for the PQRI
beyond 2010.
The following is a summary of the
comments received with regard to the
proposed 2010 PQRI reporting
mechanisms and our intent to lessen
reliance on the claims-based reporting
mechanism for the PQRI beyond 2010.
Comment: A majority of the
commenters agreed with our reasons for
lessening our reliance of claims-based
reporting, supported alternative
reporting mechanisms, or agreed that we
should eventually transition away from
claims-based reporting. At the same
time, however, many of these same
commenters urged us to reconsider
limiting or eliminating claims-based
reporting in 2011. Many commenters
noted that claims-based reporting is
currently the only option available for
many eligible professionals and is the
only reporting mechanism that is
available to all eligible professionals.
Other commenters cited claims-based
reporting as the most convenient and
cost-effective reporting mechanism
available to eligible professionals,
particularly solo practitioners and those
in small practices. Also, the commenters
noted that the EHR-based reporting
mechanism initially will only be
available on a limited basis so we
should wait until EHR-based reporting
becomes well established before
transitioning away from claims-based
reporting.
Response: We acknowledge the
commenters’ concerns that prematurely
eliminating the claims-based reporting
mechanism could create barriers to
participation. While our goal continues
to be to eventually phase-out claimsbased reporting, our ability to reduce or
eliminate our reliance on claims-based
reporting is contingent on there being an
adequate number and variety of
registries available and/or EHR
reporting options. As we stated
previously, since it is unlikely that there
will be an adequate number of measures
available for EHR reporting in 2011 for
us to completely eliminate the claimsbased reporting mechanism, we
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
anticipate continuing to offer claimsbased reporting options for the PQRI
beyond 2010. We may, however, avoid
introducing new claims-based measures
and increasingly limit the circumstances
in which claims-based reporting is an
available reporting mechanism in order
to encourage wider adoption of registry
or EHR-based reporting.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, as we move towards
reducing reliance on claims-based
reporting for PQRI and increase registrybased and EHR-based options, we
require registries and EHR vendors to
seek and obtain a license to use the
measures from the measure developers.
Response: PQRI measure
specifications are developed in
consultation with the measure
developers and are made available to
the public via posting on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site. Registries
must use the PQRI measure
specifications posted on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site to calculate
reporting or performance unless
otherwise stated. Similarly, eligible
professionals who choose to participate
in PQRI via the EHR-based reporting
mechanism must use PQRI measure
specifications to do so. We believe use
of these measure specifications,
regardless of the method by which
quality data is submitted to PQRI for
analysis, ensures consistent use and
reporting of the measures.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that registry and EHR-based
reporting may not account for changes
in patient condition over the course of
the reporting period, and suggested
reporting options be restructured so that
results submitted using any method for
a given patient population and a
specific time period are identical.
Response: Regardless of the reporting
mechanism an eligible professional
selects to participate in PQRI, measure
specifications and instructions for
reporting a measure are consistent
across mechanisms. If the measure
specifications are analyzed properly by
a registry or EHR vendor, the results
should be very close or identical to the
results for claims-based reporting, as the
commenter requested.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended uniform data submission
deadlines be established across all
reporting mechanisms. The commenter
noted specifically that the proposed
deadline for submission of data on PQRI
quality measures for EHR-based
reporting and for registry reporting was
March 31, 2011 while the proposed
deadline for submission of data on PQRI
quality measures for other reporting
mechanisms was February 28, 2011.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: We agree that the deadline
for submission of data on PQRI quality
measures for EHR-based reporting
should be consistent with the deadline
for submission of data on PQRI quality
measures for claims-based reporting.
Therefore, eligible professionals
participating in the 2010 PQRI via EHR
reporting or claims reporting will be
required to submit all data on 2010
PQRI quality measures by no later than
February 28, 2011 in order for the data
to be included in the 2010 PQRI data
analysis. Whereas CMS receives the raw
data elements from eligible
professionals for EHR and claims-based
reporting and calculates the eligible
professionals’ reporting and
performance results, registries must
calculate and submit eligible
professionals’ quality measure reporting
and performance results to us. In
implementing registry-based reporting
for the 2008 PQRI, we determined that
a February deadline for submission of
data on PQRI quality measures would be
insufficient for registries to collect the
data from their participants, calculate
PQRI quality measure results, and
submit the quality measure results and
numerator and denominator data to
CMS. Thus, registries are given
additional time beyond February 28,
2011, to submit their data on behalf of
participating eligible professionals.
Eligible professionals participating in
the 2010 PQRI via registry reporting
should check with their selected registry
regarding the registry’s deadline for
submission of data on PQRI quality
measures from eligible professionals.
For the reasons discussed above and
based on the comments received, as
well as our experience with the EHR
testing process to date, we are finalizing
the option for an eligible professional to
be able to choose to report data on 2010
PQRI quality measures through claims,
through a qualified registry, or through
a qualified EHR product (contingent on
there being a qualified 2010 EHR
product). Depending on which PQRI
individual quality measures or measures
groups an eligible professional selects,
however, one or more of the 2010
reporting mechanisms may not be
available for reporting a particular 2010
PQRI individual quality measure or
measures group. The 2010 reporting
mechanism(s) through which each 2010
PQRI individual quality measure and
measures group can be reported is
identified in Tables 11 through 27 of
this final rule with comment period.
Regardless of the reporting
mechanism chosen by an eligible
professional, there is no requirement for
the eligible professional to sign up or
register to participate in the PQRI.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61795
However, there may be some
requirements for participation through a
specific reporting mechanism that are
unique to that particular reporting
mechanism. In addition to the criteria
for satisfactory reporting of individual
measures and measures groups
described in sections II.G.2.e. and
II.G.2.f. of this final rule with comment
period, eligible professionals must
ensure that they meet all requirements
for their chosen reporting mechanism as
described in sections II.G.2.d.1. through
II.G.2.d.3. of this final rule.
(1) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Claims-Based Reporting Mechanism
For eligible professionals who choose
to participate in the 2010 PQRI by
submitting data on individual quality
measures or measures groups through
the claims-based reporting mechanism,
we proposed that the eligible
professional would be required to
submit the appropriate PQRI quality
data codes on the professionals’
Medicare Part B claims. As in previous
years, an eligible professional would be
permitted to start submitting the quality
data codes for the eligible professional’s
selected individual PQRI quality
measures or measures group at any time
during 2010. Please note, however, that
as required by section 1848(m)(1)(A) of
the Act, all claims for services furnished
between January 1, 2010 and December
31, 2010, would need to be processed by
no later than February 28, 2011, to be
included in the 2010 PQRI analysis.
We did not receive any comments
specific to the requirements for
individual eligible professionals who
choose claims-based reporting.
Therefore, we are finalizing the
requirements as proposed. Eligible
professionals should refer to the ‘‘2010
PQRI Implementation Guide’’ to
facilitate satisfactory reporting of quality
data codes for 2010 PQRI individual
measures on claims and to the ‘‘Getting
Started with 2010 PQRI Reporting of
Measures Groups’’ to facilitate
satisfactory reporting of quality data
codes for 2010 PQRI measures groups
on claims. By no later than December
31, 2009, both of these documents will
be posted on the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri.
(2) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Registry-Based Reporting Mechanism
In order to report quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on the 2010 PQRI individual
quality measures or measures group
through a qualified clinical registry, we
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61796
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
proposed that eligible professionals
would need to enter into and maintain
an appropriate legal arrangement with a
qualified 2010 PQRI registry. Such
arrangements would provide for the
registry’s receipt of patient-specific data
from the eligible professional and the
registry’s disclosure of quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on PQRI quality measures or
measures groups on behalf of the
eligible professional to CMS. Thus, the
registry would act as a Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104–191) (HIPAA)
Business Associate and agent of the
eligible professional. Such agents are
referred to as ‘‘data submission
vendors.’’ The ‘‘data submission
vendors’’ would have the requisite legal
authority to provide clinical quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on individual quality
measures or measures groups on behalf
of the eligible professional for the PQRI.
The registry, acting as a data submission
vendor, would submit CMS-defined
registry-derived measures information
to the CMS designated database for the
PQRI, using a CMS-specified record
layout. The record layout will be
provided to the registry by CMS.
To maintain compliance with
applicable statutes and regulations, our
program and its data system must
maintain compliance with the HIPAA
requirements for requesting, processing,
storing, and transmitting data. Eligible
professionals that conduct HIPAA
covered transactions also would need to
maintain compliance with the HIPAA
requirements.
We proposed that eligible
professionals choosing to participate in
PQRI by submitting quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on PQRI individual quality
measures or measures groups through
the registry-based reporting mechanism
for 2010 would be required to select a
qualified PQRI registry and submit
information on PQRI individual quality
measures or measures groups to the
selected registry in the form and manner
and by the deadline specified by the
registry (74 FR 33562).
In addition to meeting the above
proposed requirements specific to
registry-based reporting, we proposed
that eligible professionals who choose to
participate in PQRI through the registrybased reporting mechanism would need
to meet the relevant criteria proposed
for satisfactory reporting of individual
measures or measures groups that all
eligible professionals must meet in
order to qualify to earn a 2010 PQRI
incentive payment (74 FR 33563).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed requirements for individual
eligible professionals who choose the
registry-based reporting mechanism for
the 2010 PQRI.
Comment: We received multiple
comments requesting that we not wait
until the qualified 2009 registries
successfully submit their 2009 PQRI
data to publish the list of qualified
registries for 2010 PQRI. Commenters
suggested that approved registries and
the vetting of the self-nominated
registries must occur earlier in the
reporting year to allow eligible
providers time to review and select an
appropriate registry for their needs. A
few commenters suggested that the list
of eligible registries be made available
prior to the start of the reporting period
and one commenter recommended these
registries be announced at least one
month prior to the reporting period.
Another commenter suggested the delay
in listing qualified registries for 2010
PQRI would penalize 2009 qualified
registries and could lead to an
unintended consequence of decreasing
the number of participating eligible
professionals in 2010.
Response: We understand the concern
posed by the commenters. We make
every effort to increase the likelihood of
successful data submission to PQRI on
behalf of eligible professionals from
qualified registries. While we cannot
guarantee that a qualified registry will
be able to send the quality measure data
on behalf of their eligible professionals,
a thorough vetting process has been
established in order to qualify new
registries. Part of this process includes
determining the success of the 2009
PQRI registries with respect to their data
submission. As in 2009, we are again
requiring a self-nomination process for
registries wishing to submit quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on 2010 PQRI quality
measures or measure groups on behalf
of eligible professionals for services
furnished during the applicable
reporting periods in 2010. Similar to
previous years, the 2010 PQRI registry
self-nomination process is based on a
registry meeting specific technical and
other requirements. While we strive to
announce the qualified 2010 registries
in advance of our target date, the
selection process to determine qualified
registries for 2010 PQRI is timeconsuming. We anticipate posting the
complete list of qualified 2010 registries
as soon as we have completed vetting
the registries interested in participating
in the 2010 PQRI and identified the
qualified registries for the 2010 PQRI.
We expect to post the qualified
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
registries no later than Summer 2010. In
an attempt to address the commenters’
requests, however, we do intend to post
the names of the successful 2008
registries who intend to continue their
participation in the 2010 PQRI. As
stated in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule
(74 FR 33562 through 33563), this initial
list of 2010 qualified registries will be
available on the Web site by no later
than December 31, 2009.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we consider implementing a registry
submission process that allows
registries to demonstrate the recording
and feedback of quality information,
rather than go through a cumbersome
method to transform the data for
submission to CMS. The commenter
noted that the current registry
requirements appear to be designed in a
way that would allow registry data to be
transformed to claims data.
Response: We believe the commenter
is reacting to the fact that the PQRI
originated as a claims-based quality
reporting program and he or she
believes that registry requirements are
still being designed to allow registry
data to be transformed to claims data.
We do not require registries to transform
the quality data that they collect into a
claims data format, as such a
requirement would be overly
prescriptive. In accordance with the
registry qualifications set forth in
section II.G.2.d.4. of this final rule with
comment period, registries may collect
and analyze data on PQRI measures and
measures groups on behalf of eligible
professionals pursuing incentive
payment for the 2010 PQRI in any
manner they deem appropriate for
successful business operations.
Therefore, an eligible professional who
chooses registry-based reporting must
submit data on PQRI quality measures
or measures groups in whatever manner
that is required by his or her selected
qualified registry.
Comment: A commenter suggested
that individual eligible professionals
and small practices be offered a
mechanism by which registry data could
be cross-referenced with claims data to
see if any other provider has supplied
the appropriate care. The commenter
remarked that this would allow eligible
professionals to participate in registrybased reporting even if they do not have
access to the quality information needed
to report.
Response: The PQRI does not allow
for one eligible professional’s data to be
‘‘cross-referenced’’ with other eligible
professional’s data at the individual
eligible professional level. This is
however, consistent with one of the
benefits of the physician group option
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
method of PQRI reporting, which will
start in 2010 and is discussed in further
detail in section II.G.2.g. of this final
rule with comment period. Satisfactory
participation in PQRI for individuals
looks at reporting rates at the individual
TIN/NPI level.
As a result of the comments, we are
finalizing the requirements for
individual eligible professionals who
choose the registry-based reporting
mechanism as proposed (74 FR 33562
through 33563) and discussed above.
We will post on the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov a list of qualified
registries for the 2010 PQRI, including
the registry name, contact information,
and the 2010 measure(s) and/or
measures group(s) for which the registry
is qualified and intends to report. As
proposed in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33562 through 33563), we
will post the names of 2010 PQRI
qualified registries in 2 phases. In either
event, even though a registry is listed as
‘‘qualified,’’ we cannot guarantee or
assume responsibility for the registry’s
successful submission of PQRI quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on PQRI quality
measures or measures groups on behalf
of eligible professionals.
In the first phase, we will post, by
December 31, 2009, a list of those
registries qualified for the 2010 PQRI
based on: (1) Being a qualified registry
for the 2008 and 2009 PQRI that
successfully submitted 2008 PQRI
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on the quality
measures; (2) having received a letter
indicating their continued interest in
being a PQRI registry for 2010; and (3)
the registry’s compliance with the 2010
PQRI registry requirements. By posting
this first list of qualified registries for
the 2010 PQRI, we seek to make
available the names of registries that can
be qualified at the start of the 2010
reporting period.
In the second phase, we will complete
posting of the list of qualified 2010
registries as soon as we have completed
vetting the additional registries
interested in participating in the 2010
PQRI and identified the qualified
registries for the 2010 PQRI, which we
anticipate will be completed by no later
than Summer 2010. An eligible
professional’s ability to report PQRI
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on PQRI quality
measures or measures groups using the
registry-based reporting mechanism
should not be impacted by the complete
list of qualified registries for the 2010
PQRI being made available after the start
of the reporting period. First, registries
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
will not begin submitting eligible
professionals’ PQRI quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on the quality measures or
measures groups to CMS until 2011.
Second, if an eligible professional
decides that he or she is no longer
interested in submitting quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on PQRI individual
quality measures or measures group
through the registry-based reporting
mechanism after the complete list of
qualified registries becomes available,
this does not preclude the eligible
professional from attempting to meet the
criteria for satisfactory reporting
through another 2010 PQRI reporting
mechanism.
The process and requirements that
will be used to determine whether a
registry is qualified to submit quality
measures results and numerator data on
PQRI quality measures or measures
groups on an eligible professional’s
behalf in 2010 are described in section
II.G.2.d.4. of this final rule with
comment period.
(3) Requirements for Individual Eligible
Professionals Who Choose the EHRBased Reporting Mechanism
For eligible professionals who choose
to participate in the 2010 PQRI by
submitting data on individual quality
measures through the EHR-based
reporting mechanism, the requirements
we proposed associated with EHR-based
reporting other than meeting the criteria
for satisfactory reporting of individual
measures were to: (1) select a qualified
EHR product and (2) submit clinical
quality data extracted from the EHR to
a CMS clinical data warehouse (74 FR
33563). Provided that our 2009 EHR
data submission testing process is
successful, we proposed to begin
accepting submission of clinical quality
data extracted from ‘‘qualified’’ EHRs on
January 1, 2010, or as soon thereafter as
is technically feasible. We proposed that
eligible professionals will have until
March 31, 2011, to complete data
submission through qualified EHRs for
services furnished during the 2010 PQRI
reporting period.
We did not propose any option to
report measures groups through EHRbased reporting on services furnished
during 2010. Because EHR-based
reporting to CMS of data on quality
measures would be new to PQRI for
2010, we proposed, for EHR-based
reporting, to make available only the
criteria applicable to reporting of
individual PQRI measures. The criteria
applicable to reporting of measures
groups were not proposed to be
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61797
available for EHR-based reporting for
2010.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed requirements for individual
eligible professionals who choose the
EHR-based reporting mechanism.
Comment: Some commenters urged
CMS to conduct extensive education
and outreach prior to implementation of
EHR reporting for PQRI.
Response: We agree that it is
necessary to educate eligible
professionals regarding this new
reporting mechanism prior to
implementation. We anticipate doing so
through PQRI National Provider Calls,
or other CMS-sponsored calls, and
through educational materials to be
posted on the PQRI section of CMS Web
site once qualified EHR vendors have
been identified for the 2010 PQRI.
Comment: One commenter noted his
or her expectation that the 2009 EHR
Testing Program would be a success.
Another commenter suggested we
include a discussion of the 2009 EHR
submission testing experience in this
final rule.
Response: We appreciate the positive
comment and anticipate the ongoing
2009 EHR data submission testing
process will be a success. However, we
have not completed the final beta test as
of the writing of this final rule with
comment period and therefore, we are
unable to discuss the results of the
testing process in this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: Many commenters
supported further expanding reporting
mechanisms and moving forward with
accepting quality measures data through
EHRs for the PQRI program. Several
commenters were pleased with our
proposal to accept PQRI quality measure
data extracted from qualified EHRs in
2010 and one commenter urged us to
quickly finalize testing for the EHRbased reporting mechanism and allow
participation in 2010 PQRI through the
use of qualified EHRs. One commenter
indicated the use of EHR data
submission will result in the reporting
of more robust quality measures.
Response: We encourage the adoption
and use of EHRs and are appreciative of
the commenters’ support. We believe
EHR-based reporting will enhance the
quality of PQRI data reported by eligible
professionals participating in the PQRI
program and, compared to claims-based
reporting, will relieve some of the
reporting burden on eligible
professionals.
Comment: One commenter remarked
that all eligible professionals should
have the option to report measures
through an EHR. Similarly, another
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61798
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
commenter indicated opposition to the
decision to limit EHR based reporting
initially to a narrow subset of the
universe of approved quality measures.
Response: We have selected 10
measures which can be reported from an
EHR in this initial phase of quality data
reporting from EHRs for PQRI. As we
gain experience accepting quality
measures data electronically, we will
evaluate the feasibility of expanding the
list of measures for which we have this
capability.
Comment: A commenter suggested we
allow hospital EHR systems to qualify as
a reporting method for PQRI, as some
eligible professionals are employed in a
hospital facility which may be using an
EHR (for example, Registered
Dietitians).
Response: To the extent that a
hospital utilizes an EHR system that is
‘‘qualified’’ for the 2010 PQRI, eligible
professionals employed by the hospital
can participate in the 2010 PQRI by
submitting PQRI quality measures data
extracted from the hospital’s EHR
system. We do not place restrictions on
who can self-nominate to have one or
more of their EHR products become
qualified PQRI EHR products as long as
the vendor successfully completes the
self-nomination process described in
section II.G.2.d.5. of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: One commenter concurred
that we cannot assume responsibility for
the successful submission of data from
an eligible professional’s EHRs.
Response: As discussed in the
proposed rule (74 FR 33563), we cannot
assume responsibility for the successful
submission of data from any eligible
professional’s EHR. It is each EHR
vendor’s responsibility to ensure that it
has updated its EHR product(s) to
facilitate PQRI quality measures data
submission.
Comment: One commenter
recommended a more streamlined
approach to simplify the reporting
criteria and time-periods for EHR users,
by allowing EHR users to report on all
their patients throughout the year.
Response: For satisfactory PQRI
reporting via a qualified EHR, we are
requiring all PQRI quality data to be
submitted at one time. This will allow
us to finish the infrastructure
development and will also allow CMS
and eligible professionals to avoid
redundant reporting by inadvertently
submitting data previously reported.
Also, we believe one-time reporting is
more convenient for eligible
professionals.
Comment: One commenter
commended CMS for acknowledging the
Health Information Technology for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH)
Act and its focus on EHR
implementation for incentive payments,
meaningful use, and quality reporting.
Some commenters suggested that we
align initiatives in response to the
health information technology (HIT)
incentives and with applicable
provisions in the HITECH Act regarding
EHR certification requirements (that is,
HITECH requires eligible professionals
to use certified technology) so that
eligible professionals can follow similar
qualification and/or certification
requirements as they prepare for quality
reporting for both PQRI and the HITECH
Act incentive programs. Another
commenter remarked that EHR systems
may require reinstallation or significant
maintenance/upgrades to meet
‘‘meaningful use’’ criteria, which could
potentially take months to achieve.
Coordinating reporting standards may
help minimize preparation and
reporting requirements for program
participants. Another commenter
suggested we advocate to the
Certification Commission of Health
Information Technology for the
inclusion of PQRI reporting capabilities
in the certification criteria.
Response: Any EHR quality data
submission will be required to comply
with all current regulations regarding
security and privacy. ‘‘Meaningful use’’
criteria will be reviewed as they are
finalized and we will endeavor to align
our work in the future, as appropriate.
However, since meaningful use criteria
have not yet been finalized, this
comment is currently beyond the scope
of this final rule with comment period.
Comment: One commenter remarked
that an EHR is a tool that allows
physicians to improve work flow and
efficiency by electronically
documenting data, however it does not,
in all cases, have a quality feedback
loop for providers. One commenter
recommended that we provide back to
the submitter, feedback on the extracted
data that is received and then that
feedback should be provided back to the
eligible professional. The commenter
also suggested we require that this
process include return receipt for the
data content prior to scoring for PQRI
participation and calculation of
incentive payment.
Response: With regard to a ‘‘feedback
loop,’’ we note that the EHR data
submission process is such that the
eligible professional will know if the file
he or she sent to us has been
successfully submitted and accepted. A
file which is not accepted will be
returned with an error code. We note,
however, that successful submission of
a data file does not indicate that the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
eligible professional met the criteria for
satisfactory reporting; it just indicates
that we received the data file that was
sent to us.
As is the case for other eligible
professionals participating in PQRI,
eligible professionals submitting their
quality data through an EHR will
receive a feedback report from us that
will be accessible in the same manner
as other feedback reports we provide for
other reporting mechanisms.
As a result of the comments and our
experience thus far with the ongoing
2009 EHR Testing Program, eligible
professionals who choose the EHRbased reporting mechanism for the 2010
PQRI will be required to (in addition to
meeting the criteria for satisfactory
reporting of individual measures):
• Have a qualified EHR product;
• Have an active IACS user account
that will be used to submit clinical
quality data extracted from the EHR to
a CMS clinical data warehouse;
• Submit a test file containing real or
dummy clinical quality data extracted
from the EHR to a CMS clinical data
warehouse via IACS between July 1,
2010 and September 30, 2010 (if
technically feasible); and
• Submit a file containing the eligible
professional’s 2010 PQRI clinical
quality data extracted from the EHR for
the entire reporting period (that is
January 1, 2010 through December 31,
2010) via IACS between January 1, 2011
through February 28, 2011.
As stated above, however, the 2009
EHR Testing Program is still ongoing.
Since only EHR vendors that selfnominated to participate in the 2009
EHR Testing Program and successfully
complete the 2009 EHR Testing Program
will be considered qualified EHR
vendors for the 2010 PQRI, there is no
guarantee that there will be any
qualified EHR vendors available for the
2010 PQRI. In addition, as we complete
the 2009 EHR Testing Program and are
better able to determine what is
technically feasible, the actual dates on
which eligible professionals are
required to submit their test files and/
or to begin submitting the actual 2010
PQRI data are subject to change.
As stated above, we also cannot
assume responsibility for the successful
submission of data from eligible
professionals’ EHRs. Any eligible
professional who chooses to submit
PQRI data extracted from an EHR
should contact the EHR product’s
vendor to determine if the product is
qualified and has been updated to
facilitate PQRI quality measures data
submission. Such professionals also
should begin attempting submission
soon after the opening of the clinical
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
data warehouse in order to assure the
professional has a reasonable period of
time to work with his or her EHR and/
or its vendor to correct any problems
that may complicate or preclude
successful quality measures data
submission through that EHR. As we
indicated above, data submission for the
2010 PQRI will need to be completed by
February 28, 2011.
The specifications for the electronic
transmission of the 2010 PQRI measures
identified in Table 14 of this final rule
as being available for EHR-based
reporting in 2010 are posted on
Alternative Reporting Mechanisms page
of the PQRI section of the CMS Web
site.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(4) Qualification Requirements for
Registries
For the 2010 PQRI, we proposed to
require a self-nomination process for
registries wishing to submit 2010 PQRI
quality measures or measures groups on
behalf of eligible professionals for
services furnished during the applicable
reporting periods in 2010 (74 FR 33563).
The proposed registry self-nomination
process for the 2010 PQRI would be
based on a registry meeting specific
technical and other requirements.
To be considered a qualified registry
for purposes of submitting individual
quality measures and measures groups
on behalf of eligible professionals who
choose to report using this reporting
mechanism under the 2010 PQRI, we
proposed that a registry would need to:
• Be in existence as of January 1,
2009;
• Be able to collect all needed data
elements and calculate results for at
least 3 measures in the 2010 PQRI
program (according to the posted 2010
PQRI Measure Specifications);
• Be able to calculate and submit
measure-level reporting rates by TIN/
NPI;
• Be able to calculate and submit, by
TIN/NPI, a performance rate (that is, the
percentage of a defined population who
receive a particular process of care or
achieve a particular outcome) for each
measure on which the TIN/NPI reports;
• Be able to separate out and report
on Medicare Part B FFS patients;
• Provide the name of the registry;
• Provide the reporting period start
date the registry will cover;
• Provide the reporting period end
date the registry will cover;
• Provide the measure numbers for
the PQRI quality measures on which the
registry is reporting;
• Provide the measure title for the
PQRI quality measures on which the
registry is reporting;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
• Report the number of eligible
instances (reporting denominator);
• Report the number of instances of
quality service performed (numerator);
• Report the number of performance
exclusions;
• Report the number of reported
instances, performance not met (eligible
professional receives credit for
reporting, not for performance);
• Be able to transmit this data in a
CMS-approved XML format. We expect
that this CMS-specified record layout
will be substantially the same as for the
2008 and 2009 PQRI. This layout will be
provided to registries in 2010;
• Comply with a CMS-specified
secure method for data submission,
such as submitting its data in an XML
file through an IACS user account;
• Submit an acceptable ‘‘validation
strategy’’ to CMS by March 31, 2010. A
validation strategy ascertains whether
eligible professionals have submitted
accurately and on at least the minimum
number (80 percent) of their eligible
patients, visits, procedures, or episodes
for a given measure. Acceptable
validation strategies often include such
provisions as the registry being able to
conduct random sampling of their
participants’ data, but may also be based
on other credible means of verifying the
accuracy of data content and
completeness of reporting or adherence
to a required sampling method;
• Enter into and maintain with its
participating professionals an
appropriate Business Associate
agreement that provides for the
registry’s receipt of patient-specific data
from the eligible professionals, as well
as the registry’s disclosure of quality
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on behalf of eligible
professionals who wish to participate in
the PQRI program;
• Obtain and keep on file signed
documentation that each holder of an
NPI whose data are submitted to the
registry has authorized the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data to
CMS for the purpose of PQRI
participation. This documentation must
be obtained at the time the eligible
professional signs up with the registry
to submit PQRI quality measures data to
the registry and must meet any
applicable laws, regulations, and
contractual business associate
agreements;
• Provide CMS access (if requested)
to review the Medicare beneficiary data
on which 2010 PQRI registry-based
submissions are founded;
• Provide the reporting option
(reporting period and reporting criteria)
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61799
that the eligible professional has
satisfied or chosen; and
• Provide CMS a signed, written
attestation statement via mail or e-mail
which states that the quality measure
results and numerator and denominator
data provided to CMS are accurate and
complete (74 FR 33563 through 33564).
With respect to the submission of
2010 measure results and numerator
and denominator data on measures
groups, we proposed to retain in 2010
the following registry requirements from
the 2009 PQRI:
• Indicate the reporting period
chosen for each eligible professional
who chooses to submit data on
measures groups;
• Base reported information on
measures groups only on patients to
whom services were furnished during
the 12-month reporting period of
January through December 2010 or the
6-month reporting period of July 2010
through December 2010;
• Agree that the registry’s data may be
inspected by CMS under our oversight
authority if non-Medicare patients are
included in the patient sample;
• Be able to report data on all of the
measures in a given measures group and
on either 30 patients from January 1
through December 31, 2010 (note this
patient sample must include some
Medicare Part B FFS beneficiaries) or on
80 percent of applicable Medicare Part
B FFS patients for each eligible
professional (with a minimum of 15
patients during the January 1, 2010
through December 31, 2010 reporting
period or a minimum of 8 patients
during the July 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2010 reporting period);
and
• Be able to report the number of
Medicare FFS patients and the number
of Medicare Advantage patients that are
included in the patient sample for a
given measures group (74 FR 33564).
In addition to the above requirements,
we proposed the following new
requirements for registries for the 2010
PQRI:
• Registries must have at least 25
participants;
• Registries must provide at least 1
feedback report per year to participating
eligible professionals;
• Registries must not be owned and
managed by an individual locallyowned single-specialty group (in other
words, single-specialty practices with
only 1 practice location or solo
practitioner practices would be
prohibited from self-nominating to
become a qualified PQRI registry);
• Registries must participate in
ongoing 2010 PQRI mandatory support
conference calls hosted by CMS
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61800
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(approximately 1 call per month),
including an in-person registry kick-off
meeting to be held at CMS headquarters
in Baltimore, MD;
• Registries must provide a flow and
XML of a measure’s calculation process
for each measure type that the registry
intends to calculate; and
• Registries must use PQRI measure
specifications to calculate reporting or
performance unless otherwise stated (74
FR 33654).
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed qualification requirements
and self-nomination process for
registries for the 2010 PQRI.
Comment: We received several
comments supporting many of the
proposed qualification requirements for
registries. A number of commenters
agreed with the proposed requirement
that registries must have a minimum of
25 participants. Similarly, one
commenter remarked that the rationale
for restricting a single practice site or
solo practitioners from becoming a
qualified registry is unclear and
suggested that such entities should not
be prohibited from becoming a qualified
registry if they otherwise meet the
requirements.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comments and believe that
the additional requirements will
improve registry based reporting. We
limited registry participation to
registries with at least 25 participants to
conserve both CMS and eligible
professionals’ resources. Every registry
goes through a vetting process which
includes providing a sample measure
flow illustrating how that registry will
calculate an example of each type of
measure it plans to submit to CMS.
Additionally, registries must send in a
sample XML file per the CMS
specifications. This process occurs over
a 2–3 month period and requires
resources on the part of CMS, as well as
the potential registry. Finally, a
mandatory in-person registry kick-off
meeting is held each year at CMS
headquarters in Baltimore, MD. We
believe the time and expense for a solo
practitioner or single practice site to go
through these steps would be
prohibitive for most practitioners or
practice sites. We do not believe that a
majority of solo practitioners or single
practice sites do not have the
information technology (IT) staffing and
resources needed to successfully
complete the vetting process.
Furthermore, we do not have the
resources to provide IT support to such
entities.
Comment: Numerous commenters
strongly supported the requirement for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
registries to provide at least one
feedback report per year to participating
eligible professionals. Several
commenters suggested the feedback
reports from registries be issued to
eligible professionals at some point
during the reporting year so as to allow
practices to assess their performance
both on reporting and on performance,
which may inform and promote internal
quality improvement. One commenter
stated providing eligible professionals
with access to feedback reports during
the reporting year would allow more
accurate assessment of their
performance before the close of the
reporting period.
Response: We agree that the
requirement for registries to provide at
least one feedback report per year is an
essential tool for quality improvement
and must be provided to participating
eligible professionals. The information
contained within feedback reports will
allow the eligible professional to assess
the quality of care they provided to their
patients during the specific reporting
timeframe of the report. Furthermore the
report may provide information for the
promotion of internal quality
improvement. While we will not require
registries to provide more than the
minimum number of feedback reports
per year (one) to participating eligible
professionals, we would be supportive
of such a decision by a registry.
Comment: One commenter
recommended we develop an audit
program for registry vendors, as the
PQRI program moves away from claimsbased reporting. The commenter
suggested eligible professionals
participating in the PQRI look to CMS
for assurance that registry vendors are
regularly inspected for quality.
Response: As we gain more
experience with registry submission, we
would expect to further specify through
rulemaking qualification requirements
for registries that may include more
comprehensive validation requirements.
As we evaluate our policies, we plan to
continue a dialogue with stakeholders to
discuss opportunities for program
efficiency and flexibility.
As a result of the comments, we are
finalizing the 2010 qualification
requirements for registries as proposed
(74 FR 33563 through 33565).
We will post the 2010 PQRI registry
requirements, including the exact date
by which registries that wish to qualify
for 2010 must submit a self-nomination
letter and instructions for submitting the
self-nomination letter, on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI by November
15, 2009. We anticipate that new
registries that wish to self-nominate for
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2010 will be required to do so by
January 31, 2010.
We are finalizing our proposal (74 FR
33563 through 33565) that registries that
were ‘‘qualified’’ for 2009 and wish to
continue to participate in 2010 will not
need to be ‘‘re-qualified’’ for 2010
unless they are unsuccessful at
submitting 2009 PQRI data (that is, fail
to submit 2009 PQRI data per the 2009
PQRI registry requirements). Registries
that are ‘‘qualified’’ for 2009 and wish
to continue to participate in 2010 were
required to indicate their desire to
continue participation for 2010 by
submitting a letter to CMS indicating
their continued interest in being a PQRI
registry for 2010 and their compliance
with the 2010 PQRI registry
requirements by no later than October
31, 2009. Instructions regarding the
procedures for submitting this letter
were provided to qualified 2009 PQRI
registries on the 2009 PQRI registry
support conference calls.
If a qualified 2009 PQRI registry fails
to submit 2009 PQRI data per the 2009
PQRI registry requirements, the registry
will be considered unsuccessful at
submitting 2009 PQRI data and will
need to go through the full selfnomination process again to participate
in the 2010 PQRI. By March 31, 2010,
registries that are unsuccessful
submitting quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data for
2009 will need to be able to meet the
2010 PQRI registry requirements and go
through the full vetting process again.
As stated in the proposed rule, the
above registry requirements will apply
not only for the purpose of a registry
qualifying to report 2010 PQRI quality
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on PQRI individual
quality measures or measures groups,
but also for the purpose of a registry
qualifying to submit the proposed
electronic prescribing measure for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
(see section II.G.5. of this final rule with
comment period.
(5) Qualification Requirements for EHR
Vendors and Their Products
As stated in the proposed rule (74 FR
33565), we proposed that EHR products
listed on the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI as a ‘‘qualified’’ EHR product (that
is, the name of the vendor software
product and the version that is
qualified), would be available for the
product’s users to submit quality data to
CMS directly from their system for the
2010 PQRI. We also proposed that we
would post this list of qualified EHR
vendors and products upon completion
of the 2009 EHR Testing Program. We
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
anticipate the 2009 EHR Testing
Program will be complete in early 2010.
Vendors’ EHR products that are listed
as ‘‘qualified’’ products were selected
because the vendor self-nominated to
participate in the 2009 EHR Testing
Program and demonstrated that their
products met the ‘‘Requirements for
Electronic Health Record (EHR) Vendors
to Participate in the 2009 PQRI EHR
Testing Program’’ that were posted on
the Alternative Reporting Mechanisms
page of the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI/20_Reporting.asp#TopOfPage on
December 31, 2008. Additionally, a
vendor’s EHR system must be updated
according to the Draft 2010 EHR
specifications posted on the Alternative
Reporting Mechanisms page of the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site in order for
an EHR vendor and its product to be
qualified to submit information on 2010
PQRI measures.
As stated in the proposed rule (74 FR
33565), we proposed that the EHR
vendor requirements described above
would apply not only for the purpose of
a vendor’s EHR product being qualified
for the purpose of the product’s users
being able to submit data extracted from
the EHR for the 2010 PQRI, but also for
the purpose of a vendor’s EHR product
being qualified for the purpose of the
product’s users being able to
electronically submit data extracted
from the EHR for the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed 2010 EHR vendor
qualification requirements and/or
process.
Comment: One commenter
recommended we implement an
ongoing qualification process for new
vendors and systems to enable inclusion
of vendors that did not self-nominate or
did not exist prior to the reporting year.
Response: Currently there is an
ongoing qualification process for new
EHR vendors and their products. EHR
vendors interested in enabling their
customers to submit data on PQRI that
is extracted from their customers’ EHRs
must complete the EHR vendor quality
data submission qualification process to
be considered. For the 2010 PQRI, we
will consider those EHR vendors who
successfully completed the 2009 EHR
Testing Program to be qualified for
purposes of the 2010 PQRI. We will list
the vendors qualified for the 2010 PQRI
on the PQRI section of the CMS Web
site upon completion of the 2009 PQRI
EHR Testing Process. We anticipate
completing the 2009 PQRI EHR Testing
Process in early 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
During 2010, we expect to use a
similar self-nomination process
described in the ‘‘Requirements for
Electronic Heath Record (EHR) Vendors
to Participate in the 2009 PQRI EHR
Testing Program’’ posted on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/
20_Reporting.asp#TopOfPage to qualify
additional vendors for the 2011 PQRI.
This document is subject to
modification for the 2011 EHR selfnomination process. In any case, a
vendor must self-nominate no later than
January 31, 2010 to be eligible to
participate in the 2011 PQRI Testing
Process in 2010. Sometime in 2010,
those EHR products that meet all of the
EHR vendor requirements will be listed
on the PQRI section page of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI as a ‘‘qualified’’ EHR product,
which indicates that the vendor’s
product’s users may submit quality data
to CMS for the 2011 PQRI or subsequent
years.
Comment: Some commenters
commended the establishment of
electronic standards for EHR-based
reporting.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comments regarding the
establishment of standard qualification
requirements for EHR reporting.
Comment: A few of commenters
expressed concern regarding the criteria
set forth to rigidly define ‘‘qualified’’
EHRs. These concerns stem from the
fact that some EHR products are
developed for health care professionals
specific to their needs (such as physical
therapists, oncologists, etc.). Another
commenter remarked that vendors for
specialty-specific EHR products, such as
oncology-specific EHR products, should
not have to adjust their software to
comply with certification procedures
designed for a general ambulatory
system. This commenter stated that the
goal of EHRs should be to contain
comprehensive information relevant to
each patient’s condition, their treatment
plan and outcomes, but in some cases,
specific terminology and data collection
to support the eligible professional.
Response: We recognize that some
EHR products have been designed to
accommodate specific specialties,
however, we are unclear how this
would prevent the EHR product from
meeting the EHR qualification
requirements other than that there are
no measures available for reporting via
EHR. As we analyze the EHR reporting
mechanism for 2010, we will consider
expanding the measures available for
electronic submission in the future.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we develop an audit
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61801
program for EHR vendors, as the PQRI
moves away from claims-based
reporting. The commenter suggested
eligible professionals participating in
the PQRI look to CMS for assurance that
vendors are regularly inspected for
quality.
Response: Ensuring that vendors meet
and perform properly would fall under
the purview of their certifying body,
which is currently CCHIT (if the
product is CCHIT certified). During the
qualification process (in which we
conduct testing to ensure that the EHR
can extract and transmit the necessary
quality data elements), we evaluate the
vendor and their program to see if the
system is capable of performing the
necessary tasks required for quality
reporting to us for PQRI.
Comment: One commenter noted that
some practitioners do not have authority
under state law to prescribe
medications, and thus products
developed to meet the needs of these
eligible professionals need not
incorporate electronic prescribing
functionality at this time.
Response: We recognize the concerns
cited by the commenter and note that
PQRI does not require qualified EHRs to
have an electronic prescribing module
in order for eligible professionals to
participate in the PQRI via a qualified
EHR. We believe the commenter is
referring to the idea of ‘‘meaningful use’’
with respect to requiring an electronic
prescribing module in the EHR system
for purposes of the HITECH Act
incentive programs. The issue of
‘‘meaningful use’’ is beyond the scope of
this rule.
As previously stated above, only EHR
vendors that self-nominated to
participate in the 2009 EHR Testing
Program and successfully complete the
2009 EHR Testing Program will be
considered qualified EHR vendors for
the 2010 PQRI. There is no guarantee
that there will be any qualified EHR
vendors available for the 2010 PQRI
since the 2009 EHR Testing Program is
still ongoing.
During 2010, we expect to use the
self-nomination process described in the
‘‘Requirements for Electronic Health
Record (EHR) Vendors to Participate in
the 2009 PQRI EHR Testing Program’’
posted on the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI/20_AlternativeReporting
Mechanisms.asp#TopOfPage, to qualify
additional EHR vendors and their EHR
products to submit quality data
extracted from their EHR products to the
CMS clinical quality data warehouse for
program years after 2010. We anticipate
that the requirements will be similar to
those used to qualify EHR products for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61802
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the 2009 PQRI EHR Testing Program,
but they may be modified based on the
results of our 2009 EHR testing. Any
updates to the EHR vendor
requirements, which would be based on
our experience with the 2009 EHR
Testing Program and would be nonsubstantive in nature, will be made
December 15, 2009, and will be posted
on the PQRI section of CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI. As
stated previously, any EHR vendor
interested in having one or more of their
EHR products ‘‘qualified’’ to submit
quality data extracted from their EHR
products to the CMS clinical quality
data warehouse for 2011 and subsequent
years must submit their self-nomination
letter by January 31, 2010. Instructions
for submitting the self-nomination letter
will be provided in the 2011 EHR
vendor requirements. At the conclusion
of this process, those EHR products that
meet all of the EHR vendor
requirements will be listed on the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site as a
‘‘qualified’’ EHR product, which
indicates that the product’s users may
submit quality data to CMS for the 2011
PQRI or subsequent years.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
e. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting of
Individual Quality Measures for
Individual Eligible Professionals
As discussed in the proposed rule (74
33565 through 33568), for years after
2009, section 1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act
authorizes the Secretary, in consultation
with stakeholders and experts, to revise
the criteria for satisfactorily reporting
data on quality measures. Based on this
authority and the input we have
received from stakeholders via the
invitation to submit suggestions for the
2010 PQRI reporting options posted on
the PQRI section of the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI in
April 2009, we proposed 3 criteria for
satisfactory reporting of individual PQRI
quality measures for 2010. In an effort
to continue to be consistent with the
criteria of satisfactory reporting used in
prior PQRI program years, we proposed
to retain the following 2 criteria with
respect to satisfactorily reporting data
on individual quality measures in
circumstances where 3 or more
individual quality measures apply to the
services furnished by an eligible
professional:
• Report on at least 3 2010 PQRI
measures; and
• Report each measure for at least 80
percent of the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients for whom
services were furnished during the
reporting period to which the measure
applies.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
These criteria would apply to all 2010
PQRI reporting mechanisms available
for reporting individual PQRI quality
measures.
If an eligible professional has fewer
than 3 PQRI measures that apply to the
professional’s services, then the
professional would be able to meet the
criteria for satisfactorily reporting data
on individual quality measures by
meeting the following 2 criteria:
• Reporting on all measures that
apply to the services furnished by the
professional (that is 1 to 2 measures);
and
• Reporting each measure for at least
80 percent of the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients for whom
services were furnished during the
reporting period to which the measure
applies.
We proposed that, as in previous
years, these criteria for satisfactorily
reporting data on fewer than 3
individual quality measures would be
available for the claims-based reporting
mechanism only. An eligible
professional who has fewer than 3 PQRI
measures that apply to the
professional’s services would not be
able to meet the criteria for satisfactory
reporting by reporting on all applicable
measures (that is, 1 or 2 measures)
through the registry-based or EHR-based
reporting mechanisms.
We also proposed that an eligible
professional who reports on fewer than
3 measures through the claims-based
reporting mechanism in 2010 may be
subject to the Measure Applicability
Validation (MAV) process, which allows
us to determine whether an eligible
professional should have reported
quality data codes for additional
measures. When an eligible professional
reports on fewer than 3 measures, we
proposed to review whether there are
other closely related measures (such as
those that share a common diagnosis or
those that are representative of services
typically provided by a particular type
of professional). If an eligible
professional who reports on fewer than
3 measures in 2010 reports on a measure
that is part of an identified cluster of
closely related measures and did not
report on any other measure that is part
of that identified cluster of closely
related measures, then the professional
would not qualify to receive a 2010
PQRI incentive payment. Additional
information on the MAV process can be
found on the Analysis and Payment
page of the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI.
In addition to the above criteria
related to the number of measures on
which an eligible professional would be
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
required to report and the frequency of
reporting, we proposed a third criterion
for satisfactory reporting of individual
measures. Based on our authority to
revise the criteria for satisfactory
reporting under section 1848(m)(3)(D) of
the Act, we proposed (74 FR 33566) that
an eligible professional also be required
to report data on at least one individual
measure on a minimum number of
Medicare Part B FFS patients seen
during the reporting period, as detailed
below.
Regardless of the reporting
mechanism chosen by the eligible
professional, we proposed (74 FR
33567) that the minimum patient
sample size for reporting individual
quality measures be 15 Medicare Part B
FFS patients for the 12-month reporting
period. An eligible professional would
need to meet this minimum patient
sample size requirement for at least one
measure on which the eligible
professional chooses to report.
Similarly, for the 6-month reporting
period (which was proposed to be
available for registry-based reporting
only), we proposed that the minimum
patient sample size for reporting on
individual quality measures be 8
Medicare Part B FFS patients seen
during the 6-month reporting period. An
eligible professional would need to meet
this minimum patient sample size
requirement for at least one measure on
which the eligible professional chooses
to report.
We solicited comments on the
proposal to add a minimum patient
sample size criterion to the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of data on
individual quality measures. In
addition, we solicited comments on the
specific thresholds proposed for the 12month reporting period (which was
proposed to be available for claimsbased, registry-based, and EHR-based
reporting) and for the 6-month reporting
period (which was proposed to be
available for registry-based reporting
only) for reporting individual quality
measures.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
individual quality measures for
individual eligible professionals.
Comment: We received several
comments supporting the proposed
minimum patient sample size
requirement for PQRI reporting of
individual measures (that is, at least 15
patients for at least 1 measure for the 12month reporting period and at least 8
patients for at least 1 measure for the 6month reporting period). A few
commenters supported the proposed
minimum patient sample requirement
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
only if eligible professionals are
required to meet the proposed
threshold(s) for only 1 measure on
which they report. Many commenters
remarked that the minimum patient
sample size requirement would
encourage eligible professionals to
select more applicable measures while
discouraging eligible professionals from
selectively reporting measures that are
not representative of the types of
services they normally provide in their
practice. The commenters also remarked
that the minimum sample size
requirements will enhance the scientific
validity of eligible professionals’
performance results.
Response: We agree with the reasons
cited by commenters for why the
minimum patient sample size
requirement is important. However,
analysis of preliminary data from the
2008 PQRI indicates that a significant
number of eligible professionals who
would otherwise meet the criteria for
satisfactory reporting would be
adversely impacted by the addition of a
minimum patient sample size
requirement to the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of individual
measures by individual eligible
professionals. Therefore, we are not
finalizing the proposed minimum
patient sample requirement. We will
reconsider adding a minimum patient
sample requirement to the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of individual
measures for future years upon further
analysis of the PQRI data.
Comment: We also received
comments requesting that we withdraw
the proposed minimum patient sample
requirement. The commenters were
concerned that this requirement would
create a participation barrier for certain
eligible professionals, such as those who
treat patients with rare conditions, those
with small practices, and/or those with
relatively few Medicare patients.
Response: For the reasons stated
above and based on the commenters’
concerns that such a requirement would
create participation barriers for certain
eligible professionals, we are not
finalizing the proposed minimum
patient sample size requirement for the
PQRI reporting options for individual
measures reporting. However, upon
further analysis of the PQRI data, we
will reconsider adding a minimum
patient sample requirement to the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
individual measures and explore other
means of enhancing the PQRI criteria for
satisfactory reporting for future years.
Comment: A majority of commenters
believed that the proposed minimum
patient sample size thresholds were
appropriate. Some commenters,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
however, believed that the thresholds
should be lowered to 10 or 15 for the 12month reporting period and 6 for the 6month reporting period. Other
commenters believed that the thresholds
should be higher, such as 25 or 30 for
the 12-month reporting period.
Response: As stated previously, we
are not finalizing the proposed
minimum patient sample size
requirement for reporting of 2010 PQRI
individual measures. As we reassess
this requirement for future years, we
anticipate that we will continue to
monitor the PQRI data on an ongoing
basis and reassess the thresholds as
needed for future years.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we reconsider allowing registrybased reporting for fewer than 3
measures, primarily to encourage
eligible professionals to transition to
registry-based reporting, as the claimsbased option becomes phased out. This
option may also allow greater flexibility
for the program.
Response: We appreciate the intent of
this comment, however, as in previous
years, satisfactorily reporting data on
fewer than 3 individual quality
measures will only be available for the
claims-based reporting mechanism.
While we have received similar
comments in the past, we continue to
believe that permitting an eligible
professional to report fewer than 3
measures through the registry-based
reporting mechanism, (if fewer than 3
measures apply to him or her) would be
inefficient at this time. Analytically it
would be difficult to implement in that
if an eligible professional submits fewer
than 3 measures via registries, we would
not know whether the eligible
professional did so because only 2
measures applied to him or her or
because the registry only accepts data
for 2 of the provider’s measures and he
or she is reporting their third measure
via claims. We also look for the most
favorable method of reporting (that is,
did the eligible professional report via a
different method for a longer reporting
period as well as whether an eligible
professional satisfactorily reported
under a different reporting option if he
or she did not satisfactorily report for a
particular reporting option). Accepting
fewer than 3 measures from registries
would increase the amount of crosschecking already required and makes it
impractical to implement the
commenter’s suggestions at this time.
Should the claims-based reporting
mechanism be removed entirely from
the PQRI program at some point in the
future, we may revisit the issue of
allowing registries to submit data for
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61803
eligible professionals on fewer than 3
measures.
Comment: One commenter remarked
that limiting EHR-based reporting to
reporting on individual measures would
limit the ability of some eligible
professionals to report on the measures
most relevant to them by eliminating
one reporting mechanism (such as
electronic reporting of the back pain
measures for spine care).
Response: The EHR reporting
mechanism for PQRI is still in an early
development phase. This mechanism
will be closely examined in the future,
and may be expanded as appropriate.
We believe that the first set of measures
specified electronically have broad
appeal in that they deal with common
conditions such as diabetes and
prevention.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended significant changes to the
criteria for satisfactory reporting that
would not be consistent with the criteria
for satisfactory reporting for prior years.
For example, one commenter
recommended that as the PQRI moves
forward, the definition of satisfactory
reporting should not be determined by
what the commenter believed were
somewhat arbitrary formulas but rather
by accurate data that is able to reflect
the ways in which a provider attempted
to relay the quality of their patient care.
Another commenter recommended that
CMS phase out the existing process by
which participating professionals select
the measures on which they will be
report. Instead CMS should assign each
participating individual eligible
professional with sets of measures for
high volume conditions, based on
services provided to their patient
population. Similarly, another
commenter recommended more criteria
to guide measure selection by eligible
professionals and that we require
eligible professionals to report on 6
measures.
Response: We agree with commenters
that as the PQRI matures, we will need
to reassess the criteria for satisfactory
reporting so that the information that we
collect becomes more representative of
the quality of care provided by eligible
professionals. We also generally agree
with the goals cited by the commenters,
but have concerns that the specific
suggestions offered by the commenters
are not operationally practical and
feasible when we take into account the
vast numbers of eligible professionals
and the diversity of their practices.
In addition, we believe that such
significant changes should occur
gradually. The criteria for satisfactory
reporting are specifically defined under
section 1848(m)(3)(A) of the Act. With
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61804
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the authority under section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act to revise the
criteria for satisfactory reporting for
years after 2009, we have started to
move towards the direction
recommended by commenters with the
introduction of the minimum patient
sample size requirement for individual
measures reporting for the 2010 PQRI.
In addition, the new PQRI group
practice reporting option also moves the
PQRI towards the direction
recommended by commenters in that
we assign participating group practices
both the measures and patients on
which they are required to report. We
will consider additional changes to the
criteria for satisfactory reporting for
2011 and beyond and look forward to
receiving stakeholder input on how we
can revise the criteria for satisfactory
reporting in an operationally practical
and feasible manner to achieve the goals
cited by commenters.
Comment: One comment was received
with respect to the MAV, which allows
us to determine whether an eligible
professional should have reported
quality data codes for additional
measures when an eligible professional
submits fewer than 3 individual PQRI
measures. The commenter requested
that CMS provide updates on newly
identified clusters of closely related
measures that will be employed in the
MAV for 2010.
Response: No changes are planned for
the MAV process for 2010. Additional
information on the MAV process are
listed on the Analysis and Payment page
of the PQRI section of the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
However, we are contemplating some
changes to the clusters of closely related
measures based on the addition or
removal of measures in the 2010 PQRI
or the fact that certain measures
included in these clusters will become
registry-only measures for 2010. For
example, if measures in an existing
cluster are retired for the 2010 PQRI or
are made registry-only then the cluster
will be revised or deleted as
appropriate.
Based on the new 2010 PQRI
measures, the only new clusters being
contemplated are a second preventive
cluster, 2 new anesthesia care clusters,
an ear care cluster, and an Ischemic
Vascular (IVD) cluster. The second
preventive cluster would consist of the
following 2 measures: (1) Measure #114
Preventive Care and Screening: Inquiry
Regarding Tobacco Use and (2) Measure
#115 Preventive Care and Screening:
Advising Smokers and Tobacco Users to
Quit. The first anesthesia care cluster
would consist of 2 measures: (1)
Measure #30 Perioperative Care: Timely
Administration of Prophylactic
Parenteral Antibiotics and (2) Measure
#76 Prevention of Catheter-Related
Bloodstream Infections (CRBI): Central
Venous Catheter (CVC) Insertion
Protocol. The second anesthesia care
cluster would consist of Measure #76
and the new Perioperative Temperature
Management measure. For both of the
anesthesia care clusters, however, the
MAV would not apply if an eligible
professional reports only Measure #76.
Measure # 76 is a broadly applicable
measure that encompasses services
often provided by eligible professionals
for whom Measure #30 and the
Perioperative Temperature Management
measure do not apply such as
intensivists, hospitalists, internists, and
emergency physicians. The ear care
cluster would consist of the 3 new
referral for otologic evaluation measures
listed in Table 13 of this final rule. The
IVD cluster would consist of the
following 4 new PQRI measures:
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Blood Pressure Management Control;
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Complete Lipid Profile;
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C)
Control; and
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Use of Aspirin or Another AntiThrombotic.
By no later than December 31, 2009,
we will post the final MAV process for
2010 and the final 2010 MAV clusters
on the Analysis and Payment page of
the PQRI section of the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/25_
AnalysisAndPayment.asp#TopOfPage.
After considering the comments and
the new 6-month reporting period for
claims-based reporting of individual
PQRI quality measures that we are
adding to the 2010 PQRI at the request
of commenters, the final 2010 criteria
for satisfactory reporting of data on
individual PQRI quality measures are
summarized in Table 7 and are arranged
by reporting mechanism and reporting
period. The criteria for satisfactory
reporting for claims-based reporting of
individual PQRI quality measures for
the 6-month reporting period are
consistent with the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of individual PQRI
quality measures.
For the 2010 PQRI, there are a total of
5 reporting options, or ways, in which
an eligible professional may meet the
criteria for satisfactory reporting on
individual quality measures. Each
reporting option consists of the criteria
for satisfactory reporting such data and
results on individual quality measures
relevant to a given reporting mechanism
and reporting period. While eligible
professionals may potentially qualify as
satisfactorily reporting individual
quality measures under more than one
of the reporting criteria, reporting
mechanisms, and/or for more than one
reporting period, only one incentive
payment will be made to an eligible
professional based on the longest
reporting period for which the eligible
professional satisfactorily reports.
TABLE 7—2010 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON INDIVIDUAL PQRI QUALITY MEASURES, BY
REPORTING MECHANISM AND REPORTING PERIOD
Reporting criteria
Claims-based reporting ...................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Reporting mechanism
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures, or 1–2 measures if
less than 3 measures apply to the eligible professional;
and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible
professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures, or 1–2 measures if
less than 3 measures apply to the eligible professional;
and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible
professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures; and
Claims-based reporting ...................
Registry-based reporting .................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting period
January 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
July 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
January 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61805
TABLE 7—2010 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON INDIVIDUAL PQRI QUALITY MEASURES, BY
REPORTING MECHANISM AND REPORTING PERIOD—Continued
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Registry-based reporting .................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
EHR-based reporting .......................
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible
professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures; and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible
professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures; and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible
professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measure applies.
f. Proposed Criteria for Satisfactory
Reporting Measures Groups for
Individual Eligible Professionals
For the 2010 PQRI, we proposed 2
basic sets of criteria for satisfactory
reporting on a measures group (74 FR
33568). Both sets of criteria would apply
to the claims-based and registry-based
reporting mechanism. We did not
propose to make the EHR-based
reporting mechanism available for
reporting on measures groups in 2010.
The first set of proposed criteria,
which we proposed to make available
for either the 12-month or 6-month
reporting period in 2010, would be
consistent with the 2009 criteria for
satisfactory reporting of measures
groups through registry-based reporting,
which require the reporting of at least 1
measures group for at least 80 percent
of patients to whom the measures group
applies during the applicable reporting
period (with reporting required on a
minimum number of Medicare Part B
FFS patients commensurate with the
reporting period duration). In the 2009
PQRI, there was a requirement under
these criteria to report each measures
group on at least 30 Medicare Part B
FFS patients for the 12-month reporting
period and at least 15 Medicare Part B
FFS patients for the 6-month reporting
period for registry-based reporting of
measures groups. For the 2010 PQRI, we
proposed to revise the requirement by
making these criteria applicable to both
registry-based and claims-based
reporting and to change the number of
Medicare Part B FFS patients on which
an eligible professional would be
required to report a measures group. We
proposed to require an eligible
professional who chooses to report on
measures groups based on reporting on
80 percent of applicable patients to
report on a minimum of 15 Medicare
Part B FFS patients for the 12-month
reporting period and a minimum of 8
Medicare Part B FFS patients for the 6month reporting period, regardless of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Reporting period
Jkt 220001
whether the eligible professional
chooses to report the measures group
through claims-based reporting or
registry-based reporting.
The second set of proposed criteria,
which we proposed to make available
for the 12-month reporting period only,
would be based on reporting on a
measures group on a specified
minimum number of patients (74 FR
33568). The second set of criteria would
require reporting on at least 1 measures
group for at least 30 patients seen
between January 1, 2010 and December
31, 2010 to whom the measures group
applies. Unlike the 2009 PQRI, which
required that eligible professionals
report on consecutive patients (that is,
patients seen in order, by date of
service), the 30 patients on which an
eligible professional would need to
report a measures group for 2010 would
not need to be consecutive patients. The
eligible professional would be able to
report on any 30 unique patients seen
during the reporting period to which the
measures group applies. As in previous
years, we proposed that for 2010, the
patients, for claims-based reporting,
would be limited to Medicare Part B
FFS patients. For registry-based
reporting, however, we proposed that
the patients could include some, but not
be exclusively, non-Medicare Part B FFS
patients.
We solicited comments on our
proposal to make the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of measures
groups more consistent with those
proposed for reporting individual
measures, including our proposal to
revise the minimum sample size
requirement related to satisfactory
reporting on measures group through
the registry-based reporting mechanism
so that the criteria for satisfactory
reporting of measures groups, regardless
of reporting mechanism, would be
identical to those proposed for reporting
individual measures. We also solicited
comments on our proposal to allow
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
July 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
January 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
eligible professionals to report on
measures groups on any 30 patients
rather than a consecutive patient
sample.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
criteria for satisfactory reporting
measures groups for individual eligible
professionals.
Comment: A few commenters agreed
with the proposal to make the criteria
for satisfactory reporting of measures
groups more consistent with those
proposed for reporting individual
measures. One commenter cited that
doing so makes the program more
accessible and improves the
commenter’s ability to educate their
members.
Response: We agree that making the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
measures groups more consistent with
those proposed for reporting individual
measures should facilitate participation
and enhance education efforts. For the
reasons cited in section II.G.2.e. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
not finalizing our proposal to add a
minimum patient sample requirement to
the criteria for satisfactory reporting of
individual measures. For the 2010 PQRI
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
measures groups, however, we will
retain the minimum patient sample size
requirement for those eligible
professionals who choose to report on
measures groups based on reporting on
80 percent of applicable patients and
will finalize the lower thresholds for the
minimum patient sample size
requirement proposed for 2010.
Comment: We received numerous
comments in support of our proposal to
allow eligible professionals to report on
measures groups on any 30 patients
rather than a consecutive patient
sample.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback and
hope that this change will make
measures group reporting a more
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61806
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
attractive option for eligible
professionals.
Comment: A few commenters were
opposed to removing the requirement
that the 30 patients be consecutive. A
few commenters expressed that
reporting of measures groups on
consecutive patients reduces
opportunities for selectively reporting
patients or cases with more favorable
results or would result in reporting on
non-representative patient samples.
Another commenter suggested the CMS
eliminate the option of reporting on 30
patients through claims altogether or
allow eligible professionals to report on
non-consecutive patients but require a
reporting period within which the 30
patients must be selected.
Response: We believe that retaining
the option to report on 30 patients
provides an incentive to eligible
professionals to consider reporting
measures groups instead of individual
PQRI measures. As we have stated
previously, we believe that measures
groups enable a more comprehensive
assessment of patient care for a given
clinical condition or focus by
addressing several aspects of care for
that particular clinical condition or
focus. Because we believe that measures
groups may often provide more
meaningful information about the care
being furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries than individual measures
reported in isolation, we would like to
encourage measures group reporting
where possible.
With respect to commenters’ concerns
that removing the requirement that
eligible professionals report on 30
patients, we reiterate that we believe
that it would be difficult for eligible
professionals to selectively choose
which patients to report on since they
must report on multiple measures for a
given clinical condition or focus. We
will, however, continue to monitor the
PQRI data to determine whether this
needs to be reassessed in future years.
Comment: We received some
comments supporting the proposed
revisions to the minimum patient
sample size requirement for PQRI
reporting of measures group (that is,
reducing the thresholds from reporting
at least 30 patients for at least 1
measures group for the 12-month
reporting period and at least 15 patients
for at least 1 measures group for the 6month reporting period to 15 and 8
patients, respectively). Some
commenters also remarked that the
proposed thresholds were reasonable
and appropriate. One commenter,
however, remarked that the proposed
thresholds were not adequate.
Response: We are finalizing the
thresholds as proposed to provide
eligible professionals with fewer than 30
patients an opportunity to report on
PQRI measures groups for 2010. As
identified in Table 8, the new minimum
patient sample size thresholds for
measures groups reporting for the 2010
PQRI will be 15 patients for at least 1
measures group for the 12-month
reporting period and 8 patients for at
least 1 measures group for the 6-month
reporting period.
As suggested by another commenter,
however, we will continue to monitor
the PQRI data on an ongoing basis to
determine whether the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of measures
groups, including the minimum patient
sample size requirements, need to be reevaluated for future years.
After considering the comments and
for the reasons discussed previously, the
final 2010 criteria for satisfactory
reporting of data on measures groups are
summarized in Table 8 and are arranged
by reporting mechanism and reporting
period. Accordingly, there are a total of
6 reporting options, or ways in which an
eligible professional may meet the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
measures groups for the 2010 PQRI.
Each reporting option consists of the
criteria for satisfactory reporting
relevant to a given reporting mechanism
and reporting period. As stated
previously, while eligible professionals
may potentially qualify as satisfactorily
reporting on measures groups under
more than one of the reporting criteria,
reporting mechanisms, and/or for more
than one reporting period, only one
incentive payment will be made to an
eligible professional based on the
longest reporting period for which the
eligible professional satisfactorily
reports. Similarly, an eligible
professional could also potentially
qualify for the PQRI incentive payment
by satisfactorily reporting both
individual measures and measures
groups. However, only one incentive
payment will be made to the eligible
professional based on the longest
reporting period for which the
professional satisfactorily reports.
TABLE 8—2010 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING ON MEASURES GROUPS, BY REPORTING MECHANISM AND
REPORTING PERIOD
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Claims-based reporting ................................
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 30 Medicare Part B FFS patients.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of
the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the
measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 15 Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting
period to which the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of
the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the
measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 8 Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting
period to which the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 30 patients. Patients may include, but may not be exclusively, non-Medicare Part B FFS patients.
Claims-based reporting ................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Claims-based reporting ................................
Registry-based reporting ..............................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting period
January 1, 2010—December 31, 2010.
January 1, 2010—December 31, 2010.
July 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
January 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61807
TABLE 8—2010 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING ON MEASURES GROUPS, BY REPORTING MECHANISM AND
REPORTING PERIOD—Continued
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Registry-based reporting ..............................
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of
the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the
measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 15 Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting
period to which the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of
the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the
measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 8 Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting
period to which the measures group applies.
Registry-based reporting ..............................
g. Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting on Quality Measures by
Group Practices
As discussed above, for 2010,
incentive payments will be available to
group practices based on the
determination that the group practice, as
a whole (that is, for the TIN),
satisfactorily reports on PQRI quality
measures for 2010. If, however, an
individual eligible professional is
affiliated with a group practice
participating in the group practice
reporting option and the group practice
satisfactorily reports under the group
practice reporting option, the eligible
professional will not be eligible to earn
a separate PQRI incentive payment for
2010 on the basis of his or her
satisfactorily reporting PQRI quality
measures data at the individual level
under that same TIN (that is, for the
same TIN/NPI combination).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(1) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
As stated in the proposed rule (74 FR
33570), section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the
Act authorizes the Secretary to define
‘‘group practice.’’ For purposes of
determining whether a group practice
satisfactorily submits PQRI quality
measures data, we proposed that a
‘‘group practice’’ would consist of a
physician group practice, as defined by
a single TIN, with at least 200 or more
individual eligible professionals (as
identified by Individual NPIs) who have
reassigned their billing rights to the TIN.
We solicited comments on the proposed
definition of ‘‘group practice’’ and our
proposal to limit initial implementation
of the PQRI group practice reporting
option in 2010 to practices with 200 or
more individual eligible professionals.
We also proposed to require group
practices to complete a self-nomination
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Reporting period
process and to meet certain technical
and other requirements in order to
participate in the 2010 PQRI through the
group practice reporting option (74 FR
33570). Group practices interested in
participating in the 2010 PQRI through
the group practice reporting option
would be required to submit a selfnomination letter to CMS requesting to
participate in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option. The following
is a summary of the comments received
regarding the proposed definition of
‘‘group practice’’ and the proposed selfnomination requirements.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we consider allowing
smaller group practices to participate in
this reporting option. Commenters were
concerned that defining a group practice
as 200 or more eligible professionals
will lead to inaccurate data and further
bias. Commenters encouraged us to look
for ways to make the option more
accessible for most group practices,
including those that are not large group
practices. Commenters requested that
we consider whether in the future
smaller group practice sizes should be
allowed to participate in this option.
Commenters also requested an
alternative reporting option that uses
statistical sampling for primary care
oriented group practices that report
measures only applicable to primary
care physicians.
Response: We are appreciative of the
commenters’ thoughtful and
constructive feedback and will take
these concerns into consideration as we
further develop the group practice
reporting option. However, the group
practice reporting option draws from the
experiences of the Physician Group
Practice (PGP) demonstration and the
Medicare Care Management
Performance (MCMP) demonstration.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
January 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
July 1, 2010–December 31, 2010.
Each of these demonstrations included
physician groups, but of different sizes.
The PGP demonstration, which the
group practice reporting option
statistical sampling method is primarily
modeled after, has been successful. We
recognize that the group practice size of
200 or more individual eligible
professionals limits participation. The
inclusion of smaller group practices that
is those with less than 200 individual
eligible professionals, in the group
practice reporting option was not
proposed at this time because we
believe it is unlikely that the smaller
groups would be able to achieve 411
assigned Medicare beneficiaries per
disease module or preventive care
measure that we use under the
demonstration. We will use this initial
implementation year to further develop
and refine aspects of the group practice
reporting option and anticipate adapting
and expanding this option to group
practices less than 200 individual
eligible professionals in future program
years.
Comment: Several commenters were
supportive of the group practice
reporting option and thought that the
group level data would be more
meaningful. Commenters expressed that
they are pleased to see the group
practice reporting option which has
many benefits and that CMS has taken
a logical step of initially basing the
group reporting process on the PGP and
MCMP demonstrations. A commenter
stated that group practice reporting
option encourages voluntary reporting
and promotes better care coordination
and a team-based approach to care. One
commenter suggested that the group
practice reporting option reduces the
significant resources which practices
currently need to report measures.
Another commenter stated the group
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61808
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
practice reporting option allows for
increased provider participation and
greater transparency in the healthcare
provided to Medicare beneficiaries and
suggested that the group practice
reporting option will bring greater
attention to a range of important
therapeutic areas.
Response: The group practice
reporting option is based on certain
aspects of the PGP and the MCMP
demonstrations. As defined, the group
practice reporting option is intended for
large physician groups to report on the
high-cost chronic care quality measures
for the specific disease modules and
preventive care.
Comment: A few commenters
supported the proposal for public
reporting of group practices’
performance results. One commenter,
however, did so with the caveat that
CMS monitors the results to ensure that
there are no unintended consequences.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. As we
have stated previously, it is our desire
to be able to move towards public
reporting of performance results for
physicians and other eligible
professionals. We believe that public
reporting of group practice performance
results provides an opportunity to move
towards achieving that goal with PQRI
data.
Comment: Several commenters were
opposed to public reporting of the group
practices’ PQRI performance results
because they believe:
• The reporting process for group
practices needs to be further tested to
ensure that there are no problems when
we implement this process into PQRI,
that validity and accuracy of the
measures as a reflection of performance,
and that there are no unintended
consequences;
• CMS does not have specific
authority from the Congress to post
performance results;
• Doing so would be premature and
discourage groups from participating in
this option;
• Many issues identified in the CMS
Issue Paper: Development of a Plan to
Transition to a Medicare Value-Based
Purchasing Program for Physician and
Other Professional Services should be
addressed prior to public reporting of
performance results. Once addressed,
public reporting of performance results
should be conducted for all PQRI
participants, not just group practices;
For similar reasons, other commenters
requested that we delay public reporting
of the group practices’ performance
results for at least 1 year or wait until
we are fully satisfied with the reliability
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
and validity of the performance data
collected from group practices.
Response: Section 1848(m)(3)(C) of
the Act requires us to establish a process
under which eligible professionals in a
group practice shall be treated as
satisfactorily submitting data on PQRI
quality measures and provides the
Secretary with the discretion to
determine how to set up this process.
For group practices that choose to
participate in the PQRI, participation in
the group practice reporting option is
voluntary. Group practices have a
choice as to whether they wish to
participate in PQRI with each eligible
professional in the group participating
individually using one of the reporting
options available to individual eligible
professionals or to participate as a group
through the group practice reporting
option.
Furthermore, we believe that public
reporting of performance information at
the group level does not present some
of the same issues that public reporting
of performance information at the
individual eligible professional would.
For example, as we stated in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule, no
performance results would be calculated
based on small denominator sizes due to
the reporting criteria for the group
practice reporting option, which require
that group practices report each disease
module or preventive care measure
under the group practice reporting
option for 411 patients. Nevertheless,
we take note of the importance of
working through the concerns raised by
commenters about publicly posting
groups’ performance results, especially
commenters’ concerns about doing so in
the first year of implementation of the
group practice reporting option and the
importance of giving participating group
practices an opportunity to review their
results from the first year of the group
practice reporting option before any
information is publicly reported.
Therefore, we are not finalizing our
proposal to require group practices that
wish to utilize the group practice
reporting option in 2010 to agree to have
their PQRI performance results publicly
reported. In addition, we will not report
any 2010 group practice performance
results publicly except as otherwise
required by law and will limit public
reporting of information on the PQRI
group practice reporting for 2010 to the
information required by section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act (that is, the
names of group practices that
satisfactorily submitted data on 2010
PQRI quality measures). Instead, we will
consider implementing public reporting
of group practices’ performance results
in the 2011 PQRI program year.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For the reasons discussed above and
based on these comments, a group
practice, for purposes of finalizing the
2010 PQRI group practice reporting
option, a group practice will consist of
a single TIN with at least 200 or more
individual eligible professionals (as
identified by Individual NPIs) who have
reassigned their billing rights to the TIN.
Additionally, the TIN and all Individual
NPIs must be established Medicare
providers.
To participate in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option, a group
practice will be required to submit a
self-nomination letter indicating the
group practice’s interest in participating
in the 2010 PQRI group practice
reporting option. Also, the letter must
be accompanied by an electronic file
submitted in a format specified by CMS
(such as, a Microsoft Excel file) that
includes the group practice’s TIN and
the Individual NPI numbers, name of
the group practice, and names of all
eligible professionals who will be
participating as part of the group
practice (that is, all Individual NPI
numbers, which are established
Medicare providers and associated with
the group practice’s TIN), a single point
of contact for handling administrative
issues as well as a single point of
contact for technical support purposes.
In addition, the self-nomination letter
must also indicate the group practice’s
compliance with the following
requirements:
• Have an active IACS user account;
• Agree to attend and participate in
all mandatory training sessions; and
• Have billed Medicare Part A and
Part B on or after January 1, 2009 and
prior to October 29, 2009.
The final participation requirements
listed above for group practices,
including instructions for submitting
the self-nomination letter and other
requested information, will be posted on
the PQRI section of the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI by
November 15, 2009. Group practices
that wish to self-nominate for 2010 will
be required to do so by January 31,
2010. Upon receipt of the selfnomination letters we will assess
whether the participation requirements
were met by each self-nominated group
practice using 2009 Medicare claims
data.
As discussed further in section II.G.5.
of this final rule, participation in the EPrescribing Incentive Program is
voluntary for group practices selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option. However, we are
requiring group practices to participate
in the PQRI group practice reporting
option in order to be eligible to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option.
Therefore, a group practice that wishes
to participate in both the PQRI group
practice reporting option and the
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting must notify CMS of its desire
to do so at the time that it selfnominates to participate in the PQRI
group practice reporting option.
(2) Process for Physician Group
Practices to Participate as Group
Practices and Criteria for Satisfactory
Reporting Data on Quality Measures by
Group Practices
For physician groups selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option for 2010, we proposed
(74 FR 33570) the reporting period
would be the 12-month reporting period
beginning January 1, 2010. We proposed
that group practices would be required
to submit information on these
measures using a data collection tool
based on the data collection tool used in
CMS’ MCMP demonstration and the
quality measurement and reporting
methods used in CMS’ PGP
demonstration. We proposed that
physician groups selected to participate
in the 2010 PQRI through the group
practice reporting option would be
required to report on a common set of
26 NQF-endorsed quality measures that
are based on measures currently used in
the MCMP and/or PGP demonstration
and that target high-cost chronic
conditions and preventive care.
As part of the data submission
process, we proposed that, beginning in
2011, each group practice would be
required to report quality measures with
respect to services furnished during the
2010 reporting period (that is, January 1,
2010 through December 31, 2010) on an
assigned sample of Medicare
beneficiaries. We proposed to analyze
the January 1, 2010 through October 29,
2010 (that is, the last business day of
October 2010) National Claims History
(NCH) file to assign Medicare
beneficiaries to each physician group
practice using the same patient
assignment methodology used in the
PGP demonstration.
We solicited comments on our
proposal to adopt the PGP
demonstration’s quality measurement
and reporting methods for the PQRI
group practice reporting option. We
specifically requested comments on the
proposed patient assignment
methodology and our proposal to use a
data collection tool based on the one
used in the MCMP demonstration as the
reporting mechanism for physician
groups selected to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
We also proposed 2 criteria for
satisfactory reporting of quality
measures by a physician group (74 FR
33571). First, the physician group
would be required to report completely
on all of the proposed modules and
measures listed in Table 34 of the
proposed rule (74 FR 33588). Second,
the physician group would be required
to report completely on the first 411
consecutively assigned and ranked
Medicare beneficiaries per disease
module or preventive care measure.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed reporting option for
satisfactory reporting on quality
measures by group practices under
PQRI.
Comment: One commenter was
troubled by our proposal to model the
PQRI group practice reporting option on
the PGP demonstration since only half
of PGP participants earned the incentive
payment in the 3rd year of the
demonstration. Another commenter
noted that transitioning from individual
eligible professional reporting to group
practice reporting and from pay-forreporting to pay-for-performance are
major and challenging steps.
Response: Although we are planning
to model the data collection and
sampling process for the PQRI group
practice reporting option after the PGP
demonstration, we reiterate that the
PQRI group practice reporting option is
distinct from the PGP demonstration.
The requirements to qualify for the
incentive for PQRI are different from the
requirements to qualify for an incentive
payment under the demonstration.
Whereas the PGP demonstration is a
pay-for-performance demonstration, the
PQRI group practice reporting option,
like the remainder of the PQRI program,
is solely a pay-for-reporting program.
Group practices will qualify for a PQRI
incentive payment based on meeting the
reporting criteria. The PQRI incentive is
not based on the group practice’s
performance on the measures nor on
cost savings.
Comment: Several Commenters were
concerned with the proposed patient
assignment methodology. A few
commenters asked CMS to reconsider
requirements in order to refine the
attribution methodology. One
commenter opposed the retrospective
attribution. One commenter suggested
that we limit the E/M visits to primary
care physicians selected other
specialists, such as endocrinologists and
cardiologists, who frequently provide
and coordinate care for Medicare
beneficiaries. Another commenter
recommended the following
refinements: (1) Use claims that have
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61809
the CPT code for ‘‘established’’ patients
only; (2) use claims that show the place
of service code 11 (the code for office
visits); and (3) require that the patients
have had at least two office visits during
the year in order to get into the sample.
Response: For the group practice
reporting option, the patient sample will
be based on Medicare Part B claims
submitted by the group practices’ TIN
for services provided from January 1,
2010 through October 29, 2010. Only
claims appearing in CMS NCH by
October 29, 2010, will be considered in
the patient sampling and assignment
processes. Patients will be assigned to
the group practice if they receive the
plurality of their Office or Other
Outpatient E/M services from the
practice. The assigned patients who are
selected for quality reporting must have
received Office or Other Outpatient E/M
services from the practice at least two
times in the 10-month period.
Furthermore, part-year and managed
care patients will not be considered
since we have incomplete claims for
these individuals and groups may not
have had sufficient time to impact the
quality of their care. The retrospective
attribution will allow CMS to more
accurately assign patients using
Medicare Part B claims that have been
submitted by the group practices’ TIN
and processed into the NCH.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the eligible professionals’ affiliation
with a group practice will dictate
participation. A commenter asked us to
allow group practices the flexibility to
decide at any stage in the reporting
process whether they want to continue
with the group reporting process.
Response: The group practice
reporting option provides an additional
method of participating in PQRI. We do
not dictate participation in PQRI, nor do
we dictate whether an eligible
professional participates in PQRI as an
individual or as part of a group. PQRI
is a voluntary program. The decision to
participate in PQRI is at the discretion
of the eligible professional. The eligible
professional may participate in PQRI
under multiple unique TIN/NPI
combinations. An eligible professional
may also report via more than one
reporting option. The eligible
professional cannot, however, receive a
duplicate incentive payment for the
same TIN/NPI combination.
The eligible professional can receive
separate incentive payments by
participating and qualifying under one
or more unique TIN/NPI combinations.
For example, if an eligible professional
with TIN/NPI 003/001 participates in
the group practice reporting option for
one practice and also participates as an
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61810
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
individual using TIN/NPI 005/001 the
eligible professional can qualify and
earn a separate incentive payment for
both TIN/NPI combinations because this
is under a different TIN/NPI
combination. In the event that a group
practice is unsuccessful with the group
practice reporting option, we will not
conduct analysis to determine if the
TIN/NPI qualified and is incentive
eligible for other methods of PQRI
participation. There is no appeals
process for PQRI.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we provide a mechanism for allowing
group practices to deselect patients who
have been assigned to the group
practice.
Response: We understand that due to
circumstances out of the groups’ control
(that is, death, unable to locate a
medical record, etc.) that the group
practice may not be able to report
completely on 100 percent of the first
411 consecutively ranked assigned
patient sample. The reporting tool
allows for exclusions in certain
instances and the group will not be
required to populate the tool when these
circumstances arise. In order to
accommodate for such issues, each
group practice will be assigned an over
sample of patients, which will assure
that the group practice reports
completely on 411 consecutively
assigned patients per disease module
and preventive care measure to report
on. The experience from the PGP
demonstration has shown that this
sampling method provides a sufficient
number of assigned patients in the event
that the deselection of assigned patients
is warranted.
Comment: One commenter
specifically supported using the
Performance Assessment Tool (PAT),
which is the data collection tool used in
the PGP and MCMP demonstrations and
proposed for use in PQRI group practice
reporting option. Another commenter
supports using the PAT and applauds
quick turnaround time we anticipate for
providing pre-populated results to
practices.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the data
collection tool. We anticipate providing
the selected group practices with a prepopulated data collection tool. Data
fields will be pre-populated based on
Medicare claims and demographic
information for dates of service between
January 1, 2010 and October 29, 2010.
This tool will be modeled after the PAT
currently in use for the MCMP program,
with some modifications. The tool will
require, at a minimum, standard PC
image with Microsoft Office and
Microsoft Access software installed and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
minimum software configurations for
the group practices to successfully
complete the data collection tool. The
data collection tool may potentially
provide a high level feedback
(submission) report to the group
practice, including such information as
percentage of patients that have been
completed in the sample and percentage
of positive measure results. These
features will allow the group practices
to verify data prior to submitting it to
us. We reserve the right to audit the data
submitted by the group practices.
Comment: One commenter stated that
only those group practices that have
participated in the PGP demonstration
will be successful in completing the tool
and participating in the group practice
reporting option.
Response: Group practices
participating in the PGP demonstration
will not be allowed to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option in
2010. We acknowledge that there will be
a learning period needed to become
familiar with and to complete the tool.
Group practices that are selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option will be required to
attend mandatory training sessions.
Prior to these mandatory training
sessions, we anticipate providing the
group practices with a sample tool to
become familiar with its functionality
and reporting process. Additionally, we
may establish periodic conference calls
with the group practices, with most
calls being held during the tool data
entry period, to provide technical
support to practices. The group
practices will be required to designate
administrative and technical points of
contact to streamline and assist with
communication.
Comment: One commenter stated that
it would be challenging for group
practices to report on 26 measures.
Response: We disagree that it would
be challenging for group practices to
report on 26 measures. We will be
prepopulating the data collection tool
that will be used for the PQRI group
practice reporting option with claims
and other demographic information on
the group practices’ assigned Medicare
beneficiaries prior to sending the data
collection tool to the groups to
complete. Furthermore, we believe the
burden of reporting the 26 measures is
outweighed by the potential incentive
payment. Completion of this data
collection tool on all 26 measures for
the required number of patients
essentially qualifies the group practice
for an incentive payment equal to 2.0
percent of the group practice’s estimated
total Medicare Part B PFS allowed
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
charges for services furnished during
the reporting period.
For the reasons discussed above and
after taking into consideration the
comments, we are finalizing the process
group practices will be required to use
to report data on quality measures for
the 2010 PQRI as a group practice and
the associated criteria for satisfactory
reporting of data on quality measures by
group practices, which are summarized
in Table 9. Group practices participating
in PQRI as a group practice will be
required to report on all of the measures
listed in Table 28 of this final rule with
comment period. These quality
measures are grouped into preventive
care measures and four disease
modules: diabetes; heart failure;
coronary artery disease; and
hypertension.
Although the process for physician
groups to participate in PQRI as a group
practice incorporates some
characteristics and methods from the
PGP demonstration and the MCMP
demonstration, the PQRI group practice
reporting option is a separate program
with its own specifications and
methodology from the PGP and MCMP
demonstration programs. The reporting
process for the group practice reporting
option, including the use of a data
collection tool as the reporting
mechanism, will not be available to
individual eligible professionals
participating in the 2010 PQRI.
As stated in the proposed rule (74 FR
33570 through 33571), we will analyze
the January 1, 2010 through October 29,
2010, NCH file to assign Medicare
beneficiaries to each physician group
practice using the same patient
assignment methodology used in the
PGP demonstration. Assigned
beneficiaries will be limited to those
Medicare FFS beneficiaries with
Medicare Parts A and B for whom
Medicare is the primary payer. Assigned
beneficiaries will not include Medicare
Advantage enrollees. A beneficiary will
be assigned to the physician group that
provides the plurality of a beneficiary’s
office or other outpatient E/M allowed
charges (based on Medicare Part B
claims submitted for the beneficiary for
dates of services between January 1,
2010 and October 29, 2010).
Beneficiaries with only 1 visit to the
group practice between January 1, 2010
and October 29, 2010, will be
eliminated from the group practice’s
assigned patient sample. For inclusion
in the sample, beneficiaries will be
required to have at least 2 visits to the
group practice between January 1, 2010
and October 29, 2010.
Once the beneficiary assignment has
been made for each physician group
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
during the fourth quarter of 2010, we
will provide each physician group
selected to participate in the group
practice reporting option with access to
a database (that is, a data collection tool)
that will include the group’s assigned
beneficiary samples and the quality
measures listed in Table 28. We will
prepopulate the data collection tool
with the assigned beneficiaries’
demographic and utilization
information based on all of their
Medicare claims data. We intend to
provide the selected physician groups
with access to this prepopulated
database by no later than the first
quarter of 2011. The physician group
will be required to populate the
remaining data fields necessary for
capturing quality measure information
on each of the assigned beneficiaries.
Numerators for each of the quality
measures will include all beneficiaries
in the denominator population who also
satisfy the quality performance criteria
for that measure. Denominators for each
quality measure will include a sample
of the assigned beneficiaries who meet
the eligibility criteria for that disease
module or each preventive care quality
measure. All of the assigned patients’
inpatient, outpatient, and physician
claims will be used in determining
clinical eligibility for each module.
61811
Identical to the sampling method used
in the PGP demonstration, the random
sample must consist of at least 411
assigned beneficiaries. If the pool of
eligible assigned beneficiaries is less
than 411, then the group practice must
report on 100 percent, or all, of the
assigned beneficiaries to satisfactorily
participate in the group practice
reporting option. For each disease
module or preventive care measure, the
physician group will be required to
report information on the assigned
patients in the order in which they
appear in the group’s sample (that is,
consecutively).
TABLE 9—2010 PROCESS FOR PHYSICIAN GROUP PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE AS GROUP PRACTICES AND CRITERIA FOR
SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON QUALITY MEASURES BY GROUP PRACTICES
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Reporting period
• A pre-populated data collection tool
provided by CMS.
• Report on all measures included in the data collection tool (26
measures); and
• Complete the tool for the first 411 consecutively ranked and assigned beneficiaries in the order in which they appear in the
group’s sample for each disease module or preventive care
measure. If the pool of eligible assigned beneficiaries is less
than 411, then report on 100% of assigned beneficiaries.
January 1, 2010–December 31,
2010.
h. Statutory Requirements and Other
Considerations for 2010 PQRI Measures
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(1) Statutory Requirements for 2010
PQRI Measures
As discussed in the proposed rule (74
FR 33571 through 33572), the statutory
requirements with respect to the use of
quality measures for the 2010 PQRI are
different from the statutory
requirements for previous program
years. For purposes of reporting data on
quality measures for covered
professional services furnished during
2010 and subsequent years for the PQRI,
subject to the exception noted below,
section 1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, as
added by MIPPA, requires that the
quality measures shall be such measures
selected by the Secretary from measures
that have been endorsed by the entity
with a contract with the Secretary under
subsection 1890(a) of the Act (that is,
the National Quality Forum, or NQF). In
the case of a specified area or medical
topic determined appropriate by the
Secretary for which a feasible and
practical measure has not been endorsed
by the NQF, however, section
1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act authorizes
the Secretary to specify a measure that
is not so endorsed as long as due
consideration is given to measures that
have been endorsed or adopted by a
consensus organization identified by the
Secretary, such as the AQA alliance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Finally, section 1848(k)(2)(D) of the
Act requires that for each 2010 PQRI
quality measure, ‘‘the Secretary shall
ensure that eligible professionals have
the opportunity to provide input during
the development, endorsement, or
selection of measures applicable to
services they furnish.’’
(2) Other Considerations for Measures
Selected for Inclusion in the 2010 PQRI
Based on the statutory requirements
described above, we stated in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33572
through 33573) that we proposed to
apply the following considerations with
respect to the selection of 2009 PQRI
quality measures for inclusion in the
2010 PQRI quality measure set:
• Where some 2009 PQRI quality
measures have been endorsed by the
NQF and others have not, those 2009
PQRI quality measures that have been
specifically considered by NQF for
possible endorsement, but NQF has
declined to endorse it, will not be
included in the 2010 PQRI quality
measure set (that is, we will retire the
measure for 2010).
• In circumstances where no NQFendorsed measure is available, we will
exercise the exception under section
1848 (k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act. Under these
circumstances, a 2009 PQRI quality
measure that previously (that is, prior to
January 31, 2009) has been adopted by
the AQA will meet the requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under the Act and it would be
appropriate for eligible professionals to
use the measure to submit quality
measures data and/or quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on quality measures, as
appropriate.
• Although we are not including any
2009 PQRI measures that have not been
endorsed by the NQF or adopted by the
AQA in the final 2010 PQRI quality
measure set, we acknowledge that
section 1848(k)(C)(ii) of the Act
provides an exception to the
requirement that the Secretary select
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract under section
1890(a) of the Act (that is, the NQF) as
long as an area or medical topic for
which a feasible and practical NQFendorsed measure is not available has
been identified and due consideration
has been given to measures that have
been endorsed by the NQF and/or, prior
to January 31, 2009, adopted by the
AQA.
• The statutory requirements under
section 1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act, subject
to the exception noted above, require
only that the measures be selected from
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract with the
Secretary under section 1890(a) (that is,
the NQF) and are silent with respect to
how the measures that are submitted to
the NQF for endorsement were
developed. The basic steps for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61812
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
developing measures applicable to
physicians and other eligible
professionals prior to submission of the
measures for endorsement may be
carried out by a variety of different
organizations. We do not believe there
needs to be any special restrictions on
the type or make up of the organizations
carrying out this basic development of
physician measures, such as restricting
the initial development to physiciancontrolled organizations. Any such
restriction would unduly limit the basic
development of quality measures and
the scope and utility of measures that
may be considered for endorsement as
voluntary consensus standards.
• 2009 PQRI measures that were part
of the 2007 and/or 2008 PQRI in which
the 2007 and 2008 PQRI analytics
indicate a lack of significant reporting
and usage were not considered for
inclusion in the 2010 PQRI.
In addition to reviewing the 2009
PQRI measures and previously retired
measures, for purposes of developing
the proposed 2010 PQRI measures, we
reviewed and considered measure
suggestions including comments
received in response to the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule and final rule with
comment period. Additionally,
suggestions and input received through
other venues, such as an invitation for
measures suggestions posted on the
PQRI section of the CMS Web site in
February 2009 were also reviewed and
considered for purposes of our
development of the list of proposed
2010 PQRI quality measures. All
measures and measures groups
reviewed for potential inclusion in the
2010 PQRI measure set are listed in the
‘‘Table of 2010 Measure Suggestions’’
posted on the Statute/Regulations/
Program Instructions page of the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/05_Statute
RegulationsProgramInstructions.
asp#TopOfPage.
With respect to the selection of new
measures (that is, measures that have
never been selected as part of a PQRI
quality measure set for 2009 or any prior
year), we stated in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33572 through
33573) that we would apply the
following considerations, which include
many of the same considerations
applied to the selection of 2009 PQRI
quality measures for inclusion in the
2010 PQRI quality measure set
described above:
• High Impact on Healthcare.
+ Measures that are high impact and
support CMS and HHS priorities for
improved quality and efficiency of care
for Medicare beneficiaries. These
current and long term priority topics
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
include: prevention; chronic conditions;
high cost and high volume conditions;
elimination of health disparities;
healthcare-associated infections and
other conditions; improved care
coordination; improved efficiency;
improved patient and family experience
of care; improved end-of-life/palliative
care; effective management of acute and
chronic episodes of care; reduced
unwarranted geographic variation in
quality and efficiency; and adoption and
use of interoperable HIT.
+ Measures that are included in, or
facilitate alignment with, other
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs
in furtherance of overarching healthcare
goals.
• NQF Endorsement.
+ Measures must be NQF-endorsed
by July 1, 2009, in order to be
considered for inclusion in the 2010
PQRI quality measure set.
+ Although we did not propose to
include any new measures that were not
endorsed by the NQF by July 1, 2009 in
the final 2010 PQRI quality measure set,
we acknowledge that section(k)(2)(C)(ii)
of the Act provides an exception to the
requirement that the Secretary select
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract under section
1890(a) of the Act (that is, the NQF). As
long as an area or medical topic for
which a feasible and practical NQFendorsed measure is not available has
been identified and due consideration
has been given to measures that have
been adopted by the AQA or other
consensus organization identified by the
Secretary.
+ The statutory requirements under
section 1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act, subject
to the exception noted above, require
only that the measures be selected from
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract with the
Secretary under section 1890(a) (that is,
the NQF) and are silent with respect to
how the measures that are submitted to
the NQF for endorsement were
developed. The basic steps for
developing measures applicable to
physicians and other eligible
professionals prior to submission of the
measures for endorsement may be
carried out by a variety of different
organizations. We do not believe there
needs to be any special restrictions on
the type or make up of the organizations
carrying out this basic development of
physician measures, such as restricting
the initial development to physiciancontrolled organizations. Any such
restriction would unduly limit the basic
development of quality measures and
the scope and utility of measures that
may be considered for endorsement as
voluntary consensus standards. The
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements under section
1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act pertain only to
the selection of measures and not to the
development of measures.
• Address Gaps in PQRI Measure Set.
+ Measures that increase the scope of
applicability of the PQRI measures to
services furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries and expand opportunities
for eligible professionals to participate
in PQRI. We seek to achieve broad
ability to assess the quality of care
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, and
ultimately to compare performance
among professionals. We seek to
increase the circumstances where
eligible professionals have at least three
measures applicable to their practice
and measures that help expand the
number of measures groups with at least
four measures in a group.
+ Measures of various aspects of
clinical quality including outcome
measures, where appropriate and
feasible, process measures, structural
measures, efficiency measures, and
measures of patient experience of care.
Other considerations that we
proposed to apply to the selection of
measures for 2010, regardless of
whether the measure is a 2009 PQRI
measure or not, were:
• Measures that are functional, which
is to say measures that can be
technically implemented within the
capacity of the CMS infrastructure for
data collection, analysis, and
calculation of reporting and
performance rates. This leads to
preference for measures that reflect
readiness for implementation, such as
those that are currently in the 2009
PQRI program or have been through
testing. The purpose of measure testing
is to reveal the measure’s strengths and
weaknesses so that the limitations can
be addressed and the measure refined
and strengthened prior to
implementation. For new measures,
preference is given to those that can be
most efficiently implemented for data
collection and submission. Therefore,
any measures that have been found to be
technically impractical to report
because they are analytically
challenging due to any number of
factors, including those that are claimsbased, have not been included in the
2010 PQRI. For example, in some cases,
we are replacing existing 2009 PQRI
measures with updated and improved
measures that are less technically
challenging to report.
• For some measures that are useful,
but where data submission is not
feasible through all otherwise available
PQRI reporting mechanisms, a measure
may be included for reporting solely
through specific reporting mechanism(s)
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
in which its submission is feasible. For
example, we proposed to limit reporting
of some measures that previously were
available for claims-based reporting and
registry-based reporting to registrybased reporting only because they were
technically challenging to report and/or
analyze through the claims-based
reporting mechanism (74 FR 33579
through 33580).
We also reviewed 33 measures that
have been retired from the PQRI in
previous years using the considerations
for selecting measures for the 2010 PQRI
discussed above (74 FR 33573). None
were found to be eligible for inclusion
in the 2010 PQRI quality measure set
because they did not meet the criteria
described above.
We solicited comments on the
implication of including or excluding
any given measure or measures in the
final 2010 PQRI quality measure set and
to our approach in selecting measures.
As we stated in the proposed rule, we
recognize that some commenters may
also wish to recommend additional
measures for inclusion in the 2010 PQRI
measures that we did not propose (74
FR 33573). While we may consider such
recommended measures for inclusion in
future measure sets for PQRI and/or
other programs to which such measures
may be relevant, we will not be able to
consider such additional measures for
inclusion in the 2010 measure set.
(3) Summary of Comments and
Responses
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
statutory requirements and other
considerations for the selection of 2010
PQRI measures.
Comment: Some commenters
appreciated our continued efforts to
expand the PQRI quality measure set
with measures that are scientifically
valid and minimize eligible professional
burden. In order to promote the
provisions that reflect up-to-date care
for beneficiaries as the program matures,
these commenters urged us to revise its
quality measures regularly to reflect
current guidelines.
Response: We appreciate these
supportive comments regarding our
continued efforts to expand the PQRI
quality measure set. As the program
evolves, we will continue to consider
more effective processes to update and/
or revise the PQRI quality measure set
to reflect the most current guidelines of
care.
Comment: Several commenters
supported our proposal to only use
quality measures that have been
endorsed by the NQF, thereby ensuring
a rigorous evaluation of the measures by
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
multiple stakeholders and providing an
opportunity for public comment from
those various stakeholders. These
commenters suggested the utilization of
NQF endorsed measures reflect areas
that are common to providers, allow for
appropriate measurement of services
provided in Medicare, and provide a
thorough standardized review
framework. One commenter, however,
was unclear whether NQF or consensus
organization endorsement or adoption is
required for all suggested measures for
2010 or 2011 or whether the Secretary
can suggest measures of her own accord
when measures do not already exist
with this endorsement.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ supportive feedback and
agree with the points raised by the
commenters with respect to the benefits
of NQF endorsement. As we stated
above, subject to the exception under
section 1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act,
measures selected for the 2010 PQRI are
required by section 1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act to be endorsed by Secretary.
Section 1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act
authorizes us to select measures for the
2010 PQRI and subsequent years that
have not been endorsed by the NQF in
a specified area or medical topic for
which a feasible and practical measure
has not been so endorsed as long as we
give due to consideration to measures
that have been endorsed or adopted by
other consensus organizations identified
by the Secretary.
Comment: One commenter notes that
the proposed rule makes allowance for
measures used in the 2009 PQRI that
have not been endorsed by the NQF but
were previously approved by the AQA.
The commenter believes that for new
measures, NQF endorsement should be
a requirement not only for the PQRI
measures but also for measures for the
hospital outpatient quality data
reporting program, or HOP QDRP. While
the underlying statutes for both
reporting programs differ, the
commenter believes CMS has the
discretion to adopt a consistent policy
with respect to NQF endorsement.
Response: As discussed previously,
the requirements for measures selected
for the PQRI are defined in statute. The
requirements for other quality data
reporting programs are beyond the
scope of this rule.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that we require NQF
endorsement not only of individual
measures, but also NQF endorsement of
measures groups.
Response: When we create measures
groups, we only utilize individual
measures that meet statutory
requirements. All measures in current
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61813
measures groups meet the statutory
requirements. We are unaware of any
efforts by NQF to review groups of
measures for separate endorsement.
Section 1848(m)(5)(F) of the Act
required us to establish alternative
criteria for satisfactorily reporting and
alternative reporting periods for
reporting groups of measures for 2008
and subsequent years but did not
establish any additional limitations on
the discretion of the Secretary.
Comment: Some commenters urged us
to recognize additional consensus
organizations to endorse quality
measures for the PQRI. The commenters
suggested we recognize measure
development organizations such as the
American Medical Association’s
Physician Consortium for Performance
Improvement (AMA–PCPI) or the
National Committee for Quality
Assurance (NCQA) as consensus
endorsement organizations.
Response: MIPPA modified the
requirements for measure selection by
the Secretary for PQRI as previously
described. Further, as we stated in
response to similar comments in
previous years, we are unaware of other
consensus organizations that are
comparable to the NQF in terms of
meeting the formal requirements of the
NTTAA or of organizations other than
AQA that do not strictly meet the
requirements of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (NISTA),
as amended by the NTTAA but that
feature the breadth of stakeholder
involvement in the consensus process
necessary to meet the intent of the Act.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the measure development process
should not be restricted to physiciancontrolled organizations but that the
measure development process must
include relevant physician input due to
their expertise in the subject areas.
Response: We are in agreement that
while physician expertise is an
important ingredient in measure
development and in the consensus
process, physicians should not be in
complete control of the process of
measure development. Any such
restriction would unduly limit the basic
development of physician quality
measures.
Comment: A few commenters did not
believe that endorsement or adoption by
the NQF or the AQA, respectively, was
a necessary condition for inclusion of a
measure in the PQRI for 2010 or
subsequent years. One commenter urged
us to use measures from other nationally
recognized sources in areas for which
NQF-endorsed measures are not
available on the condition that the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61814
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
measures are expedited through the
NQF endorsement process.
Response: We agree that NQF
endorsement or AQA adoption is not a
necessary condition for all measures
included in the PQRI quality measure
set. As stated previously, section
1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act does permit
us to select measures for the 2010 PQRI
and subsequent years that have not been
endorsed by the NQF in a specified area
or medical topic for which a feasible
and practical measure has not been so
endorsed as long as we give due
consideration to measures that have
been endorsed or adopted by other
consensus organizations identified by
the Secretary.
We proposed to exercise this
authority for 2010 in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33576 through
33579) by proposing to include in the
2010 PQRI several 2009 PQRI measures
that had not yet achieved NQF
endorsement but that were AQA
adopted. As we stated in the proposed
rule, we would include such measures
in the 2010 PQRI as long as a measure
had not been reviewed by the NQF prior
to July 1, 2009 and specifically declined
for endorsement.
We are also exercising this authority
with respect to our decision to finalize
3 proposed new measures (that is,
Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with Congenital or Traumatic
Deformity of the Ear; Referral for
Otologic Evaluation for Patients with
History of Active Drainage from the Ear
within the Previous 90 days; and
Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with History of Sudden or
Rapidly Progressive Hearing Loss) that
were neither NQF endorsed prior to July
1, 2009 nor AQA adopted prior to
January 31, 2009. We decided to finalize
these 3 measures despite the lack of
consensus endorsement or adoption due
to the lack of measures available for
audiologists to report on. Audiologists
are a new a category of eligible
professionals that were added to the list
of professionals eligible to participate in
the PQRI beginning with the 2009 PQRI.
We stress, however, that inclusion of
measures that are not NQF endorsed or
AQA adopted is an exception to the
requirement under section
1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the Act that measures
be endorsed by the NQF. Therefore, we
do believe that this exception authority
should be exercised in very limited
circumstances, such as when few or no
measures are available for a particular
specialty or category of eligible
professionals to report.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested what the PQRI quality
measure set should focus on and how
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the PQRI quality measure set should
evolve. One commenter believes the
PQRI quality measure set should evolve
with the development of better clinical
evidence and a greater understanding of
the benefit-cost tradeoffs of particular
services and treatments. Another
commenter urged us to adopt quality
measures that would address the
existing gaps in quality and that focus
on services with the potential to deliver
high value to Medicare beneficiaries and
to avoid services that may have little or
no value to beneficiaries, such as highcost or high-volume services. One
commenter suggested additional criteria
that should be utilized in the selection
of measures, which include selecting:
(1) More outcome and resource use
measures; (2) care coordination
measures; (3) measures addressing
appropriateness of care which deliver
high value to Medicare patients; (4)
measures that allow for assessing and
reporting on disparities of care. Some
commenters also believe the measures
selected for PQRI should not reward
eligible professionals for providing
marginally effective care or care that is
already routinely furnished.
Response: In the 2010 PFS proposed
rule, we listed the considerations that
we applied for the selection of proposed
2010 PQRI quality measures. As
described above, many of these
considerations reflect the commenters’
suggestions, particularly our focus on:
• Measures with high impact on
healthcare.
• Measures that support CMS and
HHS priorities for improved quality and
efficiency of care for Medicare
beneficiaries (such as, prevention;
chronic conditions; high cost and high
volume conditions; elimination of
health disparities; healthcare-associated
infections and other conditions;
improved care coordination; improved
efficiency; improved patient and family
experience of care; improved end-oflife/palliative care; effective
management of acute and chronic
episodes of care; reduced unwarranted
geographic variation in quality and
efficiency; and adoption and use of
interoperable HIT).
• Measures that are included in, or
facilitate alignment with, other
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs
in furtherance of overarching healthcare
goals.
• Measures that address gaps in the
PQRI measure set in order to increase
the scope of applicability of the PQRI
measures to services furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries and expand
opportunities for eligible professionals
to participate in PQRI.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: Some commenters
encouraged us to identify and add more
quality measures and to develop interim
opportunities for eligible professionals
that have a dearth of available measures
to participate in PQRI. One commenter
specifically recommended that we
expand the number of measures to
reflect all types of services provided to
all beneficiaries.
Response: Despite our efforts to
expand the PQRI quality measure set to
increase the scope of applicability of the
PQRI measures to services furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries and expand
opportunities for eligible professionals
to participate in PQRI, we are aware that
there remains some gaps in the PQRI
quality measure set. However, we
largely depend on the development of
measures by professional organizations
and other measure developers. Although
we had significant involvement in the
development of measures applicable to
eligible professionals at the start of the
PQRI, ideally we would not need to be
closely involved in the development of
clinician-level quality measures but
would select from measures that meet
the statutory requirements. Thus, we
encourage professional organizations
and other measure developers to fund
and develop measures that address
some of the gaps identified by the
commenters.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we utilize data from
previous reporting periods to determine
the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the measures. The commenters
recommended that we continually
evaluate and revise the criteria for
measure selection to ensure measures
align with clinical practice and can be
reported with minimal administrative
burden.
Response: We will continue to
evaluate data from previous reporting
periods to assess the appropriateness
and effectiveness of the PQRI measures.
We will also continue to work with
measure developers to urge alignment of
the PQRI measures with clinical
practice as the program evolves and
matures.
i. The Final 2010 PQRI Quality
Measures for Individual Eligible
Professionals
For 2010, we proposed that final PQRI
quality measures would be selected
from 153 of the 2009 PQRI measures
and the measures listed in the ‘‘Table of
2010 Measure Suggestions’’ posted on
the Statute/Regulations/Program
Instructions page of the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/05_Statute
RegulationsProgramInstructions.asp#
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TopOfPage. We proposed to include a
total of 176 measures (this includes both
individual measures and measures that
are part of a proposed 2010 measures
group) on which individual eligible
professionals can report for the 2010
PQRI (74 FR 33574 through 33587, and
39032). In addition, we proposed to
retire 7 measures because they did not
meet one or more of the considerations
for selection of proposed 2010 measures
(74 FR 33574). In addition we proposed
13 measures groups for the 2010 PQRI
(74 FR 33582 through 33587).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the 2010 PQRI
measures in general and comments on
the measures from the 2009 PQRI not
proposed for inclusion in the 2010
PQRI, which are addressed below.
Comments specific to measures
proposed for inclusion in the 2010 PQRI
are addressed in sections II.G.2.i.1.
through II.G.2.i.5. below.
Comment: Several commenters
requested or recommended that we
make readily available on an ongoing
basis more detailed information on the
measure development process and on
measures in development.
Response: We agree that it is desirable
for the public to have information on
the measures development process and
measures in development. To this end,
we have developed a standardized
process to be used for CMS contracted
measures development. This
standardized process is detailed in the
‘‘Measures Management System
Blueprint’’ found on the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/QMIS/
mmsBlueprint.asp.
As stated previously, however, we
largely depend on the development of
measures by professional organizations
and other measure developers for the
PQRI. Many major measures developers
follow a similar process for the
measures that they develop, in that they
publish measures and specifications
during development and seek public
comment. Both the NQF and AQA also
publish measures and specifications
during their consensus processes and
seek public comment.
Comment: Numerous commenters
requested final measure specifications
for the 2010 PQRI be published as far in
advance of the beginning of the
reporting period as possible, and that
more detailed information about
measures proposed or finalized for use
in PQRI be published at the same time
as or in advance of future rulemaking.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that it is desirable to
provide final measure specifications
sufficiently in advance of the reporting
period to allow reasonable time for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
professionals to analyze new or revised
measures and implement any needed
changes in their office workflows to
accurately capture and successfully
submit data on a selection of measures
applicable to their practice on which
they can act to improve the quality of
the services they furnish.
Having detailed information on
measures available in advance of the
reporting period also enhances the
ability of vendors (such as practice
management software, billing services,
and electronic health records vendors)
to support professionals’ successful
implementation of revised data-capture
processes for the measures. Our intent is
to provide the final list of 2010 PQRI
measures and the detailed measures
specifications on the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site by November 15, 2009,
but no later than December 31, 2009.
These detailed specifications will
include instructions for reporting and
identifying the circumstances in which
each measure is applicable. The detailed
technical specifications for measures in
the final listing for the 2010 PQRI
remain potentially subject to corrections
until the start of the 2010 reporting
period, as we stated in the proposed
rule.
Comment: One commenter supported
removal from the PQRI quality measure
set for 2010 and 2009 PQRI measure that
was part of the 2007 and/or 2008 PQRI
for which the 2007 and 2008 PQRI
analytics indicate a lack of significant
reporting and usage. The commenter
remarked that continued review and
revision of the measures list will help to
refine the process and validity of the
program and reduce undue burden on
participants, increasing meaningful
participation.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s constructive feedback and
agree that it is necessary to review and
revise the PQRI quality measure set on
an ongoing basis as we gain more
experience with particular measures
and/or new measures become available
to replace existing measures.
We are unclear, however, with respect
to the commenter’s remark that
continued revision of the PQRI quality
measure set will reduce undue burden
on participants. Although there are
several measures available in the PQRI
quality measure set, participants are not
required, nor are they expected to,
report on all measures included in the
PQRI quality measure set. As discussed
further in sections II.G.2.e. and II.G.2.f.
above, an individual eligible
professional generally needs to report
on only 3 individual 2010 PQRI quality
measures or 1 2010 PQRI measures
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61815
group in order to meet the criteria for
satisfactory reporting for 2010.
Comment: Some commenters
specifically suggested that Measure
#143 Oncology: Medical and
Radiation—Pain Intensity Quantified
and Measure #144 Oncology: Medical
and Radiation Plan of Care for Pain be
retained for the 2010 PQRI because they
believe the measures address quality of
life issue for patients with cancer. One
commenter requested that if the
measures are analytically challenging as
claims-based measures, we retain the
measures as registry-only measures
instead.
Response: We only proposed to retire
these measures because they were too
complex to calculate via claims. Based
on the commenter’s suggestion to retain
these measures as registry-only
measures for the 2010 PQRI, we are
finalizing and including them in the
measures listed in ‘‘Table 11: 2010
Measures Selected From the 2009 PQRI
Quality Measure Set Available for
Registry-based Reporting Only.’’
Comment: One commenter requested
that Measure #94 Otitis Media with
Effusion (OME): Diagnostic
Evaluation—Assessment of Tympanic
Membrane Mobility and Measure #95
Otitis Media with Effusion (OME)
Hearing Testing not be retired since
audiologists were just added to the list
of eligible professionals with the 2009
PQRI and there are few measures on
which they can report. The commenter
requested that we retain both measures
for at least an additional year to reassess
the level of use since PQRI reporting, for
audiologists, is a new process that
requires extensive training.
Response: We agree that in order to
provide audiologists with opportunities
to participate in the PQRI, it is
necessary to retain at least one of these
measures for at least another year. Thus,
we have decided to retain Measure #94
Otitits Media with Effusion (OME):
Diagnostic Evaluation—Assessment of
Tympanic Membrane Mobility and
retire only Measure #95 Otitis Media
with Effusion (OME) Hearing Testing for
2010. Measure #94, in conjunction with
the 3 new measures developed by the
Audiology Quality Consortium (AQC)
listed in Table 13, will provide
audiologists with at least 4 measures on
which they can report for the 2010
PQRI.
Comment: One commenter was not
clear on which measure was being
proposed to replace Measure #34 Stroke
and Stroke Rehabilitation: Tissue
Plasminogen Activator (tPA) Considered
and requested that CMS not retire
Measure #34 until clarification is
provided. Another commenter,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61816
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
however, supported the retirement of
Measure #34 and CMS’ decision to
replace this measure with the proposed
new Stroke and Stroke Rehabilitation:
Thrombolytic Therapy measure (see
Table 19 of the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule).
Response: As indicated by the
commenter, we are replacing Measure
#34 with the Stroke and Stroke
Rehabilitation: Thrombolytic Therapy
measure listed in Table 13 of this final
rule with comment period.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for a proposed revision of
Measure #11 for 2010 PQRI that
expands the eligible denominator
patient population.
Response: We wish to clarify that at
the request of the measure developer,
we are retiring Measure #11 and
replacing it with the proposed new
NQF-endorsed measure: Stenosis
Management in Cardiac Imaging Studies
(see Table 13 of this final rule with
comment period).
Based on the criteria discussed above
and our review of these comments, we
are retiring the 4 measures listed in
Table 10 and are including the 175
individual measures listed in Tables 11
through 13 in the final 2010 PQRI
individual quality measure set. We are
also including 13 measures groups in
the final 2010 PQRI quality measure set,
which are listed in Tables 15 through
27. The individual measures selected for
the 2010 PQRI can be categorized as
follows:
(1) 2010 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2009 PQRI Quality
Measures Set Available for Claims-based
Reporting and Registry-Based Reporting;
(2) 2010 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2009 PQRI Quality
Measures Set Available for Registrybased Reporting Only;
(3) New Individual Quality Measures
Selected for 2010; and
(4) 2010 Measures Available for EHRbased Reporting.
TABLE 10—2009 PQRI QUALITY
MEASURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE
2010 PQRI
Measure
No.
Measure title
11 ............
Stroke and Stroke Rehabilitation:
Carotid Imaging Reporting.
Stroke and Stroke Rehabilitation:
Tissue Plasminogen Activator
(tPA) Considered.
Otitis Media with Effusion (OME):
Hearing Testing.
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD):
Lipid Profile in Patients with
CAD.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
34 ............
95 ............
152 ..........
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(1) 2010 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2009 PQRI Quality
Measures Set Available for Claims-based
Reporting and Registry-based Reporting
We proposed to include in the 2010
PQRI quality measure set 116 of the
2009 PQRI measures, which would be
available for either claims-based
reporting or registry-based reporting as
individual quality measures (74 FR
33574 through 33579). We also noted
that one of the proposed measures,
Measure #46 Medication Reconciliation:
Reconciliation After Discharge from an
Inpatient Facility, is reportable through
the registry-based reporting mechanism
only in the 2009 PQRI. However, for the
2010 PQRI, we proposed to make this
measure available for either claimsbased reporting or registry-based
reporting.
These 116 proposed measures did not
include any measures that were
proposed to be included as part of the
2010 Back Pain measures group. Similar
to the 2009 PQRI, we proposed that any
2010 PQRI measure that is included in
the Back Pain measures group would
not be reportable as individual measures
through claims-based reporting or
registry-based reporting.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the 116 proposed
measures selected from the 2009 PQRI
quality measure set.
Comment: We received numerous
comments in support of the 2009 PQRI
quality measures proposed for inclusion
in the 2010 PQRI. Several commenters
supported the retention of all the 2009
PQRI measures proposed for 2010.
Other commenters supported inclusion
of specific 2009 PQRI measures in the
2010 PQRI. Measures on which we
received specific support include:
• Measure #1 Diabetes Mellitus:
Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in
Diabetes Mellitus;
• Measure #2 Diabetes Mellitus: Low
Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control in
Diabetes Mellitus;
• Measure #3 Diabetes Mellitus: High
Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes
Mellitus;
• Measure #9 Major Depressive
Disorder (MDD): Antidepressant
Medication During Acute Phase for
Patients with MDD;
• Measure #18 Diabetic Retinopathy:
Documentation of Presence or Absence
of Macular Edema and Level of Severity
of Retinopathy;
• Measure #19 Diabetic Retinopathy:
Communication with the Physician
Managing On-going Diabetes Care;
• Measure #67 Myelodysplastic
Syndrome (MDS) and Acute Leukemias:
Baseline Cytogenetic Testing Performed
on Bone Marrow;
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Measure #68 Myelodysplastic
Syndrome (MDS): Documentation of
Iron Stores in Patients Receiving
Erythopoietin Therapy;
• Measure #102 Prostate Cancer:
Avoidance of Overuse of Bone Scan for
Staging Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Patients;
• Measure #104 Prostate Cancer:
Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy for HighRisk Prostate Cancer Patients;
• Measure #105 Prostate Cancer:
Three-Dimensional (3D) Radiotherapy;
• Measure #106 Major Depressive
Disorder (MDD): Diagnostic Evaluation;
• Measure #107 Major Depressive
Disorder (MDD): Suicide Risk
Assessment;
• Measure #110 Preventive Care and
Screening: Influenza Immunization for
Patients ≥50 Years Old;
• Measure #111 Preventive Care and
Screening: Pneumonia Vaccination for
Patients 65 Years and Older;
• Measure #112 Preventive Care and
Screening: Screening Mammography;
• Measure #113 Preventive Care and
Screening: Colorectal Cancer Screening;
• Measure #114 Preventive Care and
Screening: Inquiry Regarding Tobacco
Use;
• Measure #115 Preventive Care and
Screening: Advising Smokers and
Tobacco Users to Quit;
• Measure #117 Diabetes Mellitus:
Dilated Eye Exam in Diabetic Patient;
• Measure #119 Diabetes Mellitus:
Urine Screening for Microalbumin or
Medical Attention for Nephropathy in
Diabetic Patients;
• Measure #124 Health Information
Technology (HIT): Adoption/Use of
Electronic Health Records (EHR);
• Measure #126 Diabetes Mellitus:
Diabetic Foot and Ankle Care,
Peripheral Neuropathy-Neurological
Evaluation;
• Measure #127 Diabetes Mellitus:
Diabetic Foot and Ankle Care, Ulcer
Prevention—Evaluation of Footwear;
• Measure #134 Screening for Clinical
Depression and Follow-Up Plan;
• Measure #136 Melanoma: FollowUp Aspects of Care;
• Measure #137 Melanoma:
Continuity of Care—Recall System;
• Measure #138 Melanoma:
Coordination of Care;
• Measure #156 Oncology: Radiation
Dose Limits to Normal Tissues; and
• Measure #163 Diabetes Mellitus:
Foot exam.
Response: All 116 of the proposed
measures listed in Table 17 of the
proposed rule (74 FR 33575 through
33579), including all of the measures
specifically supported by commenters,
have been finalized for the 2010 PQRI,
and are included in Table 11.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter
commended CMS on the format of Table
17 of the proposed rule (74 FR 33575
through 33579) which clearly stated the
status of NQF endorsement, AQA
adoption, and the measure developer for
each proposed measure. The commenter
encouraged us to use this format in
future rules.
Response: We appreciate the positive
feedback on the newly formatted tables
in the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to finalize the proposed new measures
related to age-related macular
degeneration, osteoporosis, and cancer
care and to work with the community to
ensure these measures are appropriately
reported.
Response: We note that the measures
referenced by the commenter are
existing 2009 PQRI measures that will
be included for 2010 PQRI. As noted
previously, we have developed an
education and outreach plan that is
continuously expanding in scope in our
efforts to educate eligible professionals
on the nuances of the PQRI, including
educating eligible professionals and
office staff on appropriate reporting of
the PQRI measures.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended changes to specific
quality measures’ titles, definitions, and
detailed specifications or coding. Many
of these recommendations were based
on alternative interpretations of clinical
evidence or concerns about the utility of
the measures. Some requests were
specifically concerned that measures be
expanded to include specific
professionals to whom the measure may
be applicable such as physical
therapists, audiologists, and
hospitalists.
Specifically, one commenter
suggested that in order to maximize the
impact of Measure #1 Diabetes Mellitus:
Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in
Diabetes Mellitus, the PQRI
specification should continue to require
a performance period of 12 months and
reporting that identifies whether A1c
control is good (that is, A1c ≤ 7.0
percent), moderate (that is, A1c ≤ 9.0
percent, but > 7.0 percent), or poor (that
is, A1c > 9.0 percent).
Another commenter suggested that
audiologists should be included in
Measure #154 Falls: Risk Assessment.
The commenter noted that audiologists
are consulted to provide vestibular
rehabilitation that results in improved
quality of care for these patients and
reduces unnecessary and excessive cost.
Another commenter requested that
Measure #52 Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Spirometry
Evaluation needs to be re-evaluated and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
CMS should consider modifying this
measure or creating a new one that
addresses the appropriate use of LABA.
We received one comment regarding
Measure #158 Carotid Endarterectomy:
Use of Patch During Conventional
Carotid Endarterectomy, expressing
concern that there is no reliable data,
controlled or otherwise, that shows that
use of patch graft results in better
outcomes.
Finally, one commenter suggested
that the following proposed 2010
measures selected from the 2009 PQRI
quality measure set available for either
claims-based reporting or registry-based
reporting may not promote quality care
because they do not adequately address
concerns of patient groups that rely on
plasma derived treatments such as those
with primary immune deficiency or
alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency:
• Measure #51 Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Spirometry
Evaluation;
• Measure #64 Asthma: Asthma
Assessment;
• Measure #65 Treatment for
Children with Upper Respiratory
Infection (URI): Avoidance of
Inappropriate Use;
• Measure #110 Preventive Care and
Screening: Influenza Immunization for
Patients ≥ 50 Years Old; and
• Measure #126 Diabetes Mellitus:
Diabetic Foot and Ankle Care,
Peripheral Neuropathy—Neurological
Evaluation.
The commenter suggested that we
focus on aligning these measures with
accepted clinical practices for patients
that rely on plasma-derived treatments.
Response: Health care quality
measures are currently developed by a
variety of organizations and used by a
variety of governmental and
nongovernmental, and public-private
initiatives which have various and at
times differing priorities and
programmatic needs for quality
measures. As reflected by the
considerations for identifying proposed
PQRI quality measures described above,
we are committed to having a broad and
robust set of quality measures for the
PQRI. However, we largely depend on
the development of measures by
professional organizations and other
measure developers. Although we had
significant involvement in the
development of measures applicable to
eligible professionals at the start of the
PQRI, currently we are not directly
involved in the development of
clinician-level quality measures for
PQRI, but do select from measures that
meet the statutory requirements and
other considerations described above.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61817
Quality measures that have completed
the consensus processes of NQF or AQA
have a designated party (generally the
measure developer/owner) who has
accepted responsibility for maintaining
the measure. In general, it is the role of
the measure owner, developer, or
maintainer to make substantive changes
to a measure, including any updates to
the measure to reflect the current
clinical evidence such as the changes
suggested by the commenters above.
The measure maintainer and/or the
developer/owner of a measure included
in the final set of quality measures
selected for the 2010 PQRI is identified
as the ‘‘Measure Developer’’ in Tables
11 through 28. In addition, NQF has, for
its endorsed measures, an established
maintenance process which may be
accessed. The Secretary is required to
provide opportunities for public
comment on selected measures and do
so through notice and comment
rulemaking. We do not, however, use
notice and comment rulemaking as a
means to update or modify measure
specifications. We retain the ability to
update or modify specifications to the
measures until December 31, 2009.
After that date, there will be no
changes to the measure for the 2010
reporting period(s).
Comment: One commenter was
concerned about the potential retention
of claims-based reporting for Measure
#124 Health Information Technology
(HIT): Adoption/Use of Electronic
Health Records (EHR). The commenter
assumes that if an eligible professional
had an EHR, he or she would be able to
submit this type of data directly from
the EHR rather through claims. This also
appears to conflict with the statement
that Measure #124 is proposed to be an
EHR measure. The commenter requests
further clarification.
Response: As reflected in Tables 11
and 14, Measure #124 is available for
reporting via claims, a qualified registry,
or a qualified EHR for the 2010 PQRI.
We decided to continue to allow eligible
professionals to report Measure #124 via
claims for the 2010 PQRI because we do
not anticipate that there will be a
sufficient number of qualified EHR
vendors for the 2010 PQRI to permit a
majority of those who adopt and use an
EHR to report this measure via their
EHR.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposal that Measure #46
Medication Reconciliation:
Reconciliation After Discharge from an
Inpatient Facility would be available for
claims and registry reporting since
registries reported difficulty capturing
the required information for the 2009
PQRI.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61818
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Response: We agree. As such,
Measure #46 is listed in Table 11 as a
measure that is available for claims and
registry reporting in the 2010 PQRI.
Comment: With respect to Measure
#52 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD): Bronchodilator
Therapy, one commenter pointed out
that Medicare DMERC coverage criteria
for LABA are not consistent with
clinical guidelines.
Response: Medicare coverage policy is
beyond the scope of this section of the
final rule. Questions or concerns about
Medicare coverage policy should be
directed to
CMS_caginquiries@cms.hhs.gov.
For the reasons discussed above and
based on the comments received, we are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
finalizing in the 2010 PQRI quality
measure set the 116 2009 PQRI
measures that were proposed to be
available in the 2010 PQRI for claims
and registry reporting identified in
Table 11. In addition, Table 11 includes
1 2009 PQRI measure that was proposed
for retirement in 2010 and 2 2009 PQRI
measures that were proposed to be
available for registry reporting only (see
sections II.G.2.i. and II.G.2.i.2.,
respectively, of this final rule for further
details). The 119 individual 2009 PQRI
measures selected for inclusion in the
2010 PQRI quality measure set as
individual quality measures for either
claims-based reporting or registry-based
reporting are listed by their Measure
Number and Title in Table 11, along
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the name of the measure’s
developer/owner. The PQRI Measure
Number is a unique identifier assigned
by CMS to all measures in the PQRI
measure set. Once a PQRI Measure
Number is assigned to a measure, it will
not be used again to identify a different
measure, even if the original measure to
which the number was assigned is
subsequently retired from the PQRI
measure set. A description of the
measures listed in Table 11 can be
found in the ‘‘2009 PQRI Quality
Measures List,’’ which is available on
the Measures and Codes page of the
PQRI section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61819
ER25NO09.182
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.183
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61820
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61821
ER25NO09.184
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.185
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61822
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61823
ER25NO09.186
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.187
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61824
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61825
ER25NO09.188
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Please note that detailed measure
specifications, including the measure’s
title, for 2009 individual PQRI quality
measures may have been updated or
modified during the NQF endorsement
process or for other reasons prior to
2010. The 2010 PQRI quality measure
specifications for any given individual
quality measure may, therefore, be
different from specifications for the
same quality measure used for 2009.
Specifications for all 2010 individual
PQRI quality measures, whether or not
included in the 2009 PQRI program,
must be obtained from the specifications
document for 2010 individual PQRI
quality measures, which will be
available on the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site on or before December
31, 2009.
(2) 2010 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2009 PQRI Quality
Measures Set Available for RegistryBased Reporting Only
We proposed to select 26 registry-only
individual measures from the 2009
PQRI for the 2010 PQRI (74 FR 33579
through 33580). Nine of the 26 proposed
measures were previously available for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
either claims-based reporting or registrybased reporting. We solicited comments
on our proposal to increase the number
of registry-only measures for the 2010
PQRI.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the 26 proposed
registry-only measures.
Comment: We received one comment
in support of the following registry-only
measures:
• Measure #136 Melanoma: FollowUp Aspects of Care;
• Measure #137 Melanoma:
Continuity of Care—Recall System; and
• Measure #138 Melanoma:
Coordination of Care.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. These
final measures are listed in Table 12 as
2009 PQRI measures selected for the
2010 PQRI available for registry
reporting only.
Comment: We received several
comments regarding the proposed
reporting mechanism(s) available for
proposed 2010 measures. There were
several recommendations that the
following 2009 PQRI quality measures,
which were available for claims or
registry reporting in the 2009 PQRI,
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
should not be limited to registry
reporting for the 2010 PQRI:
• Measure #83 Hepatitis C: Testing
for Chronic Hepatitis C—Confirmation
of Hepatitis C Viremia;
• Measure #136 Melanoma: FollowUp Aspects of Care;
• Measure #137 Melanoma:
Continuity of Care—Recall System;
• Measure #138 Melanoma:
Coordination of Care;
• Measure #139 Cataracts:
Comprehensive Preoperative
Assessment for Cataract Surgery with
Intraocular Lens (IOL) Placement; and
• Measure #141 Primary Open-Angle
Glaucoma (POAG): Reduction of
Intraocular Pressure (IOP) by 15 percent
OR Documentation of a Plan of Care.
The primary reason cited by
commenters for opposing limiting
certain measures to registry reporting is
the lack of an available registry.
Response: With respect to the limited
availability of registries for certain
eligible professionals, we reiterate that
there are qualified registries in our 2009
PQRI program that do report all of the
PQRI measures. These registries are
accepting eligible professionals who
wish to sign up as new clients of the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.189
61826
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
registry. While we acknowledge that
there may be costs associated with
participating through registries, we note
that the decision to participate via a
registry is voluntary.
We do, however, agree with
commenters’ concerns about limiting
Measures #139 and #141 to registry
reporting. These measures were first
introduced in the PQRI quality measure
set for the 2009 PQRI and are currently
available for claims and registry
reporting for 2009. Keeping these
measures as measures available for
claims and registry reporting for 2010
will allow us to collect more data to
analyze the measures’ feasibility via
claims reporting. Therefore, the
measures are listed in Table 11 of this
final rule with comment period as 2009
PQRI measures selected for the 2010
PQRI that are available for registry and
claims reporting.
Comment: Some commenters were
specifically opposed to continuing to
limit Measure #174 Pediatric End-Stage
Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care for
Inadequate Hemodialysis to registry
reporting for the 2010 PQRI.
Specifically, the commenters suggested
that CMS permit claims-based reporting
of the measure for 2010 since there are
only two pediatric ESRD measures
included in PQRI for 2010. One of the
pediatric ESRD measures, Measure #175
Pediatric ESRD Influenza Immunization
Measure, was proposed to be available
for either claims or registry reporting.
Because eligible professionals must
report on at least 3 measures when
using the registry-based reporting
mechanism, the commenter felt that
making Measure #174 registry only will
exclude pediatric nephrologists from
participating in the PQRI. In addition, a
registry is not available for pediatricians
who participate in small academic
departments.
Response: The commenter is correct
in that eligible professionals who wish
to have a qualified registry submit PQRI
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on PQRI quality
measures are required to report at least
3 PQRI quality measures when reporting
on individual quality measures or to
report all measures in at least 1 measure
group when reporting on measure
groups. Measure #174 Pediatric EndStage Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of
Care for Inadequate Hemodialysis was
registry only for 2009 PQRI. Due to
complexities surrounding the timing of
the expected quality action (once per
month) this measure will remain
registry only for the 2010 PQRI.
However, in response to the
commenters’ concern that there are only
2 2010 PQRI measures that apply to
pediatric nephrologists and only 1 of
them (that is, Measure #175) is available
for claims-based reporting, eligible
professionals who have fewer than 3
applicable measures can still participate
in the 2010 PQRI via claims. Such
eligible professionals would need to
report on all applicable measures that
are available for claims-based reporting
via claims and meet the appropriate
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
individual measures in order to qualify
for a 2010 PQRI incentive payment.
For the reasons discussed above and
based on the comments received, we are
61827
finalizing in the 2010 PQRI quality
measure set 24 of the 26 proposed 2009
PQRI measures identified in Table 18 of
the proposed rule for registry reporting
only. As stated above, 2 of the 26 2009
PQRI measures that were proposed to be
available for registry reporting only for
the 2010 PQRI (that is, Measure #139
and Measure #141), will be available for
both registry and claims reporting in the
2010 PQRI and are listed in Table 11 of
this final rule with comment period. In
addition, we are also retaining 2 2009
PQRI measures that were proposed for
retirement for 2010, but we are limiting
reporting of these measures to registry
reporting for the 2010 PQRI. The 26
2009 PQRI measures selected for the
2010 PQRI that are available for registry
reporting only are listed in Table 12 of
this final rule with comment period.
The 26 individual 2009 PQRI measures
selected for inclusion in the 2010 PQRI
quality measure set as individual
quality measures for registry-based
reporting only are listed by their
Measure Number and Title in Table 12,
along with the name of the measure’s
developer/owner. A description of the
measures listed in Table 12 can be
found in the ‘‘2009 PQRI Quality
Measures List,’’ which is available on
the Measures and Codes page of the
PQRI section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
Measures that were available for either
claims-based reporting or registry-based
reporting in the 2009 PQRI but are
available for registry-based reporting
only in the 2010 PQRI are identified by
an asterisk (*) in Table 12.
TABLE 12—2010 MEASURES SELECTED FROM THE 2009 PQRI QUALITY MEASURE SET AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRY-BASED
REPORTING ONLY
Measure Number
Measure title
5 .......................................................
Heart Failure: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Therapy
for Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD)*.
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for
CAD Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction (MI).
Heart Failure: Beta-Blocker Therapy for Left Ventricular
Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD)*.
Stroke and Stroke Rehabilitation: Anticoagulant Therapy
Prescribed for Atrial Fibrillation at Discharge.
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care for Inadequate Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients.
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care for Inadequate Peritoneal Dialysis.
Hepatitis C: Testing for Chronic Hepatitis C—Confirmation
of Hepatitis C Viremia*.
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Angiotensin-Converting
Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor
Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Patients with CAD and Diabetes and/or Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
(LSVD)*.
Melanoma: Follow-Up Aspects of Care* ............................
Melanoma: Continuity of Care—Recall System* ................
Melanoma: Coordination of Care* ......................................
7 .......................................................
8 .......................................................
33 .....................................................
81 .....................................................
82 .....................................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
83 .....................................................
118 ...................................................
136 ...................................................
137 ...................................................
138 ...................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Measure developer
Sfmt 4700
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61828
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 12—2010 MEASURES SELECTED FROM THE 2009 PQRI QUALITY MEASURE SET AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRY-BASED
REPORTING ONLY—Continued
Measure Number
Measure title
143 ...................................................
Oncology: Medical and Radiation—Pain Intensity
Quantified*.
Oncology: Medical and Radiation—Plan of Care for Pain*
HIV/AIDS: CD4+ Cell Count or CD4+ Percentage ............
HIV/AIDS: Pneumocystis Jiroveci Pneumonia (PCP) Prophylaxis.
HIV/AIDS: Adolescent and Adult Patients with HIV/AIDS
Who Are Prescribed Potent Antiretroviral Therapy.
HIV/AIDS: HIV RNA Control After Six Months of Potent
Antiretroviral Therapy.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Prolonged
Intubation (Ventilation).
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Deep Sternal
Wound Infection Rate.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Stroke/Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA).
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Postoperative
Renal Insufficiency.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Surgical Re-exploration.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Antiplatelet Medications at Discharge.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Beta-Blockers Administered at Discharge.
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Lipid Management
and Counseling.
Pediatric End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care
for Inadequate Hemodialysis.
144 ...................................................
159 ...................................................
160 ...................................................
161 ...................................................
162 ...................................................
164 ...................................................
165 ...................................................
166 ...................................................
167 ...................................................
168 ...................................................
169 ...................................................
170 ...................................................
171 ...................................................
174 ...................................................
Measure developer
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
AMA–PCPI/NCQA
STS
STS
STS
STS
STS
STS
STS
STS
AMA–PCPI
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
* Individual 2009 PQRI measures that were available for both claims-based and registry-based reporting but will be available for registry-based
reporting only for the 2010 PQRI.
Although we are designating certain
measures as registry-only measures, we
cannot guarantee that there will be a
registry qualified to submit each
registry-only measure for 2010. We rely
on registries to self-nominate and
identify the types of measures for which
they would like to be qualified to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on
quality measures. If no registry selfnominates to submit measure results
and numerator and denominator data on
a particular type of measure for 2010,
then an eligible professional would not
be able to report that particular measure
type.
We note also that detailed measure
specifications, including a measure’s
title, for 2009 PQRI quality measures
may have been updated or modified
during the NQF endorsement process or
for other reasons prior to 2010.
Therefore, the 2010 PQRI quality
measure specifications for any given
quality measure may be different from
specifications for the same quality
measure used for 2009. Specifications
for all 2010 individual PQRI quality
measures, whether or not included in
the 2009 PQRI program, must be
obtained from the specifications
document for 2010 individual PQRI
quality measures, which will be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
available on the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site on or before December
31, 2009.
(3) New Individual Quality Measures
Selected for 2010
We proposed to include in the 2010
PQRI quality measure set 30 measures
that were not included in the 2009 PQRI
quality measures provided that each
measure obtains NQF endorsement by
July 1, 2009 and its detailed
specifications are completed and ready
for implementation in PQRI by August
15, 2009. Besides having NQF
endorsement, we proposed that the
development of a measure is considered
complete for the purposes of the 2010
PQRI if by August 15, 2009—(1) the
final, detailed specifications for use in
data collection for PQRI have been
completed and are ready for
implementation, and (2) all of the
Category II Current Procedural
Terminology (CPT II) codes required for
the measure have been established and
will be effective for CMS claims data
submission on or before January 1, 2010.
Due to the complexity of their
measure specifications, we proposed
that 24 of these 30 measures would be
available as registry-only measures for
the 2010 PQRI. The remaining 6
measures were proposed to be available
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for reporting through either claimsbased reporting or registry-based
reporting.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the 30 new
individual quality measures proposed
for 2010.
Comment: We received numerous
comments in support of the proposed
additional quality measures for 2010
PQRI. Several commenters stated that
these measures ‘‘continue to build upon
potential gaps that exist in the
prevention and management of chronic
conditions.’’ One commenter was
pleased to see the use of evidence-based
clinical quality measures in the 2010
PQRI proposed measures. Comments
were received specifically in support of
the following measures:
• Functional Communication—
Spoken Language Comprehension;
• Functional Communication—
Attention;
• Functional Communication—
Memory;
• Functional Communication—Motor
Speech;
• Functional Communication—
Reading;
• Functional Communication—
Spoken Language Expression;
• Functional Communication—
Writing;
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
• Functional Communication—
Swallowing;
• Perioperative Temperature
Management;
• Oncology: Cancer Stage
Documented;
• Cataracts: 20/40 or Better Visual
Acuity within 90 days following
Cataract Surgery;
• Cataracts: Complications within 30
days following Cataract Surgery
requiring Additional Surgical;
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Blood Pressure Management Control;
• Stenosis Management in Cardiac
Imaging Studies;
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with Congenital or Traumatic
Deformity of the Ear;
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with History of Active Drainage
from the Ear within the Previous 90
days;
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with a History of Sudden or
Rapidly Progressive Hearing Loss;
• Coronary Artery Disease (CAD):
Symptom and Activity Assessment;
• Coronary Artery Disease (CAD):
Drug Therapy for Lowering LDL–
Cholesterol;
• Heart Failure: Left Ventricular
Function (LVF) Assessment;
• Heart Failure: Patient Education;
and
• Heart Failure: Warfarin Therapy for
Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support and are finalizing
all of the 30 proposed new measures,
which are identified in Table 13 of this
final rule with comment period.
Comment: We received many
comments opposed to limiting one or
more new measures proposed for the
2010 PQRI to registry reporting,
including the 2 new proposed cataract
measures and the 11 new proposed
cardiology measures. The commenters
suggested that the measures be available
for both claims-based and registry
reporting for the 2010 PQRI so that
practices may choose the best reporting
option for them. One commenter also
remarked that we should resolve any
analytic reporting difficulties with
claims-based reporting of these
measures internally and not place the
burden on eligible professionals.
Response: While we proposed that 19
of the 30 proposed new measures would
be available for registry reporting only
for 2010 PQRI, we agree, after
consideration of the comments received,
that it would be feasible to make some
of these measures available for either
claims or registry reporting. Therefore,
the following measures originally
proposed for registry only reporting will
be available for either claims or registry
reporting for the 2010 PQRI:
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Blood Pressure Management Control.
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Complete Lipid Profile.
61829
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C)
Control.
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Use of Aspirin or Another AntiThrombotic.
The measure specifications developed
by the measure developer for the
remaining 15 measures are too complex
for claims-based reporting.
Based on the reasons discussed above
and comments received, we are
finalizing in the 2010 PQRI quality
measure set all of 30 proposed 2010
PQRI measures identified in Table 19 of
the proposed rule. Please note that 4
measures that were proposed to be
available for registry only will be made
available for either registry or claims
reporting in the 2010 PQRI. These
measures are:
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Blood Pressure Management Control;
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Complete Lipid Profile;
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C)
Control; and
• Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD):
Use of Aspirin or Another AntiThrombotic.
The titles of the 30 additional, or new,
PQRI measures for 2010 are listed in
Table 13 along with the name of the
measure developer and the reporting
mechanism(s) available (that is, whether
the measure will be reportable using
claims, registries, or both).
TABLE 13—NEW INDIVIDUAL QUALITY MEASURES SELECTED FOR 2010
NQF Endorsement
status as of 5/1/09
Measure title
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Stroke
and
Stroke
Thrombolytic Therapy.
Rehabilitation:
Referral for Otologic Evaluation for Patients
with Congenital or Traumatic Deformity of
the Ear.
Referral for Otologic Evaluation for Patients
with History of Active Drainage from the
Ear within the Previous 90 days.
Referral for Otologic Evaluation for Patients
with a History of Sudden or Rapidly Progressive Hearing Loss.
Cataracts: 20/40 or Better Visual Acuity within 90 days Following Cataract Surgery.
Cataracts: Complications within 30 Days Following Cataract Surgery Requiring Additional Surgical Procedures.
Perioperative Temperature Management ......
Oncology: Cancer Stage Documented ..........
Stenosis Measurement in Carotid Imaging
Studies.
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Symptom
and Activity Assessment.
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Drug Therapy for Lowering LDL-Cholesterol.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
AQA Adoption status
as of
1/31/09
Yes .............................
No ..............................
Pending NQF review
No ..............................
Pending NQF review
Measure developer
Reporting
mechanism(s)
American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA).
Audiology Quality
Consortium (AQC).
Registry.
No ..............................
AQC ...........................
Claims, Registry.
Pending NQF review
No ..............................
AQC ...........................
Claims, Registry.
Pending NQF review
Yes .............................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Registry.
Pending NQF review
Yes .............................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Registry.
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
AMA–PCPI .................
AMA–PCPI/ASCO ......
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Claims, Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI .................
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI .................
Registry.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Claims, Registry.
61830
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 13—NEW INDIVIDUAL QUALITY MEASURES SELECTED FOR 2010—Continued
NQF Endorsement
status as of 5/1/09
AQA Adoption status
as of
1/31/09
Measure developer
Heart Failure: Left Ventricular Function (LVF)
Assessment.
Heart Failure: Patient Education ....................
Heart Failure: Warfarin Therapy for Patients
with Atrial Fibrillation.
Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD): Blood
Pressure Management Control.
Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD): Complete
Lipid Profile.
Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD): Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control.
Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD): Use of Aspirin or Another Anti-thrombotic.
HIV/AIDS: Sexually Transmitted Disease
Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.
HIV/AIDS: Screening for High Risk Sexual
Behaviors.
HIV/AIDS: Screening for Injection Drug Use
HIV/AIDS: Sexually Transmitted Disease
Screening for Syphilis.
Functional Communication Measure—Spoken Language Comprehension.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI .................
Registry.
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
No ..............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI .................
AMA–PCPI .................
Registry.
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
NCQA .........................
Claims, Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
NCQA .........................
Claims, Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
NCQA .........................
Claims, Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
NCQA .........................
Yes .............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Claims,
Registry.
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Registry.
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
No ..............................
No ..............................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
AMA–PCPI/NCQA .....
Registry.
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
Yes .............................
No ..............................
American Speech
Language Hearing
Association (ASHA).
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Functional Communication Measure—Attention.
Functional Communication Measure—Memory.
Functional Communication Measure—Motor
Speech.
Functional Communication Measure—Reading.
Functional Communication Measure—Spoken Language Expression.
Functional Communication Measure—Writing
Functional Communication Measure—Swallowing.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Measure title
Yes .............................
No ..............................
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Yes .............................
No ..............................
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
No ..............................
No ..............................
ASHA .........................
ASHA .........................
Registry.
Registry.
We note also that we are finalizing the
following new measures for the 2010
PQRI even though they are still pending
NQF endorsement and were not AQA
adopted as of January 31, 2009:
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with Congenital or Traumatic
Deformity of the Ear;
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with History of Active Drainage
from the Ear within the Previous 90
days; and
• Referral for Otologic Evaluation for
Patients with a History of Sudden or
Rapidly Progressive Hearing Loss. As
stated above, we are exercising our
exception authority under section
1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act due to the
lack of available measures for
audiologists. Measures for audiologists
represent a specific area for which there
are a dearth of measures that have been
endorsed by the NQF and/or adopted by
the AQA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(4) 2010 Individual Quality Measures
Available for EHR-Based Reporting
We proposed to accept PQRI data
from EHRs for a limited subset (10) of
the proposed 2010 PQRI quality
measures, contingent upon the
successful completion of our 2009 EHR
data submission testing process and a
determination that accepting data from
EHRs on quality measures for the 2010
PQRI is practical and feasible (74 FR
33582).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
electronic submission of these 10
measures.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the 2010 EHR measure
specifications be released in an
expedited fashion so that vendors may
properly configure their software in
time for the 2010 PQRI.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that vendors need sufficient
time to adapt their products to support
EHR-based capture and submission of
data for PQRI measures. To that end, the
specifications for the electronic
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting
mechanism(s)
Registry.
transmission of 2010 PQRI measures
were posted on the QualityNet Web site
in April 2009 and were updated and
reposted in July and September 2009 on
the Alternative Reporting Mechanisms
page of the PQRI section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PQRI/20_Alternative
ReportingMechanisms.asp#TopOfPage.
We should note that only eligible
professionals using EHR systems that
have been ‘‘qualified’’ by CMS by virtue
of passing our self-nomination and
testing process will be able to report
their quality data to CMS via their EHR.
Comment: Several comments voiced
support for EHR-based reporting of
Measure #124, Measure #112, and
Measure #113. One commenter was
disappointed that no measures relevant
to oncology were proposed to be
available for 2010 PQRI EHR reporting.
Another commenter recommended that
the new CAD and heart failure measures
proposed for 2010 PQRI registry only
reporting also be available for EHR
reporting for 2010. One commenter
recommended that any potential
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
retooling of measures for reporting
through EHRs should not undermine the
scientific basis of the measure.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for EHR-based
reporting of measures. However, the
number of measures available for EHR
reporting is limited because in order for
measures to be available for EHR-based
reporting, measure specifications for the
electronic reporting of those measures
must be available. We will consider
adding new measures for future PQRI
program years as specifications become
available. The retooling of measures will
not change the intent of the measure.
We believe that all PQRI measures are
evidence-based and consistent with
standards of care.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that increasing the number of PQRI
measures is discriminatory to those that
cannot or have not incorporated
electronic prescribing due to expense of
initiating EHRs and electronic
prescribing for small provider offices.
Response: With respect to practices
that have not implemented technology
that would allow for participation in
PQRI via an EHR, there are other 2010
PQRI reporting options available for
such practices. There are a total of 125
individual quality measures available
for claims or registry reporting for the
2010 PQRI. In addition, 8 of the 13 2010
PQRI measures groups are available for
claims or registry reporting (see section
II.G.2.i.5. of this final rule with
comment period for discussion of the
final 2010 PQRI measures groups). The
remaining 50 individual PQRI quality
measures and 4 measures groups are
available for registry reporting in 2010.
With respect to practices that have not
implemented technology that would
allow for electronic prescribing, we
61831
reiterate that the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program is a separate and distinct
incentive program for eligible
professionals. Participation in the EPrescribing Incentive Program is
voluntary and is not required for
participation in the 2010 PQRI. Details
of the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program can be found in section II.G.5.
of this final rule with comment period.
Based on the reasons discussed above
and the comments received, we are
finalizing the option of accepting
clinical quality data extracted from
qualified EHRs on all 10 of the proposed
2010 PQRI quality measures identified
in Table 20 of the proposed rule. The
final 2010 measures available for EHRbased reporting are identified in Table
14 of this final rule with comment
period.
TABLE 14—2010 MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR EHR-BASED REPORTING
NQF
endorsement
status as of
5/1/09
Measure No.
Measure title
1 ...................
2 ...................
Diabetes Mellitus: Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in Diabetes Mellitus ................
Diabetes Mellitus: Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control in Diabetes
Mellitus.
Diabetes Mellitus: High Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes Mellitus ..................
Heart Failure: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or Angiotensin
Receptor Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
(LVSD).
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for CAD Patients with
Prior Myocardial Infarction (MI).
Preventive Care and Screening: Influenza Immunization for Patients ≥ 50 Years
Old.
Preventive Care and Screening: Pneumonia Vaccination for Patients 65 Years
and Older.
Preventive Care and Screening: Screening Mammography .................................
Preventive Care and Screening: Colorectal Cancer Screening ............................
Health Information Technology (HIT): Adoption/Use of Electronic Health
Records (EHR).
3 ...................
5 ...................
7 ...................
110 ...............
111 ...............
112 ...............
113 ...............
124 ...............
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(5) Measures Selected for Inclusion in
2010 Measures Groups
We proposed to retain the 7 2009
PQRI measures groups for the 2010
PQRI: (1) Diabetes Mellitus; (2) CKD; (3)
Preventive Care; (4) CABG; (5)
Rheumatoid Arthritis; (6) Perioperative
Care; and (7) Back Pain (74 FR 33582
through 33587). As in 2009, we
proposed the CABG measures group
would be reportable through the
registry-based reporting mechanism
only for 2010 while the remaining 6
2009 PQRI measures groups would be
reportable through either claims-based
reporting or registry-based reporting for
the 2010 PQRI.
In addition to the 7 measures groups
that we proposed to retain from the
2009 PQRI, we proposed 6 new
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
measures groups for the 2010 PQRI, for
a total of 13 CY 2010 measures groups.
The 6 new measures groups proposed
for the 2010 PQRI were: (1) Coronary
Artery Disease (CAD); (2) Heart Failure;
(3) Ischemic Vascular Disease (IVD); (4)
Hepatitis C; (5) Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)/
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS); and (6) Community Acquired
Pneumonia (CAP). Since many of the 6
new measures groups proposed for 2010
contained proposed new registry-only
measures, only 8 proposed 2010
measures groups would be reportable
through either claims-based reporting or
registry-based reporting: Diabetes
Mellitus; CKD; Preventive Care;
Perioperative Care; Rheumatoid
Arthritis; Back Pain; Hepatitis C; and
Community Acquired Pneumonia. We
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AQA adoption
status as of
1/31/09
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
NCQA
NCQA
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
No ................
Yes ...............
NCQA
AMA–PCPI
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
AMA–PCPI
Yes ...............
No ................
AMA–PCPI
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
NCQA
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
NCQA
NCQA
CMS/QIP
Measure
developer
solicited comments on our proposal to
limit claims-based reporting of measures
groups in 2010.
Finally, we also proposed that except
for the measures included in the Back
Pain measures group, the measures
included in any proposed 2010
measures group would be reportable
either as individual measures or as part
of a measures group. Similar to the 2009
PQRI, we proposed that the measures
proposed for inclusion in the Back Pain
measures group would be reportable
only as part of a measures group and not
as individual measures in 2010.
The measures proposed for inclusion
in each of the proposed 2010 measures
groups were identified in Tables 21
through 33 of the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33582 through
33587).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61832
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
2010 measures groups.
Comment: We received several
comments in support of the proposed
2010 PQRI measures groups.
Specifically, we received comments in
support of the Preventive Care, CAP,
HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, Rheumatoid
Arthritis, IVD, and Heart Failure
measures groups. Some commenters
also commended CMS for the inclusion
of specific measures in certain measures
groups.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ feedback. As identified in
Tables 15 through 27 of this final rule
with comment period, we are finalizing
all of the 13 proposed 2010 PQRI
measures groups. No changes were
made to the measures included in the
measures groups. However, as a result of
4 measures proposed for inclusion in
the IVD measures group that were
proposed to be registry only measures
now being available for either claims or
registry reporting, the IVD measures
group will also be available for either
claims or registry reporting.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested changes to our definition of
‘‘measures group.’’ One commenter
urged us to reduce the number of
measures required for reporting a
measure group to a minimum of 3
measures. Another commenter
requested that we define ‘‘measures
group’’ to be any 3 measures. One
commenter recommended that we
implement measures groups with
complex denominators to allow for
reporting on measures that have an
associated impact on patient care and
positive outcomes.
Response: As stated in the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33568),
‘‘measures group’’ has been previously
defined as a subset of 4 or more PQRI
measures that have a particular clinical
condition or focus in common. The
denominator definition and coding of
the measures groups identifies the
condition or focus that is shared across
the measures within a particular
measures group. If we change this
definition as suggested by commenters,
then there would be no difference in
terms of reporting measures groups and
reporting PQRI individual quality
measures since eligible professionals
who choose to report on individual
PQRI quality measures are already
generally required to report on 3
measures. The only exception that
permits eligible professionals to report
on fewer than 3 measures is when an
eligible professional has fewer than 3
applicable measures. For eligible
professionals in this situation, the only
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
option is to report applicable measures
via claims.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we monitor Measure
#115 Preventive Care and Screening:
Advising Smokers and Tobacco Users to
Quit for the CAD measures group for
‘‘appropriate conclusion as more
evidence is released which will show
whether advising smokers to quit
increases the chances that they actually
will quit.’’
Response: We assume that that the
commenter is requesting that we
monitor Measure #115 for appropriate
inclusion in CAD the measures groups.
As with all measures and measures
groups selected for inclusion in the
PQRI quality measure set, we will
continue to monitor the appropriateness
of including Measure #115 in the CAD
measures group on an ongoing basis for
future program years.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that claims-based
reporting be available for all measures
groups. Other commenters
recommended that claims-based
reporting be available for specific
measures groups, such as the CAD, IVD,
Heart Failure, HIV/AIDS measures
groups.
Response: The following 2010 PQRI
measures groups will be reportable only
via registry-based reporting: (1) CABG;
(2) CAD; (3) Heart Failure; and (4) HIV/
AIDS. These measures groups will be
registry-only because they include
individual 2010 PQRI registry-only
measures that cannot be feasibly
specified for claims based reporting.
Although we proposed that the IVD
measures group would also be registryonly for 2010, we determined, based on
comments that it is feasible to make the
proposed registry-only measures
proposed for inclusion in the IVD
measures group available for either
claims or registry reporting for 2010.
Therefore, the IVD measures group will
be available for either claims or registry
reporting.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended the addition of specific
codes to particular measures that were
proposed for inclusion in a measures
group. Specifically, one commenter
recommended the addition of 2 physical
therapy codes to the back pain measures
for the proposed Back Pain measures
group. Another commenter
recommended the addition of inpatient
codes for the measures proposed for
inclusion in the CAP measures group.
Response: As stated previously, it is
generally the role of the measure owner,
developer, or maintainer to make
substantive changes to a measure. The
addition of physical therapy codes
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
would mean that it is appropriate to
hold such professionals accountable for
the measure, which we believe
constitutes such a substantive issue. The
measure maintainer and/or the
developer/owner of a measure included
in the final set of 2010 PQRI measures
groups is identified as the ‘‘Measure
Developer’’ in Tables 15 through 27 of
this final rule with comment period. In
addition, NQF has, for its endorsed
measures, an established maintenance
process which may be accessed. Both
venues would be available to seek such
substantive changes to the measures.
Although we are required by section
1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act to give the
public an opportunity to provide input
on the selection of PQRI measures and
do so via notice and comment
rulemaking, we do not use notice and
comment rulemaking as a means to
make substantive changes to measures
nor to update or modify measure
specifications. We retain the ability to
update or modify specifications to the
measures until December 31, 2009. After
that date, there will be no changes to the
measure for the 2010 reporting
period(s).
Based on the reasons discussed above
and comments received, we are
finalizing the following proposed 2010
measures groups: (1) Diabetes Mellitus;
(2) CKD; (3) Preventive Care; (4) CABG;
(5) Rheumatoid Arthritis; (6)
Perioperative Care; (7) Back Pain; (8)
CAD; (9) Heart Failure; (10) IVD; (11)
Hepatitis C; (12) HIV/AIDS; and (13)
CAP. The following 4 measures groups
are reportable through the registry-based
reporting mechanism only: (1) CABG;
(2) CAD; (3) Heart Failure; and (4) HIV/
AIDS. The IVD measures group is no
longer limited to registry only reporting
since 4 measures included in the group
that were proposed to be registry-only
measures are now available for either
claims or registry reporting for 2010 (see
section II.G.2.i.2. above).
The measures selected for inclusion
in each of the 2010 measures groups are
identified in Tables 15 through 27 of
this final rule with comment period.
Some measures selected for inclusion in
these 6 measures group are current 2009
individual PQRI measures. The title of
each such measure is preceded with its
PQRI Measure Number in Tables 15
through 27. As stated previously, the
PQRI Measure Number is a unique
identifier assigned by CMS to all
measures in the PQRI measure set. Once
a PQRI Measure Number is assigned to
a measure, it will not be used again,
even if the measure is subsequently
retired from the PQRI measure set.
Measures that are not preceded by a
number (in other words, those preceded
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the final 2010 Heart Failure measures
group. The measure does not meet the
common denominator criteria for the
Heart Failure measures group because it
requires an additional denominator
code for atrial fibrillation. This
additional code is not in the other 7
measures included in the Heart Failure
measures group. As stated previously,
measures groups must have a particular
condition or focus in common, as
identified by the denominator definition
and coding of the measures group.
As with measures group reporting in
the 2008 and 2009 PQRI, each eligible
professional electing to report a group of
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
measures for 2010 must report all
measures in the group that are
applicable to each patient or encounter
to which the measures group applies at
least up to the minimum number of
patients required by the applicable
reporting criteria. The measures selected
for the Back Pain measures group
continue to be reportable only as part of
a measures group and not as individual
measures for the 2010 PQRI. Measures
selected for inclusion in all other 2010
PQRI measures groups are reportable
either as individual measures or as part
of a measures group.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.190
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
by ‘‘TBD’’) in Tables 15 through 27 were
never part of a PQRI measure set prior
to 2010. A number will be assigned to
such measures for 2010.
In addition, some measures selected
for inclusion in some of these measures
groups for 2010 were not included in
the measures groups in 2009. The 2009
measures selected for inclusion in a
2010 measures group that were not
included in the measures group for 2009
are identified with an asterisk (*).
We also note that the proposed 2010
Heart Failure measures group included
the measure Heart Failure: Warfarin
Therapy for Patients with Atrial
Fibrillation, which is not included in
61833
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.191
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61834
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61835
ER25NO09.192
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.193
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61836
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61837
ER25NO09.194
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.195
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61838
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61839
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.196
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
61840
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
We note that the specifications for
measures groups do not necessarily
contain all the specification elements of
each individual measure making up the
measures group. This is based on the
need for a common set of denominator
specifications for all the measures
making up a measures group in order to
define the applicability of the measures
group. Therefore, the specifications and
instructions for measures groups will be
provided separately from the
specifications and instructions for the
individual 2010 PQRI measures. We
will post the detailed specifications and
specific instructions for reporting
measures groups on the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI by no later than
December 31, 2008.
Additionally, the detailed measure
specifications and instructions for
submitting data on those 2010 measures
groups that were also included as 2009
PQRI measures groups may be updated
or modified prior to 2010. Therefore, the
2010 PQRI measure specifications for
any given measures group could be
different from specifications and
submission instructions for the same
measures group used for 2009. These
measure specification changes do not
materially impact the intended meaning
of the measures or the strength of the
measures.
(6) Request for Public Comment on
Measure Suggestions for Future PQRI
Quality Measure Sets
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33587), we invited commenters to
submit suggestions for individual
quality measures and measures groups
(that is, suggestions for new measures
groups and/or suggestions for the
composition of measures groups) for
consideration for possible inclusion in
the proposed set of quality measures for
use in the 2011 PQRI. We asked
individuals or organizations submitting
suggestions to provide us with the
following information:
• Requestor contact information, such
as name and title, organization/practice
name, phone number and e-mail
address;
• Measure title;
• Measure description;
• Measure owner/developer;
• NQF endorsement status, including
the date of endorsement or anticipated
endorsement (if not NQF-endorsed) and
type of endorsement (for example, timelimited endorsement);
• AQA adoption status, including
date of AQA adoption or anticipated
AQA adoption;
• Preferred PQRI reporting option for
the suggested measure(s) (that is, claims,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
registry, registry-only, measures group,
measures group only, EHRs); and
• The measure specifications.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding
suggestions for individual quality
measures and measures groups (that is,
suggestions for new measures groups
and/or suggestions) for the 2011 PQRI.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested quality measures or measures
groups for the 2010 PQRI in addition to
the quality measures and measures
groups for individual eligible
professionals we had proposed in
Tables 19 through 33 of the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33575
through 33587).
Response: We have not included in
this final rule with comment period for
the 2010 PQRI any individual quality
measures that were not identified in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule as proposed
2010 PQRI measures. As discussed
above in this final rule with comment
period, we are obligated by section
1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act to give eligible
professionals an opportunity to provide
input during the selection of measures
for the 2010 PQRI and subsequent years.
Eligible professionals have not had an
opportunity to provide input on
measures recommended for selection
via comments on the proposed rule that
were not specifically included in the
proposed rule. Thus, such additional
measures recommended via comments
on the proposed rule cannot be included
in the 2010 PQRI quality measure set.
However, we have captured these
recommendations and will have them
available for consideration in
identifying measure sets for future
years’ PQRI and other initiatives to
which those measures may be pertinent.
Comment: As we requested in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33587),
several commenters suggested quality
measures or measures groups for the
2011 PQRI.
Response: We have captured these
recommendations. To the extent
information provided is complete (that
is, includes the measure or measure
group details requested in the proposed
rule), we will consider the commenters’
recommendations in identifying
measure sets for future years’ PQRI and
other initiatives to which those
measures may be pertinent. As we
stated in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule, suggesting individual measures or
measures for new or proposed measures
groups does not mean that the
measure(s) or measures group(s) will be
included in the proposed or final sets of
measures or measures groups of any
proposed or final rules that address the
2011 PQRI. We will determine what
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
individual measures and measures
group to include in the proposed set of
quality measures, and after a period of
public comment, we will make the final
determination with regard to the final
set of quality measures for the 2011
PQRI.
Comment: Some commenters urged us
to expand the opportunities for
measures to be presented to CMS for
potential inclusion in the PQRI. One
commenter elaborated that the process
to develop and endorse measures takes
a considerable amount of time and
measure developers should have greater
opportunities to bring measures
forward. The commenter also requested
that we review the process by which
PQRI measures are selected to ensure
transparency and greater
communication with measure
developers. The commenter stated that
currently the process leaves little
opportunity for the measure developer
to dialogue with CMS if the measure is
denied. The commenter believes we
should provide feedback on suggested
measures prior to publication of the
proposed rule.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concerns. As stated
previously, we largely depend on the
development of measures by
professional organizations and other
measure developers. As such, we
depend on the measure developers and
other stakeholders to bring forth
potential measures to our attention. We
are continuing to look for ways to
improve the process for allowing
stakeholders to bring forth suggested
measures and are considering some
changes in the process future years
PQRI. For example, in addition to our
invitation to submit suggestions for
measures and measures groups for
potential inclusion in the 2011 PQRI
contained in CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33587), we are considering
a Call for 2011 Measures that will allow
stakeholders to submit additional
measures and/or measures groups
suggestions for the 2011 PQRI after
publication of this final rule followed by
a listening session in early 2010 to
promote a dialogue with stakeholders
with respect to the measure or measures
group suggestions we receive.
j. 2010 PQRI Quality Measures for
Physician Groups Selected To
Participate in the Group Practice
Reporting Option
We proposed that physician groups
selected to participate in the 2010 PQRI
group practice reporting option would
be required to report on 26 measures (74
FR 33587). These measures are NQFendorsed measures currently collected
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
as part of the PGP and/or MCMP
demonstrations.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed 2010 PQRI Quality Measures
for physician groups selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that we broaden the scope of
measures so that the measures would be
applicable to specialty care such as
emergency medicine, gastroenterology,
and surgical specialties. A few
commenters felt that group practices are
being required to report on too many
measures. Several commenters believe
that it is appropriate for CMS to first
implement the group practice reporting
option by focusing on the high-cost
chronic conditions and preventive care
reflected by the proposed measures.
Response: We recognize that the
measures largely apply to primary care.
However, as required by statute, the
measures shall target high-cost chronic
conditions and preventive care. This
reporting option is for group practices
with 200 or more eligible professionals.
On average, these group practices
typically have 20,000 patients assigned
to each group practice. Each group
practice will be required to complete the
data collection tool on a total of no more
than 3,699 consecutively assigned and
ranked patients, which is 411 patients
per disease module and preventive care
measure. Thus, the number of measures
is considered to be equitable for
practices with this volume of patients
and eligible professionals. We will
continue to evaluate the number and
types of measures and modules for
future program years.
Comment: We received some
comments in support of the proposed
measures for the group practice
reporting option. A few commenters
expressed support for specific proposed
measures, including:
• Measure #1 Diabetes Mellitus:
Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control;
• Measure #5 Heart Failure:
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)
Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor
Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Left
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
(LVSD);
• Measure #6 Coronary Artery
Disease (CAD): Oral Antiplatelet
Therapy Prescribed for Patients with
CAD;
• Measure #7 Coronary Artery
Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for
CAD Patients with Prior Myocardial
Infarction (MI);
• Measure #8 Heart Failure: BetaBlocker Therapy for Left Ventricular
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD); Measure
#118 Coronary Artery Disease (CAD):
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)
Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor
Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Patients with
CAD and Diabetes and/or Left
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
(LVSD);
• Heart Failure: Left Ventricular
Function (LVF) Testing;
• Heart Failure: Left Ventricular
Function (LVF) Assessment;
• Heart Failure: Weight Measurement;
• Heart Failure: Patient Education;
• Heart Failure: Warfarin Therapy for
Patients with Atrial Fibrillation; and
• Coronary Artery Disease (CAD):
Drug Therapy for Lowering LDLCholesterol.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters support. The final
measures for physician groups
participating in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option are identified
in Table 28.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the 2 proposed hypertension measures
(Hypertension (HTN): Blood Pressure
Control and Hypertension (HTN): Plan
of Care) are not included in the larger
list of 2010 PQRI measures for
individual eligible professionals. The
commenter recommended that we
include these 2 measures as 2010 PQRI
individual quality measures for
individual eligible professionals.
Response: The commenter is correct;
these 2 measures are not available to
individual eligible professionals to
report for the 2010 PQRI. Since these
measures were not proposed to be
included in the 2010 PQRI quality
measure set for individual eligible
professionals, however, we are unable to
add them to the PQRI quality measure
set for individual quality measures for
2010. As stated previously, section
1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to
give the public an opportunity to
provide input on the selection of
measures for the PQRI, which we
accomplish through notice and
comment rulemaking. Since these
measures have not been placed before
the public as potential measures for
individual eligible professionals for the
2010 PQRI, eligible professionals and
other stakeholders have not had an
opportunity to provide input on the
inclusion of these 2 measures in the
2010 PQRI quality measure set for
individual eligible professionals.
Comment: The measure developer/
owner of the Heart Failure: Weight
measurement measure requested that we
remove the measure from the group
reporting option since the measure
owner’s measure workgroup is planning
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61841
to retire the measure from its heart
failure measure set in the upcoming
months.
Response: We value the input of the
measure developer/owner. Furthermore,
we look to the measure developer/
owner to maintain and update measures
based on the standards of care and
evidence base. We believe, however,
that the Heart Failure: Weight
Measurement measure targets a highcost chronic condition. The measure is
a valuable measure in the evaluation of
patients with heart failure and
continues to have a significant impact
on the care and improvement in
outcomes. Additionally, the measure
has undergone the scientific rigor of
achieving consensus endorsement by
the NQF. Therefore, we will retain this
measure, as proposed, in the group
practice reporting option. The final
measure specifications for the group
practice reporting option will be posted
on the CMS Web site https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri no later than
December 31, 2009.
Comment: One commenter noted that
measure developer listed in the
proposed rule for the ‘‘Preventive Care:
Blood Pressure Management’’ measure
was incorrect and should be corrected
in the final rule.
Response: The measure title was
incorrectly listed as ‘‘Preventive Care:
Blood Pressure Management.’’ The
correct title is ‘‘Hypertension: Blood
Pressure Measurement.’’ This correction
is reflected in Table 28.
Based on the reasons discussed above
and after considering the comments, for
the 2010 PQRI, group practices selected
to participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option will be required to
report on all measures listed in Table
28. To the extent that a measure is an
existing PQRI measure available for
reporting by individual eligible
professionals, the Measure Title is
preceded by the measure’s PQRI
Measure Number. If there is no number
in the PQRI Measure Number column of
the table, then the measure is not an
existing PQRI measure and will be
added to the 2010 PQRI for purposes of
the group practice reporting option.
A separate measures specifications
manual and other supporting
documents will be available for group
practices participating in the 2010 PQRI
group practice reporting option. We
anticipate that the group practice
measures specifications manual will be
available by November 15, 2009 on the
PQRI section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61842
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 28—MEASURES FOR PHYSICIAN GROUPS PARTICIPATING IN THE 2010 PQRI GROUP PRACTICE REPORTING
OPTION
PQRI Measure
No.
1
2
3
5
........................
........................
........................
........................
6 ........................
7 ........................
8 ........................
110 ....................
111 ....................
112 ....................
113 ....................
117 ....................
118 ....................
119 ....................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
163 ....................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
TBD ...................
Diabetes Mellitus: Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in Diabetes Mellitus ............................................................
Diabetes Mellitus: Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control ..........................................................................
Diabetes Mellitus: High Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes Mellitus ..............................................................
Heart Failure: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB)
Therapy for Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD).
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Oral Antiplatelet Therapy Prescribed for Patients with CAD .......................
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for CAD Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction
(MI).
Heart Failure: Beta-Blocker Therapy for Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD) ...................................
Preventive Care and Screening: Influenza Immunization for Patients ≥ 50 Years Old ...................................
Preventive Care and Screening: Pneumonia Vaccination for Patients 65 Years and Older ...........................
Preventive Care and Screening: Screening Mammography ............................................................................
Preventive Care and Screening: Colorectal Cancer Screening .......................................................................
Diabetes Mellitus: Dilated Eye Exam in Diabetic Patient .................................................................................
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor
Blocker (ARB) for Patients with CAD and Diabetes and/or Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD).
Diabetes Mellitus: Urine Screening for Microalbumin or Medical Attention for Nephropathy in Diabetic Patients.
Diabetes Mellitus: Foot Exam ...........................................................................................................................
Diabetes Mellitus: Hemoglobin A1c Testing .....................................................................................................
Diabetes Mellitus: Lipid Profile ..........................................................................................................................
Heart Failure: Left Ventricular Function (LVF) Testing .....................................................................................
Heart Failure: Left Ventricular Function (LVF) Assessment .............................................................................
Heart Failure: Weight Measurement .................................................................................................................
Heart Failure: Patient Education .......................................................................................................................
Heart Failure: Warfarin Therapy for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation .................................................................
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Drug Therapy for Lowering LDL–Cholesterol ..............................................
Hypertension: Blood Pressure Measurement ...................................................................................................
Hypertension (HTN): Blood Pressure Control ..................................................................................................
Hypertension (HTN): Plan of Care ....................................................................................................................
k. Public Reporting of PQRI Data
Section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, as
added by the MIPPA, requires the
Secretary to post on the CMS Web site,
in an easily understandable format, a
list of the names of eligible
professionals (or group practices) who
satisfactorily submitted data on quality
measures for the PQRI and the names of
the eligible professionals (or group
practices) who are successful electronic
prescribers. In accordance with section
1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, we stated in
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33588 through 33589) our intent to
make public the names of eligible
professionals and group practices that
satisfactorily submit quality data for the
2010 PQRI on the Physician and Other
Health Care Professionals Directory. In
addition to posting the information
required by section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the
Act, for those group practices that are
selected to participate in PQRI under
the group practice reporting option, we
also proposed to make the group
practices’ PQRI performance rates
publicly available, for each of the
measures. We solicited comments
regarding our proposal to publicly
report group practices’ PQRI
performance results.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Measure
developer
Measure title
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
public reporting of PQRI data required
under section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the
Act and our proposal to publicly report
group practices’ PQRI performance
results.
Comment: We received some
comments in support of public reporting
of either the information required by
section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act or all
PQRI measure results, including
individual eligible professionals’
performance results. One commenter
stated that CMS needs to articulate a
clear and aggressive path forward, with
short-term benchmarks and a goal of
having publicly available, actionable
performance and cost information for all
participating Medicare clinicians.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support. As we have stated
previously, we believe that public
reporting of group practices’ PQRI
performance results represents an
opportunity to make strides towards the
goal of being able to make quality
information about physicians and other
healthcare professionals publicly
available.
Comment: One commenter
encouraged the use of composite
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NCQA
NCQA
NCQA
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
NCQA
NCQA
NCQA/AMA–
PCPI
NCQA
AMA–PCPI
NCQA
NCQA
NCQA
NCQA
CMS
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
CMS/NCQA
AMA–PCPI
measures to help increase the reliability
of individual eligible professionals’
performance data.
Response: At this time we have no
plans to publicly release individual
eligible professionals’ performance data.
Additional refinements to the PQRI are
likely needed as the program matures.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS also publicly
report the names of eligible
professionals who choose not to
participate in the PQRI. The commenter
stated that the willingness (or lack
thereof) of clinicians to participate in
performance measurement and
reporting should be publicly recognized.
Response: We disagree that such
information would be useful to
consumers since there are several valid
reasons why an eligible professional
may choose to not participate in a
voluntary initiative, such as the PQRI.
Consumers may potentially misinterpret
the lack of participation to mean that an
eligible professional is not interested in
providing quality care.
Comment: Many commenters were
opposed to releasing any other data on
PQRI until issues with the Physician
and Other Health Care Professional
Directory are addressed and corrected.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Some of the issues cited by commenters
include, the lack of accurate provider
listings, poor and difficult to find
disclaimer information regarding
participation in PQRI, and poor user
instructions. Many comments, in
particular, requested that the disclaimer
that was provided with the list of 2007
PQRI participants be updated and made
more prominent.
Response: We appreciate the
comments and plan to make
improvements to the Directory with
respect to reporting PQRI participation.
Comment: Many commenters were
opposed to releasing any additional
PQRI information, including the
information required under section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act, because of
issues with the PQRI itself. Some of the
concerns cited by commenters include
the following:
• The errors identified with the 2007
PQRI have compromised the program’s
validity within the participant
community;
• The program’s plans to transition
away from claims-based reporting may
force eligible professionals who
satisfactorily reported in the past to stop
doing so;
• The potential for consumers to
misunderstand the significance of the
information being publicly reported
since there are still many valid reasons
why an eligible professional may not
have participated or may have
participated but was not considered a
satisfactory reporter.
One commenter suggested that we
consider alternative data sets for public
reporting such as Board certification,
CAHPS data, and/or a physician or
other health care professional’s
participation in a registry. Other
commenters requested that a formal
evaluation of the 2007 and 2008 PQRI
be conducted before releasing any
participation, reporting, or performance
rates.
Response: As required by section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act, we must, at
a minimum, make public the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices that satisfactorily submit
quality data for the 2010 PQRI on the
Physician and Other Health Care
Professionals Directory. We anticipate
that the names of individual eligible
professionals and group practices that
satisfactorily submit quality data for the
2010 PQRI will not be made available
any earlier than in 2011 after the 2010
incentive payments are paid. In an
attempt to address commenters’
concerns, we will make information
about the intended uses and/or
limitations of the information being
presented in the form of a disclaimer
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
available on the Web site as well. To the
extent that additional information
derived from the PQRI, is made public
we would also take such concerns into
account.
Comment: Several commenters
provided recommendations for CMS to
consider with respect to publicly
reporting PQRI information, including
the information required by section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act. These
suggestions include the following:
• Establishing a process that allows
for prior review and comment before
data are made public and that allows for
any comments received to be included
with the publicly reported data;
• Establishing an appeals process
with regard to any data that is to be
publicly reported;
• Providing information outlining the
data’s potential uses and limitations;
• Providing information that clearly
and specifically states that information
about whether an eligible professional is
a satisfactory reporter does not
necessarily indicate that higher quality
care was or will be provided by those
eligible professionals (or group
practices) who qualified to earn PQRI
incentive payments;
• Providing better access to and more
timely feedback;
• Avoiding characterization of the
names of satisfactory reporters as
comparative quality information; and
• Giving eligible professionals an
opportunity to explain why they are not
participating.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ valuable input. We believe
that many of these suggestions have
already been addressed. For example,
eligible professionals have an
opportunity to review their reporting
and performance results via the
feedback reports that are made available
to all participating eligible professionals
at the time that incentive payments are
released for a particular program year.
As discussed previously, we have also
created an alternate process to make it
easier for eligible professionals to obtain
their feedback reports and created a
dedicated Help Desk that is available to
assist eligible professionals who have
any concerns about the information
contained in their feedback reports. All
information that is publicly reported
will also be accompanied by appropriate
disclaimers that address the
information’s potential uses and
limitations, including the fact that an
eligible professional or group practice is
listed as having satisfactorily reported
PQRI quality measures does not
necessarily indicate that he or she
provides higher quality care than those
who did not participate or those who
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61843
participated but did not do so
satisfactorily.
Comment: Several commenters
provided recommendations for CMS to
consider specifically with respect to our
proposal to publicly report group
practices’ PQRI performance results.
These suggestions include the
following:
• Providing group practices the
opportunity to suppress their data;
• Precisely defining what
performance data CMS plans to post;
and
• Conducting and publishing an
evaluation of PQRI on its impact on
quality of care before selecting measures
for public reporting.
Response: As stated in the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33589), we
proposed to make the group practices’
performance rates for each of the PQRI
group practice reporting option
measures public for each group selected
to participate in PQRI group practice
reporting option. We proposed to
attribute the performance rates to the
entire group and will not post any
information with respect to the
performance of individual eligible
professionals other than, potentially, to
identify the individual eligible
professionals that were associated with
the group during the reporting period.
As stated in section II.G.2.g.1. above,
however, we have taken the
commenters’ concerns about publicly
reporting the group practices’
performance results in the first year of
implementation of the PQRI group
practice reporting option into
consideration. We are not finalizing our
proposal to require group practices that
wish to utilize the group practice
reporting option in 2010 to agree to have
their PQRI performance results publicly
reported. In addition, we will not report
any 2010 group practice performance
results publicly at all except as
otherwise required by law and will limit
public reporting of information on the
PQRI group practice reporting to the
information required by section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act (that is, the
names of group practices that
satisfactorily submitted data on PQRI
quality measures). Instead, we will
consider implementing public reporting
of group practices’ performance results
in the 2011 PQRI program year.
Comment: Many commenters were
opposed to the public reporting of any
PQRI information beyond what is
specifically required by section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act. These
concerns include the following:
• CMS only has the specific authority
to publicly report the information
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61844
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
required by section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of
the Act;
• There continue to be substantial
gaps in the PQRI quality measure set
that may create a barrier to participation
in PQRI;
• The value of PQRI data is
questionable since there has been no
formal evaluation of the PQRI to
determine its impact on the quality of
care, whether it allows for fair and
meaningful comparisons of performance
on eligible professionals, and whether it
is valid; and
• PQRI is not available to all
specialties.
Response: Other than the information
required by section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of
the Act, the only PQRI information that
we contemplated making public is the
PQRI performance results for group
practices selected to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option
(that is, group practices that have agreed
to have their PQRI performance results
publicly reported as a condition of
utilizing the group practice reporting
option). As stated above, we have taken
commenters’ concerns into
consideration and have decided to defer
implementation of public reporting of
group practices’ performance results
until the 2011 PQRI program year.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification of the term ‘‘satisfactorily
submitted.’’ The commenter
recommended that we exercise
flexibility until there is a guarantee that
we can accurately collect and analyze
the submission of quality data codes.
Response: We do not believe we have
the authority to flexibly define the term
‘‘satisfactorily submitted.’’ Section
1848(m) of the Act clearly considers any
eligible professional or group practice
who satisfies the criteria for satisfactory
reporting, as defined in sections II.G.2.e.
through II.G.2.g. of this final rule with
comment period, to be an eligible
professional or group practice who
qualifies for an incentive payment.
Furthermore, section 1848(m)(5)(G) of
the Act clearly requires us to post the
names of eligible professionals or group
practices that satisfactorily submitted
data on PQRI quality measures.
After considering the comments
above, we intend to post the names of
eligible professionals who: (1) Submit
data on the 2010 PQRI quality measures
through one of the reporting
mechanisms available for the 2010
PQRI; (2) meet one of the proposed
satisfactory reporting criteria of
individual measures or measures groups
for the 2010 PQRI; and (3) qualify to
earn a PQRI incentive payment for
covered professional services furnished
during the applicable 2010 PQRI
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
reporting period for purposes of
satisfying the requirements under
section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act, on
the Physician and Other Health Care
Professionals Directory.
Similarly, for purposes of satisfying
the requirements under section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act with respect
to group practices, on the Physician and
Other Health Care Professionals
Directory, we intend to post the names
of group practices that: (1) Submit data
on the 2010 PQRI quality measures
through the proposed group practice
reporting option; (2) meet the proposed
criteria for satisfactory reporting under
the group practice reporting option; and
(3) qualify to earn a PQRI incentive
payment for covered professional
services furnished during the applicable
2010 PQRI reporting period for group
practices.
We do not intend to make
performance rates for group practices
participating in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option publicly
available but anticipate publicly
reporting group practices’ performance
results for the 2011 PQRI program year.
We anticipate that information with
respect to quality data submitted for the
2010 PQRI (that is, the names of
individual eligible professionals and
group practices that satisfactorily report
in 2010) will not be available until after
the 2010 incentive payments are paid in
2011.
3. Section 131(c): Physician Resource
Use Measurement and Reporting
Program
a. Statutory Authority
As required under section 1848(n) of
the Act, as added by section 131(c) of
the MIPPA, we established and
implemented by January 1, 2009, the
Physician Resource Use Measurement &
Reporting Program for purposes of
providing confidential reports to
physicians that measure the resources
involved in furnishing care Medicare
beneficiaries. Section 1848(n) of the Act
also authorizes CMS to include
information on the quality of care
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by a
physician or group of physicians.
b. Background
As stated in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR
69866), the Program would consist of
multiple phases. We included a
summary of the activities of phase I of
the Program in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR 69866
through 69869). In addition to
discussing phase I of the Program, we
also highlighted the activities of several
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
other initiatives, including Medicare
Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) programs
and demonstrations and related
activities undertaken by the MedPAC
and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO). We refer readers to the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69866 through 69869) for
a detailed discussion of these activities.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69866 through
69869), we finalized, on an interim
basis, the following parameters for
phase I of the Program: (1) Use of both
per capita and episode of care
methodologies for resource use
measurement; (2) cost of service
category analysis (for example, imaging
services or inpatient admissions); (3)
use of 4 calendar years of claims data;
(4) focus on high cost and/or high
volume conditions; (5) reporting to
physician specialties relevant to the
selected focal conditions; (6) focus on
physicians practicing in certain
geographic areas, and (7) low, median,
and high cost benchmarks.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33589 through 33591), we
summarized the comments received
from the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period and our responses.
Further, we made the following
proposals in the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33591): (1) Reporting on
quality measures in addition to resource
use measures, and (2) reporting to
groups of physicians in addition to
individual physicians.
c. Phase I of the Program
As indicated above, the Program
consists of multiple phases. Under this
approach, each phase of the Program
will inform future phases of the
Program. We refer readers to the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69866 through 69869) for
a description of phase I Program
activities. Using the parameters that
were finalized on an interim basis, we
have disseminated approximately 310
resource use reports (a sample report is
available at https://rurinfo.mathematicampr.com/) to physicians in 13
geographic regions (74 FR 33590). In the
proposed rule, we solicited public
comments on the interim final Program
parameters.
Commenters supported the Program
parameters that were finalized on an
interim basis in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule (73 FR 69866 through 69869). Our
summary of those comments and our
responses are contained in the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33589
through 33591). Accordingly, we are
finalizing the interim final Program
parameters.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
In addition to the eight conditions
finalized on an interim basis in the CY
2009 PFS final rule(74 FR 33590), we
solicited public comment on adding
diabetes as an episode of care.
Comment: Commenters supported
including diabetes as one of the selected
episodes of care for the Program.
Response: We are finalizing adding
diabetes to the episode of care analysis
in the Program.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33591), we referred readers to the
following Web site to review a deidentified sample of the resource use
reports disseminated to physicians:
https://rurinfo.mathematica-mpr.com/.
We solicited public comment on the
resource use report used in phase I of
the Program.
Comment: Commenters supported
dissemination of feedback reports both
in hard copy and electronically.
Response: We intend to offer both
hard copy and electronic delivery of
feedback reports in the Program.
Comment: Commenters supported
electronic reports that allow user-driven
data drilldown capability to the claim
level.
Response: We intend to explore the
feasibility of such drill-down capability.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that additional cost of service
categories (described on pages 30 and
34–35 at https://rurinfo.mathematicampr.com/) should be included in the
feedback reports. Additional categories
mentioned included: prescribed drugs,
costs due to infections, and specific
information on diagnostic tests and
services.
Response: We intend to explore the
feasibility of these additional cost of
service categories in the future.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested capturing hospital
readmissions as a measure in the
feedback reports.
Response: We are committed to
closely monitoring hospital
readmissions in the Medicare program.
We intend to explore the feasibility of
capturing readmissions in the physician
group feedback reports in the future.
Comment: A few commenters stated
that some of the benchmarks used in the
reports were too broad in order to make
meaningful peer comparisons.
Response: We are committed to
refining the benchmarks used in the
Program to ensure meaningful peer
comparisons. We note that there is a
trade-off between statistical precision
and narrow benchmarks. For additional
discussion on this statistical topic, we
refer readers to the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33590 through
33591). Further, we note that the broad
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
geographic benchmarks provide
additional value to CMS by informing
policymakers of measurement variation
across geographic regions.
Comment: A few commenters
mentioned that eligible professionals
would appreciate knowing each
beneficiary that was assigned to them.
Further, physicians would appreciate
knowing which other physicians were
also providing care to the beneficiaries
assigned to them.
Response: To the extent it is
practicable, we are committed to
providing physicians with information
that targets specific performance areas.
We intend to explore the feasibility of
providing this detailed level of data.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS pursue a robust evaluation of
the risk adjustment methodology (pages
29 and 32 at https://rurinfo.mathematicampr.com/) used in the Program.
Response: We are committed to
conducting further research to refine the
risk adjustment rules currently being
applied in the Program. Determining
how to accurately adjust for patient risk
factors is a priority for CMS.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we make the minimum thresholds
for patients and episodes that are
needed for statistical accuracy used in
the Program publicly available.
Response: We are committed to
making the methodologies used in the
Program transparent. We are currently
exploring the feasibility of publicly
posting the minimum thresholds for
patients and episodes used in the
Program on our Web site.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that additional outreach and
education is needed to help eligible
professionals understand the reports.
Further, commenters suggested
including a task in the next Quality
Improvement Organization (QIO) scope
of work to assist physicians with
interpreting their reports.
Response: We are committed to
providing technical assistance to
eligible professionals to aide in the
understanding of the reports. We intend
to explore the feasibility of including a
task to provide technical assistance in
understanding the reports in the QIO
10th scope of work.
Comment: One commenter questioned
how E/M codes included in surgical
bundle payments are used to inform
CMS’ designated attribution
methodologies.
Response: We are committed to
pursuing further research in order to
refine the designated attribution rules
currently being applied in the Program.
Determining how to accurately attribute
surgical bundles is a priority for CMS.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61845
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS raise the minimum of 10
percent of E/M costs used to assign a
patient or episode to a physician.
Response: In addition to setting the
minimum threshold at 10 percent, we
will test some higher minimum
thresholds. We note that one of the goals
of this Program is to provide
confidential feedback reports to as many
physicians as possible. One of the tradeoffs to raising the minimum threshold is
that fewer physicians may qualify to
receive a feedback report.
Comment: Several commenters
strongly supported CMS’ use of the
multiple proportional attribution rule
(pages 26–27 and 33 at https://
rurinfo.mathematica-mpr.com/).
Response: We will continue to
examine the utility of this attribution
rule and test others.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
referred readers to two publicly
available Web sites for commercial
episode grouper vendors regarding
transparency of their methodologies (74
FR 33591). We solicited public
comment on the use of proprietary
products to measure episodes of care in
the Program.
Comment: Many commenters were in
favor of CMS only using a Medicarespecific public domain episode grouper
in the Program.
Response: To the greatest extent
practicable, we are committed to
ensuring all methodologies used in the
Program are transparent. We intend to
explore the feasibility of using a
Medicare-specific public domain
episode grouper in the Program. We
refer readers to (74 FR 48979 through
48980) for an announcement regarding
an upcoming public listening session
that CMS is hosting to discuss this
topic.
d. Phase II of the Program
For phase II, we proposed to expand
the Program in ways that that targets
specific performance areas for
physicians. We proposed to add
reporting to groups of physicians,
recognizing that many physicians
practice in arrangements other than solo
practices. We noted that group level
reporting will be more likely to resolve
the sample size issues that arise when
individual physicians have too few
Medicare beneficiaries with specific
conditions to generate statistically
significant information. We solicited
public comment on potential types of
groups including the following: (1)
Formally-established single or multispecialty group practices; (2) physicians
practicing in defined geographic
regions; and (3) physicians practicing
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61846
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
within facilities or larger systems of
care.
Comment: Commenters supported
reporting to groups of physicians,
including all categories listed above, in
addition to individual physicians. A few
commenters questioned how CMS
would define groups. Commenters did
not offer a definition of group reporting,
however. One commenter asked us to
include accountable care organizations
(ACOs) in the definition of the ‘‘group.’’
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to include group reporting.
Since no explicit definition of group
practice was suggested through public
comment, for purposes of this Program,
we are finalizing the following
definition of group practice: more than
one physician practicing medicine
together. We choose this definition
because we want to recognize groups of
physicians as entities that are separate
and distinct from individual physicians.
We are defining a group as two or more
physicians both to recognize groups as
separate and distinct from individual
physicians and to ensure that we have
the broadest possible definition of a
group so that all physicians could
potentially be provided with resource
use reports. If groups were to be defined
more narrowly, it is possible that some
physicians would not be subject to the
resource use reporting because they are
neither working in solo practice as an
individual physician or part of a
practice that meets our definition of a
group.
This definition applies to the
following groups: (1) Formallyestablished single or multi-specialty
group practices; (2) physicians
practicing in defined geographic
regions; and (3) physicians practicing
within facilities or larger systems of
care. With respect to ACOs, the term is
not defined at this time in either the law
or regulations but to the extent that the
ACO includes more than one physician,
the physicians in the ACO would
constitute a group for resource use
reporting. We are therefore, finalizing
the definition for group practices and
these three types of groups of
physicians.
Phase I of the Program focused on
providing confidential feedback on
resource use measures. Section
1848(n)(1)(A) of the Act states that the
Secretary may also include information
on the quality of care furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries by physicians (or
groups of physicians) in the feedback
reports. Providing physicians with
feedback on both quality and cost of
care better captures the value of the care
provided. Including quality measures in
the Program is consistent with the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
direction for other CMS VBP initiatives.
We solicited public comments on the
use of PQRI, GEM, and other aggregate
quality measures to be used in the
Physician Resource Use Measurement
and Reporting Program.
Comment: Commenters were
unanimously supportive of including
quality measures, in addition to
resource use measures in the Program.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to include quality measures in
the Program.
Comment: Commenters were in
support of using both PQRI and GEM
measures to capture quality of care.
Some commenters cited the new nature
of both PQRI and GEM measures as an
area of concern and recommended
caution in using these quality measures
until the measures become more mature.
Response: Though we recognize that
both the measures used in the PQRI and
claims-based measures calculated
without submission of quality data
codes from physicians (such as GEM
measures) will continue to mature over
time, we intend to include them in the
Program. Including these quality
measures will allow us to gain more
experience reporting performance
metrics to eligible professionals on a
confidential basis.
Comment: In addition to the use of
PQRI and GEM measures, commenters
also encouraged reporting of structure
and outcome measures (outside of those
currently included in the PQRI
Program). Commenters stated that
specialty societies and other measure
developers should be encouraged to
speed the development of these types of
measures.
Response: We are committed to
capturing all aspects of performance,
including process, structure, and
outcomes measures. As additional
measures become available, we will
examine the utility of such measures as
an additional aspect of reporting in this
Program.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed that quality data should
closely relate to the episodes of care that
are targeted in the Program.
Response: We are committed to
working collaboratively with measure
developers on pairing quality measures
with episodes of care.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the time period
represented by the quality and cost
measures should overlap.
Response: To the greatest extent
practicable, we are committed to
recognizing overlapping measurement
time periods between quality and cost
measures in this Program.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: A few commenters
suggested capturing quality data from
registries.
Response: We are committed to
allowing the collection of quality
measures from data contained within
clinical registries. We refer readers to
section II.G.2. of this final rule with
comment period that discusses the PQRI
for additional discussion on the use of
registries to collect quality data.
e. General Comments
In addition to the areas where we
specifically solicited comments, we also
received several general comments.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern about the use of the
data contained within the feedback
reports for purposes beyond
confidential reporting. One commenter
strongly encouraged CMS to publicly
report the data contained within the
feedback reports.
Response: Section 1848(n) of the Act
currently provides the authority to use
the information contained within the
feedback reports on a confidential basis
only.
Comment: One commenter suggested
integrating the reporting of resource use
measures into Maintenance of
Certification programs.
Response: CMS is committed to
working collaboratively with
stakeholders on various mechanisms
and programs to increase the value of
care delivered to beneficiaries. We refer
readers to section II.G.2. of this final
rule with comment period that
discusses the PQRI for additional
discussion of this suggestion.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the feedback reports be used to
provide information on geographic
variations in the delivery of specific
services.
Response: We are committed to
monitoring and addressing geographic
variations in the delivery of services. As
mentioned above, we plan to explore
group level reporting, which may
include reporting to physicians within a
specified geographic group.
Comment: One commenter strongly
encouraged CMS to expand the number
of reports delivered beyond the 310
delivered in Phase I of the Program.
Response: We are committed to
providing feedback to as many
physicians as our resources will allow.
We intend to explore the feasibility of
providing more reports in the Program.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
4. Section 131(d): Plan for Transition to
Value-Based Purchasing Program for
Physicians and Other Practitioners
a. Background
Value-based purchasing uses payment
incentives and transparency to increase
the value of care by rewarding providers
for higher quality and more efficient
services and for publicly reporting
performance information. Section
131(d) of the MIPPA requires the
Secretary to develop a plan to transition
to a value-based purchasing (VBP)
program for Medicare payment for
covered professional services made
under, or based on, the PFS. Section
131(d) of the MIPPA also states that by
May 1, 2010, the Secretary shall submit
a report to the Congress, containing the
plan, together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative
action as the Secretary determines
appropriate. The Secretary, through the
Physician and Other Health Professional
VBP (PVBP) Workgroup, submitted a
progress letter to Congress on January 8,
2009 detailing the progress made on the
PVBP plan for physicians and other
professionals.
Currently, Medicare health
professional payments are based on
quantity of services and procedures
provided, without recognition of quality
or efficiency. Under various authorities,
we have pursued the implementation of
building blocks to support the
establishment of a VBP program for
health professionals. These include
initiatives in the following major topic
areas: quality and efficiency
measurement and reporting, approaches
for aligning incentives with providing
higher quality care instead of higher
volume of care, care coordination,
prevention, and health information
technology (HIT). The following are
examples of the initiatives specifically
relevant to physicians and other health
professionals:
• Pay for reporting of quality
measurement data instituted under the
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI);
• Resource use reports comparing
overall costs, as well as costs for
treatment across episodes of care, as
required by the Physician Resource Use
Measurement and Reporting Program;
and
• Demonstration projects including
the Physician Group Practice
demonstration of a shared savings
model, gainsharing demonstrations,
medical home and other care
coordination and disease management
demonstrations, and the Acute Care
Episodes demonstration of a bundled
payment model.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
We are fully committed to
implementing VBP incentives to drive
quality improvement and greater
efficiency for services furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries.
b. Approach to Plan Development
We have created an internal crosscomponent team, the PVBP Steering
Committee (formerly referred to as
PVBP Workgroup), to lead development
of the PVBP plan. Four Subgroups were
established to address the major
sections of the Plan: measures;
incentives; data strategy and
infrastructure; and public reporting. The
PVBP Steering Committee was tasked
with reviewing the state-of-the-art in
performance-based payment for
physicians, including relevant Medicare
programs and demonstrations and
private sector initiatives; preparing an
Issues Paper to present program
objectives and design principles;
engaging stakeholders and obtaining
input on program design; and
developing the PVBP Plan and Report to
Congress. A similar approach was used
in the development of the CMS Hospital
VBP Plan.
To guide the planning process, the
PVBP Steering Committee adopted the
following goal to improve Medicare
beneficiary health outcomes and
experience of care by using payment
incentives and transparency to
encourage higher quality, more efficient
professional services. In pursuit of this
goal, the Workgroup has defined the
following objectives:
• Promote evidence-based medicine
through measurement, payment
incentives, and transparency.
• Reduce fragmentation and
duplication through accountability
across settings, alignment of measures
and incentives across settings, better
care coordination for smoother
transitions, and attention to episodes of
care.
• Encourage effective management of
chronic disease by improving early
detection and prevention, focusing on
preventable hospital readmissions, and
emphasizing the importance of
advanced care planning and appropriate
end-of-life care.
• Accelerate the adoption of effective,
interoperable HIT, including clinical
registries, e-prescribing, and electronic
health records.
• Empower beneficiaries to make
value-based health care choices, and
encourage health professionals to
improve the value of care they provide
by disseminating information designed
to help them change their practice
patterns to improve performance.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61847
The goal and objectives were captured
in an Issues Paper that was posted on
the CMS Web site on November 24,
2008, in preparation for the December 9,
2008 Listening Session which was held
at CMS headquarters. The Issues Paper
included questions seeking public input
on key design considerations. The
Issues Paper is available on the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/downloads/
PhysicianVBP-Plan-Issues-Paper.pdf.
Nearly 500 stakeholders participated in
the day-long Listening Session. We
received both verbal and written
comments that are informing the design
of the PVBP Plan. Stakeholder input
from this Listening Session is
summarized in the proposed rule (74 FR
33592 through 33593).
c. Next Steps in Plan Development
Building on input from the Listening
Session on the Issues Paper topics, the
PVBP Steering Committee has begun to
develop potential recommendations for
inclusion in the Report to Congress. The
first step is to design various approaches
for performance-based payment that
will address the planning goal and
objectives for different practice
arrangements. This design process will
include identifying appropriate
measures and incentive structures,
considering the necessary data
infrastructure, and addressing public
reporting options. Consideration will be
given to approaches that:
(1) Overlay the current PFS, such as
differential fee schedule payments
based on measured performance;
(2) Address multiple levels of
accountability, including individual
health professionals, as well as larger
care teams or organizations made up of
a variety of health professionals and
facilities; and
(3) Promote more integrated care
through shared savings models and
bundled payment arrangements.
In the proposed rule, we solicited
public comment on the development of
the PVBP plan and Report to Congress.
We specifically requested for comments
on two topics: (1) the appropriate level
at which to hold practitioners
accountable (for example, individuals or
groups); and (2) appropriate data
submission mechanisms. We received
comments on these topics, as well as
comments on other issues we should
consider when developing the PVBP
Report to Congress. The following is
summary of the comments we received
regarding section 131(d) of the MIPPA.
Comment: Regarding the appropriate
level at which to hold practitioners
accountable, commenters were
supportive of our intention for the PVBP
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61848
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
plan to recognize multiple levels of
accountability ranging from individual
practitioners to larger organizations.
Commenters recognized that a ‘‘one size
fits all’’ approach would not be
appropriate. One commenter suggested
conducting a series of demonstrations
and pilots to help further explore this
issue. Commenters also urged us to
design the program to allow
participation by practitioners other than
physicians.
Response: We plan to continue to
explore ways to measure and
incentivize practitioners for higher
value care at multiple levels of
accountability, including possible
demonstrations and pilots to test and
analyze the effectiveness of certain
practice arrangements and payment
systems. We recognize that the Congress
intended the PVBP plan to be broader
than physicians, and the PVBP Steering
Committee is considering approaches
that allow for participation by a wide
variety of health care practitioners.
Comment: Regarding the appropriate
methods for data submission,
commenters overwhelmingly supported
the adoption and use of interoperable
electronic health records. Commenters
suggested that the CMS PVBP Steering
Committee coordinate with the Office of
the National Coordinator for Health IT
(ONC) to align PVBP incentives for
electronic health records with the
recently enacted HITECH incentives for
health IT adoption. Commenters also
recognized the role of registries in data
submission. In addition, commenters
urged us to carefully consider
procedural protections for practitioners,
such as allowing their review of their
own data before submission to CMS.
Response: The CMS PVBP Steering
Committee is exploring ways to
encourage the use of interoperable
health IT systems, including registries,
as part of the PVBP plan. We have been
actively engaged with ONC on how to
align any PVBP incentives for health IT
with the HITECH provisions and will
continue to work closely with ONC. We
recognize the importance of the
accuracy and validity of electronically
submitted data, and are exploring ways
to incorporate data review processes for
practitioners into the PVBP plan
recommendations.
Comment: Several commenters were
concerned with the relationship
between the PVBP plan and the current
Medicare payment system. Commenters
stated that the current Medicare
payment system is flawed in that it does
not align incentives across providers
and settings, and a PVBP plan that
simply overlays the existing system will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
not be sufficient to re-align incentives to
provide higher value care.
Response: In developing the PVBP
plan, we are considering both short-term
and long-term recommendations. Shortterm recommendations may include
changes within the current payment
system. Such changes, though, would be
interim steps toward implementing a
more long-term approach for
comprehensive payment reform.
Comment: Commenters urged us to
not limit the Report to Congress to
recommendations for only performancebased incentive payments. Commenters
suggested the plan recommend a wide
range of incentives for activities such as
improving beneficiary health outcomes,
patient experience of care, efficient
performance of services, and use of
electronic health IT such as registries or
e-prescribing. Commenters also urged us
to recommend using the PVBP plan to
encourage high quality care by being
actionable on the part of all
practitioners.
Response: We are considering
recommending a variety of different
activities within the PVBP plan, taking
into account what is more feasible in the
short-term versus the long-term. We are
also considering what program activities
are likely to be the most meaningful and
actionable for practitioners, both in the
short-term and long-term.
Comment: Commenters urged CMS to
gain experience with confidential
feedback reporting of quality and
resource use before using the
information for either payment or public
reporting. One commenter suggested
that any public reporting under the
PVBP plan should be geared toward
consumer decision-making.
Response: We are considering a
variety of program activities, including
confidential feedback reports, public
reporting, and incentive payments. The
PVBP Steering Committee is carefully
analyzing the options for each of these
activities.
Comment: Several commenters
mentioned that encouraging successful
management of chronic disease is
essential to any PVBP plan. Commenters
mentioned medical home care models
and the important role they can play in
promoting integrated care and reducing
costs.
Response: We recognize the
importance of managing chronic
disease, and are currently conducting a
demonstration of the medical home
concept. Findings from this
demonstration may be used to inform
plan development.
Comment: Commenters urged us to
use the PVBP plan to increase efficiency
and slow cost growth in the Medicare
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
program. Commenters specifically
mentioned shared savings models and
encouraged us to further explore how to
incorporate appropriate shared savings
principles into the plan. There was no
consensus among the comments
regarding whether a PVBP plan should
include shared savings or gainsharing.
However, some commenters cautioned
that a PVBP plan should not be viewed
solely as a method to slow cost growth.
Response: We recognize the
importance of both slowing cost growth
and maintaining beneficiary access to
high quality care. The PVBP plan will
carefully explore program activities that
accomplish both of these goals.
Comment: We received input on
several issues related to the appropriate
measurement of eligible professionals in
a PVBP program. Commenters suggested
we recommend only transparent
evidence-based measures that are vetted
by physician groups and endorsed by a
national consensus-based organization.
Commenters also suggested we
recommend strategically selecting
measures to address gaps in quality, or
those related to high-cost and/or highvolume services. Measures used in the
program should not be ‘‘topped out,’’
but still have significant room for
improvement collectively across the
Medicare program. In addition,
commenters urged us to recommend the
use of both quality and resource use
information, and to report both domains
of measures together in order to give a
fuller picture of an eligible
professional’s performance.
Commenters urged us to consider
incorporating a broad range of quality
measures into the PVBP program,
including patient experience, clinical
outcomes, disparities, care coordination,
and structural measures such as the
adoption of health IT.
Response: The PVBP Steering
Committee is carefully considering what
measures to recommend for which
program activities (that is, incentive
payment, confidential feedback, public
reporting). We recognize the potential
for the PVBP plan to address gaps in
quality and high-cost and/or high
volume services, and the importance of
recommending the use of both quality
and resource use information and the
value to eligible professionals of
providing this information together. We
also recognize the importance of
recommending the use of a broad array
of measures. Many of the types of
measures mentioned by commenters
have not yet been fully developed.
Therefore, short-term recommendations
for the PVBP plan cannot include them,
but long-term recommendations may
encourage their development and use.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Commenters supported
tying a portion of payment to an eligible
professional’s performance, and stated
that participants should not be
rewarded simply for reporting data to
CMS. Commenters stated that the PVBP
plan should reward both attainment of
specified levels of performance, and
improvement over time. Commenters
also suggested that such incentive
payments should be aimed toward
breaking down the payment silos that
currently exist between Medicare Parts
A and B.
Response: Whether to reward eligible
professionals for performance, and not
merely participation is a key design
option that the PVBP Steering
Committee is considering for the PVBP
plan. The Steering Committee will also
carefully discuss whether to recommend
paying incentives for attainment,
improvement, or both.
Comment: Commenters stressed the
importance of risk-adjustment,
especially if performance data is used to
make incentive payments.
Response: We recognize that riskadjustment is essential and we are
exploring methods for its incorporation
into the PVBP plan.
Comment: Commenters commended
CMS for involving stakeholders in PVBP
plan development, and encouraged CMS
to continue to involve stakeholders as
plan development proceeds.
Commenters urged CMS to ensure that
any PVBP plan does not impede the
evolution of medical practice,
discourage innovation, or interfere with
practitioner-patient decision-making.
Response: We appreciate the
opportunity to hear from stakeholders
regarding plan recommendations, and
we value the input stakeholders have
provided thus far. We are carefully
considering options and taking an
iterative approach to PVBP plan
development to avoid the potential
pitfalls mentioned by commenters.
We received other comments that
were outside the scope of the proposed
rule, and are therefore not discussed in
this final rule with comment period.
5. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (E-Prescribing)—The EPrescribing Incentive Program
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
As described in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33593 through
33600), section 1848(m)(2) of the Act, as
amended by section 132 of the MIPPA,
promotes the use of electronic
prescribing by authorizing incentive
payments to eligible professionals or
group practices who are ‘‘successful
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
electronic prescribers.’’ This EPrescribing Incentive Program is
expected to encourage significant
expansion of the use of electronic
prescribing by authorizing a
combination of financial incentives and
payment adjustment and is separate
from, and in addition to, any incentive
payment that eligible professionals may
earn through the PQRI program.
Individual eligible professionals do not
have to participate in PQRI in order to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program (and vice versa).
For 2010, which is the second year of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program, the
Secretary is authorized to provide
successful electronic prescribers, as
defined in section 1848(m)(3)(B) of the
Act and further discussed below in this
section, an incentive payment equal to
2.0 percent of the total estimated
Medicare Part B PFS allowed charges
(based on claims submitted not later
than 2 months after the end of the
reporting period) for all covered
professional services furnished during
the 2010 reporting period. Covered
professional services are defined under
the statute to be services for which
payment is made under, or is based on,
the PFS and which are furnished by an
eligible professional. The applicable
electronic prescribing percent (2.0
percent) authorized for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program is the
same as that authorized for the 2009 EPrescribing Incentive Program.
We received several comments from
the public on the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule related to the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. General comments
about the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program are addressed immediately
below.
Comment: One commenter was
opposed to making any changes to the
E-Prescribing Incentive Program for
2010, but a majority of the comments
voiced their support for the changes
proposed for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program and discussed below.
Response: Although we understand
the commenter’s desire to keep the
program the same in 2010, we believe
that this would defeat our attempts to
simplify the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program and reduce the reporting
burden for eligible professionals.
Comment: Some comments
recommended that we conduct
significant education and outreach
activities, especially with respect to the
changes for 2010, and that we promote
the program by making participation
information, as well as information
about potential incentive payment
amounts available.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61849
Response: We value the input
received from stakeholders and
participants who have provided
constructive feedback and have
collaborated with us to disseminate
educational materials about the EPrescribing Incentive Program to eligible
professionals in the health care
community. We anticipate that ongoing
education and outreach efforts will
continue to evolve with the program.
We will continue to work with national
and regional stakeholder organizations
to educate their members on program
requirements for successful reporting,
especially the changes that will be
implemented for 2010, as discussed
below. We also plan to continue to host
monthly national provider calls in
which we expect to provide guidance on
specific topics, including having our EPrescribing Incentive Program subject
matter experts available to answer
questions. Information about upcoming
calls can be obtained from the CMS
Sponsored Calls page of the PQRI
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/04_
CMSSponsoredCalls.asp#TopOfPage.
We will also continue to make
educational materials and other
resources available on the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
erxincentive. We encourage eligible
professionals to visit this Web site and
to review the frequently asked questions
found on this Web site. Eligible
professionals are also encouraged to join
our physician listserv to obtain periodic
updates about the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. Instructions for
joining the listserv can be found at
https://list.nih.gov/archives/physiciansl.html.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we promote the
program by making participation
information, as well as information
about potential incentive payment
amounts available.
Response: Once the 2009 program
year is complete, we anticipate
conducting an evaluation of the 2009 EPrescribing Incentive Program reporting
experience at an aggregate level and
posting a national summary report
similar to the ‘‘PQRI 2007 Reporting
Experience’’ report found at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/Downloads/
PQRI2007ReportFinal12032008CSG.pdf.
With respect to the suggestion to
make information about potential
incentive payment amounts available,
we are concerned that doing so may be
misleading since incentive payments
will differ for each eligible professional
based on his or her Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for covered
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61850
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
professional services. We believe that
information such as the mean incentive
payment amount released in the ‘‘PQRI
2007 Reporting Experience’’ report
could serve the same purpose.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed a desire for the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) to permit
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances. Commenters noted that
until electronic prescribing of controlled
substances is permitted, eligible
professionals may be reluctant to adopt
electronic prescribing technology due to
work flow issues and the need to utilize
two processes (electronic and written)
for generating prescriptions.
Response: We are aware of the current
limitation for electronic prescribing of
controlled substances. Actions taken or
that may be taken by the DEA are
beyond our purview. However, we have
taken this limitation into consideration
in establishing the 2010 criteria for
determining a successful electronic
prescriber.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that we obtain data on
electronic prescribing from pharmacies
rather than eligible professionals or that
we should also be holding pharmacies
or pharmacy networks accountable for
ensuring accurate, timely, and
consistent transmission of electronic
prescribing data.
Response: As established by MIPPA,
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program is
an incentive program specifically for
eligible professionals, as defined by
section 1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act, based
on information submitted by eligible
professionals. Additionally, section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act authorizes
the use of Part D data, which reflects
information submitted by pharmacies to
Part D plan sponsors. As we explained
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33595), however, the accuracy and
completeness of the Part D data with
respect to whether a prescription was
submitted electronically is unknown
since Part D plan sponsors will not be
required to start submitting this
information until 2010. Should we rely
on Part D data in the future, we
anticipate that we will no longer need
eligible professionals to submit data on
their electronic prescribing activities to
us.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program will include a
penalty, or payment adjustment, to
begin in 2012 and requested that we, in
consultation with stakeholders, define
in a timely manner how we intend to
use the case-by-case, significant
hardship penalty exemption authority.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: We believe the commenter
is referring to section 1848(a)(5)(B) of
the Act, which permits the Secretary, on
a case-by-case basis, to exempt an
eligible professional from the
application of the payment differential
if the Secretary ‘‘determines, subject to
annual renewal that compliance with
the requirement for being a successful
electronic prescriber would result in a
significant hardship.’’ This hardship
exemption is to be used at the discretion
of the Secretary.
As we stated in the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33549), we will
discuss the application of the payment
adjustment in future notice and
comment rulemaking. We will address
the circumstances under which the
hardship exemption applies at that time.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we provide a
participation option for eligible
professionals who predominately
practice in skilled nursing facilities. The
commenter is concerned that many such
professionals are currently unable to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program because the facility’s
prescribing systems generate orders to
an internal pharmacy and, for reasons
unspecified by the commenter, do not
meet the full definition of a qualified
electronic prescribing system.
Response: Since the commenter did
not describe what aspects of the
definition of ‘‘qualified’’ electronic
prescribing system a skilled nursing
facility’s electronic prescribing system
fails to meet, it is not entirely clear how
the fact that a facility’s electronic
prescribing system generates orders to
an internal pharmacy alone would
prevent the facility’s system from
meeting the definition of a ‘‘qualified’’
electronic prescribing system. In an
attempt to provide eligible professionals
who predominately practice in skilled
nursing facilities with more
opportunities to participate in the EPrescribing Incentive Program, however,
we are expanding the scope of the
electronic prescribing measure’s
denominator codes to include
professional services outside the
professional office and outpatient
setting. The expanded codes include
professional services furnished in
skilled nursing facilities and in the
home care setting. To be considered a
successful electronic prescriber, eligible
professionals need only to report 25
separate electronic prescribing events
during the reporting period. To qualify
for the electronic prescribing incentive
payment, a successful electronic
prescriber must have 10 percent of their
Medicare Part B PFS allowed charges for
covered professional services be
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comprised of the codes in the
denominator of the measure. The
electronic prescribing system used for
these 25 electronic prescribing events
must have all of the functionalities
listed in the measure’s specifications
and described in section II.G.5.c.3.
below.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that the incentive payment
favors prescribers who typically bill
high-cost services since the incentive
payment is based on Medicare Part B
PFS allowed charges. The commenter
suggested that the incentive payment
should be a flat-rate bonus or a bonus
payment that rewards medication
management.
Response: We appreciate the
comment; however, we do not have the
authority to change the basis for the
calculation of the incentive payment
amount, which is defined in section
1848(m)(2)(A) of the Act.
b. The 2010 Reporting Period for the EPrescribing Incentive Program
Section 1848(m)(6)(C)(i)(II) of the Act
defines ‘‘reporting period’’ for the 2010
E-Prescribing Incentive Program to be
the entire year. Section 1848(m)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act, however, authorizes the
Secretary to revise the reporting period
for years after 2009 if the Secretary
determines such revision is appropriate,
produces valid results on measures
reported, and is consistent with the
goals of maximizing scientific validity
and reducing administrative burden. In
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33594 through 33595), we proposed that
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program reporting period would be the
entire calendar year (January 1, 2010–
December 31, 2010).
Comment: A majority of commenters
supported the proposed reporting
period. One commenter, however,
recommended two 6-month reporting
periods, because this would allow
eligible professionals who are able to
implement electronic prescribing in
their practice by the middle of 2010 to
still benefit from the incentive for 2010.
Response: We do not believe that
adoption and implementation of an
electronic prescribing system after the
start of the 2010 reporting period would
necessarily preclude an individual
eligible professional from being able to
qualify for the incentive payment. The
25 electronic prescribing events
required to meet the criteria for
successful electronic prescriber for 2010
(see section II.G.5.c. below) can be
reported at any time during the 2010
reporting period.
After considering these comments, we
are finalizing the entire calendar year as
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
the 2010 reporting period for the EPrescribing Incentive Program.
Successful electronic prescribers will be
eligible to receive an incentive payment
equal to 2.0 percent of the total
estimated Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges (based on claims submitted by
no later than February 28, 2011) for all
covered professional services furnished
January 1, 2010 through December 31,
2010.
c. Criteria for Determination of
Successful Electronic Prescriber for
Eligible Professionals
Under section 1848(m)(3)(B) of the
Act, in order to qualify for the incentive
payment, an eligible professional must
be a ‘‘successful electronic prescriber,’’
which the Secretary is authorized to
identify using 1 of 2 possible criteria.
One criterion, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act, is based on
the eligible professional’s reporting, in
at least 50 percent of the reportable
cases, on any electronic prescribing
quality measures that have been
established under the physician
reporting system, under subsection
1848(k) of the Act (which, as noted
previously, we have named ‘‘PQRI’’ for
ease of reference) and are applicable to
services furnished by the eligible
professional during a reporting period.
We applied this criterion in 2009.
However, for years after 2009, section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act permits the
Secretary in consultation with
stakeholders and experts to revise the
criteria for submitting data on electronic
prescribing measures under section
1848(3)(B)(ii) of the Act.
The second criterion, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, is based on
the electronic submission by the eligible
professional of a sufficient number (as
determined by the Secretary) of
prescriptions under Part D during the
reporting period. If the Secretary
decides to use the latter standard, then,
in accordance with section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, the
Secretary is authorized to use Part D
drug claims data to assess whether a
‘‘sufficient’’ number of prescriptions
have been submitted by eligible
professionals. However, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if the
standard based on a sufficient number
(as determined by the Secretary) of
electronic Part D prescriptions is
applied for a particular reporting period,
then the standard based on the reporting
on electronic prescribing measures
would no longer apply.
For 2010, we proposed to continue to
require eligible professionals to report
on the electronic prescribing measure
used in the 2009 E-Prescribing Incentive
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Program to determine whether an
eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber, but we proposed
to modify the measure’s specifications
and to use modified reporting criteria
based on the authority provided under
section 1848(m)(3)(D) of Act, as
discussed below.
(1) Reporting the Electronic Prescribing
Measure
For 2010, we proposed to make 3
reporting mechanisms available to
individual eligible professionals to
report the electronic prescribing
measure. First, we proposed to retain
the claims-based reporting mechanism
that is used in the 2009 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. In addition, similar
to the PQRI, for the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program, we proposed to
implement a registry-based reporting
mechanism and, depending on whether
we finalize the proposed EHR-based
reporting mechanism for PQRI, we also
proposed that an EHR-based reporting
mechanism be available for the
electronic prescribing measure.
We proposed that only registries
qualified to submit quality measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on quality measures on behalf of
eligible professionals for the 2010 PQRI
would be qualified to submit measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. Similarly, we
proposed that only EHR products
‘‘qualified’’ to potentially be able to
submit clinical quality data extracted
from the EHR to CMS for the 2010 PQRI
would be considered ‘‘qualified’’ for the
purpose of an eligible professional
potentially being able to submit data on
the electronic prescribing measure for
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program.
We solicited comments on our
proposal to provide alternatives to the
claims-based reporting mechanism for
reporting the electronic prescribing
measure, as well as on our proposal to
limit the registries and EHR products
qualified to submit the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program to those
that are qualified registries and EHR
products, respectively, for the 2010
PQRI.
All commenters supported having
alternatives to the claims-based
reporting mechanism for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure. All
commenters were also in agreement that
only registries qualified to submit
quality measure results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61851
measures on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2010 PQRI and
EHR products ‘‘qualified’’ to submit
clinical quality data extracted from the
EHR to CMS for the 2010 PQRI be
considered ‘‘qualified’’ for the purpose
of an eligible professional being able to
submit data on the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program. Based on
these comments, we are finalizing our
proposal that for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program, eligible professionals
will be able to choose whether to submit
data on the electronic prescribing
measure through claims, a qualified
registry, or a qualified EHR product.
Only registries qualified to submit
quality measure results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2010 PQRI will be
qualified to submit measure results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure on behalf
of eligible professionals for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program. We will
post a list of qualified registries for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
on the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/ERXIncentive when
we post the list of qualified registries for
the 2010 PQRI on the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site (see section II.G.2. of
this final rule with comment period).
Not all registries qualified to submit
quality measure results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2010 PQRI will be
qualified to submit quality measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure. That is to say that PQRI
qualified registries may not wish to be
qualified to submit all measures. The
electronic prescribing measure is
reportable by an eligible professional
any time he or she bills for one of the
procedure codes for Part B covered
professional services included in the
measure’s denominator. Some registries
that self-nominate to become a qualified
registry for PQRI may not choose to selfnominate to become a qualified registry
for submitting measures that require
reporting at each eligible visit, such as
the electronic prescribing measure.
Therefore, we cannot guarantee that
there will be a registry willing to submit
the electronic prescribing measure on
behalf of eligible professionals.
Registries will need to indicate their
desire to qualify to submit measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure for the 2010 E-Prescribing
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61852
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Incentive Program at the time that they
submit their self-nomination letter for
the 2010 PQRI.
Similarly, only EHR products
‘‘qualified’’ to submit clinical quality
data extracted from the EHR to CMS for
the 2010 PQRI will be considered
‘‘qualified’’ for the purpose of an
eligible professional being able to
submit data on the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program. As stated
in section II.G.2.d.3. of this final rule
with comment period, 2009 EHR
Testing Program is underway.
Therefore, we cannot guarantee that any
of the EHR vendors that self-nominated
to have one or more of their EHR
products ‘‘qualified’’ for the PQRI will
successfully complete the testing
process and therefore, be eligible for
participation as a qualified EHR vendor
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program. An
EHR vendor will need to indicate its
intention to have one or more of their
EHR products qualified for the purpose
of an eligible professional potentially
being able to submit data on the
electronic prescribing measure for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program at
the time that they are being vetted for
the 2010 PQRI. We will post a list of
qualified EHR vendors and products for
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program on the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/ERXIncentive
when we post the list of qualified EHR
vendors and products for the 2010 PQRI
on the PQRI section of the CMS Web
site (see section II.G.2. of this final rule
with comment period). We anticipate
completing the 2009 PQRI EHR Testing
Program in early 2010.
(2) The Reporting Denominator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
The electronic prescribing measure,
similar to the PQRI measures, has 2
basic elements, which include: (1) a
reporting denominator that defines the
circumstances when the measure is
reportable; and (2) a reporting
numerator.
The denominator for the electronic
prescribing measure consists of specific
billing codes for covered professional
services. The measure becomes
reportable when any one of these
procedure codes is billed by an eligible
professional for Part B covered
professional services. As initially
required under section 1848(k)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act, and further established
through rulemaking and under section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act, we may
modify the codes making up the
denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure. As such, we
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
proposed to expand the scope of the
denominator codes for 2010 to covered
professional services outside the
professional office and outpatient
setting, such as professional services
furnished in skilled nursing facilities or
the home care setting. We proposed to
add the following CPT codes to the
denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure for 2010: 90862,
99304; 99305; 99306; 99307; 99308;
99309; 99310; 99315; 99316; 99341;
99342; 99343; 99344; 99345; 99347;
99348; 99349; and 99350. We solicited
comments on the proposed changes to
codes identified for the electronic
prescribing measure denominator.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed denominator codes for the
2010 electronic prescribing measure.
Comment: Many commenters
supported the proposed expansion of
the electronic prescribing measure’s
denominator codes. However, some
commenters noted that a subset of home
care physicians will not be able to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program without the addition
of codes for domiciliary care visits in
the measure’s denominator.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of the proposed
denominator codes. Based on comments
indicating that some eligible
professionals exclusively make
domiciliary care visits, we are adding
the following codes to the electronic
prescribing measure’s denominator for
2010: 99324 through 99328; 99334
through 99337; and 99346.
Comment: Other commenters
suggested additional codes for inclusion
in the measure’s denominator, including
an annual nursing facility assessment
code (CPT code 99318) in lieu of CPT
codes 99307 through 99310, inpatient
evaluation and management (E/M)
codes, codes for professional services
furnished in renal dialysis facilities
(CPT codes 90951 through 90970 for
outpatient dialysis), and interactive
psychotherapy codes (CPT codes 90810
through 90815).
Response: With respect to
commenters’ suggestions to add other
denominator codes that were not
proposed, we do not believe it is
necessary to expand the denominator
codes to include the suggested codes. As
we stated previously, the electronic
prescribing measure becomes reportable
when any one of the procedure codes
included in the measure’s denominator
is billed by an eligible professional for
Part B covered professional services.
Eligible professionals only need to have
10 percent of their Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for covered
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
professional services be comprised of
the codes in the denominator of the
measure and meet the criteria for
determining a successful electronic
prescriber to qualify to earn an
electronic prescribing incentive
payment. The incentive payment
amount, however, will be calculated
based on all of the eligible professional’s
total estimated Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for covered
professional services, including the
services reflected in the suggested codes
if such services are Medicare Part B PFS
covered professional services.
Accordingly, we are finalizing the
following denominator codes for the
2010 electronic prescribing measure:
90862; 99304; 99305; 99306; 99307;
99308; 99309; 99310; 99315; 99316;
99324; 99325; 99326; 99327; 99328;
99334; 99335; 99336; 99337; 99341;
99342; 99343; 99344; 99345; 99346;
99347; 99348; 99349; and 99350. There
are no diagnosis codes in the measure’s
denominator and there are no age/
gender requirements in order for a
patient to be included in the measure’s
denominator (that is, reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure is not
further limited to certain ages or a
specific gender). Eligible professionals
are not required to report this measure
in all cases in which the measure is
reportable. Eligible professionals who
do not bill for one of the procedure
codes for Part B covered professional
services included in the measure’s
denominator will have no occasion to
report the electronic prescribing
measure.
By December 31, 2009, we will post
the final specifications of the measure
on the ‘‘E-Prescribing Measure’’ page of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/ERXIncentive.
(3) Qualified Electronic Prescribing
System—Required Functionalities and
Part D E-Prescribing Standards
To report the electronic prescribing
measure in 2010, we proposed that the
eligible professional must report one of
the measure’s numerator ‘‘G’’ codes (74
FR 33597). However, when reporting
any of the G-codes for purposes of
qualifying for the incentive payment for
electronic prescribing in 2010, we
proposed that the professional must
have and regularly use a ‘‘qualified’’
electronic prescribing system, as
defined in the electronic prescribing
measure specifications.
Required Functionalities for a
‘‘Qualified’’ Electronic Prescriber
System. We proposed (74 FR 33596
through 33597) that what constitutes a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
system is based upon certain required
functionalities that the system can
perform (74 FR 33596 through 33597).
As currently specified in the electronic
prescribing measure for 2009, a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
system would be one that can:
(a) Generate a complete active
medication list incorporating electronic
data received from applicable
pharmacies and PBMs, if available.
(b) Allow eligible professionals to
select medications, print prescriptions,
electronically transmit prescriptions,
and conduct alerts (written or acoustic
signals to warn the prescriber of
possible undesirable or unsafe
situations including potentially
inappropriate dose or route of
administration of a drug, drug-drug
interactions, allergy concerns, or
warnings and cautions). This
functionality must be enabled.
(c) Provide information related to
lower cost, therapeutically appropriate
alternatives (if any). The ability of an
electronic prescribing system to receive
tiered formulary information, if
available, would suffice for this
requirement for 2010 and until this
function is more widely available in the
marketplace.
(d) Provide information on formulary
or tiered formulary medications, patient
eligibility, and authorization
requirements received electronically
from the patient’s drug plan (if
available).
Part D Electronic Prescribing
Standards. Section 1848(m)(3)(B)(v) of
the Act specifies that to the extent
practicable, in determining whether an
eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber, ‘‘the Secretary
shall ensure that eligible professionals
utilize electronic prescribing systems in
compliance with standards established
for such systems pursuant to the Part D
Electronic Prescribing Program under
section 1860D–4(e)’’ of the Act. The Part
D standards for electronic prescribing
systems establish which electronic
standards Part D sponsors, providers,
and dispensers must use when they
electronically transmit prescriptions
and certain prescription related
information for Part D covered drugs
that are prescribed for Part D eligible
individuals. To be a qualified electronic
prescribing system under the current
E-Prescribing Incentive Program,
electronic systems must convey the
information listed above under (a)
through (d) using the standards
currently in effect for the Part D
electronic prescribing program.
Additional Part D electronic prescribing
standards were implemented April 1,
2009. These latest Part D electronic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
prescribing standards, and those that
had previously been adopted, can be
found on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eprescribing.
To ensure that eligible professionals
utilize electronic prescribing systems
that meet these requirements, the
electronic prescribing measure requires
that those functionalities required for a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
system utilize the adopted Part D
electronic prescribing standards. The
Part D electronic prescribing standards
relevant to the four functionalities for a
‘‘qualified’’ system in the electronic
prescribing measure, described above
and listed as (a), (b), (c), and (d),
currently are:
(a) Generate medication list—Use the
National Council for Prescription Drug
Programs (NCPDP) Prescriber/
Pharmacist Interface SCRIPT Standard,
Implementation Guide, Version 8,
Release 1, October 2005 (hereinafter
‘‘NCPDP SCRIPT 8.1’’) Medication
History Standard;
(b) Transmit prescriptions
electronically—Use the NCPDP SCRIPT
8.1 for the transactions listed at
§ 423.160(b)(2);
(c) Provide information on lower cost
alternatives—Use the NCPDP Formulary
and Benefits Standard, Implementation
Guide, Version 1, Release 0 (Version
1.0), October 2005 (hereinafter ‘‘NCPDP
Formulary and Benefits 1.0’’);
(d) Provide information on formulary
or tiered formulary medications, patient
eligibility, and authorization
requirements received electronically
from the patient’s drug plan—use:
(1) NCPDP Formulary and Benefits 1.0
for communicating formulary and
benefits information between
prescribers and plans;
(2) Accredited Standards Committee
(ASC) X12N 270/271—Health Care
Eligibility Benefit Inquiry and Response,
Version 4010, May 2000, Washington
Publishing Company, 004010X092 and
Addenda to Health Care Eligibility
Benefit Inquiry and Response, Version
4010A1, October 2002, Washington
Publishing Company, 004010X092A1
for communicating eligibility
information between the plan and
prescribers;
(3) NCPDP Telecommunication
Standard Specification, Version 5,
Release 1 (Version 5.1), September 1999,
and equivalent NCPDP Batch Standard
Batch Implementation Guide, Version 1,
Release 1 (Version 1.1), January 2000 for
communicating eligibility information
between the plan and dispensers.
There are, however, Part D electronic
prescribing standards that are in effect
for functionalities that are not
commonly utilized at this time. Such
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61853
functionalities are not currently
required for a ‘‘qualified’’ system under
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program.
One example is Rx Fill Notification,
which is discussed in the Part D
electronic prescribing final rule (73 FR
18918, 18926). For purposes of the 2010
Electronic Prescribing Program and
incentive payments, we did not propose
to require that an electronic prescribing
system contain all functionalities for
which there are available Part D
electronic prescribing standards. For
those required functionalities described
above, we proposed that a ‘‘qualified’’
system must use the adopted Part D
electronic prescribing standards for
electronic messaging.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed required functionalities and
Part D electronic prescribing standards
for a qualified electronic prescribing
system for 2010.
Comment: Many commenters
supported the list of required
functionalities for what constitutes a
‘‘qualified’’ system.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. We
believe the list of required
functionalities leverage many of the
potential advantages to electronic
prescribing, such as, but not limited to,
improving patient safety and quality of
care, improving formulary adherence,
and providing access to patient’s
medication history.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification with respect to
qualification (b) above, which requires
that the functionality to allow eligible
professionals to select medications,
print prescriptions, electronically
transmit prescriptions, and conduct
alerts be enabled. The commenter
recommended that we clarify in the
final rule that ‘‘ ‘printing prescriptions’
from a qualified electronic prescribing
system does not meet the criteria for
‘creating’ or ‘generating’ an
e-prescription.’’
Response: All functionalities required
of a ‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
system must be enabled. As noted by
the commenter, printed prescriptions,
however, do not qualify as an electronic
prescribing event. In order for a
prescription to be considered an
electronic prescribing event, the
prescription must be transmitted
electronically using the applicable
standards and the prescriber’s system
must warn the prescriber of possible
undesirable or unsafe situations.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we clearly articulate
how we will align the definition of
being a ‘‘successful electronic
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61854
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
prescriber’’ with the forthcoming
‘‘meaningful use’’ definition related to
health information technology.
Particularly, commenter recommended
that the standards should come together
in 2011 to promote the objective that for
BOTH sets of incentives clinicians:
• Use computerized physician order
entry (CPOE) for all orders;
• Implement drug/drug, drug/allergy,
drug/formulary checks;
• Generate and transmit permissible
prescriptions electronically;
• Maintain active medication lists;
and
• Maintain active medication allergy
lists.
The commenter is concerned that in the
absence of greater alignment, the
electronic prescribing standard will be
inconsistent with the proposed
meaningful use definition, and could
undermine that definition and confuse
clinicians.
Response: CMS is actively working
internally and with external agencies,
such as the Office of the National
Coordinator (ONC) on meaningful use
and its implications relative to our PQRI
and E-prescribing Incentive Programs.
Guidance on the definition of
‘‘meaningful use’’ is beyond the scope of
this rule and will be provided in
separate notice and comment
rulemaking specifically addressing
meaningful use.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS provide a list of
qualified systems in order to assist
eligible professionals with accurately
selecting a system.
Response: We are unable to provide
this information since we do not vet
electronic prescribing systems to ensure
that the systems have all of the required
functionalities. Eligible professionals
should be able to assess whether a
system is qualified by going through the
list of required functionalities and
asking the system’s vendor whether the
system is capable of doing all of the
required functionalities.
After considering the comments, we
are finalizing as the required
functionalities for a qualified electronic
prescribing system for 2010 those
outlined in the section above entitled
‘‘Required Functionalities for a
‘Qualified’ Electronic Prescribing
System.’’ In addition, for each required
functionality of a qualified system, the
system must use the adopted Part D
electronic prescribing standards for
electronic messaging listed above in the
section entitled ‘‘Part D Electronic
Prescribing Standards.’’
There are other aspects of the
functionalities for a ‘‘qualified’’ system
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
that are not dependent on electronic
messaging and are part of the software
of the electronic prescribing system, for
which Part D standards for electronic
prescribing do not pertain and are not
required for purposes of the EPrescribing Incentive Program. For
example, the requirements in
qualification (b) listed above that
require the system to allow
professionals to select medications,
print prescriptions, and conduct alerts
are functions included in the particular
software, for which Part D standards for
electronic messaging do not apply.
We are aware that there are significant
numbers of eligible professionals who
are interested in earning the incentive
payment, but currently do not have an
electronic prescribing system. The
electronic prescribing measure does not
require the use of any particular system
or transmission network; only that the
system be a ‘‘qualified’’ system having
the functionalities described above
based on Part D electronic prescribing
standards. If the professional does not
have general access to an electronic
prescribing system in the practice
setting, there is nothing to report and
the eligible professional would not be
able to participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program.
(4) The Reporting Numerator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
Currently, to report for an applicable
case where 1 of the denominator codes
is billed for Part B covered professional
services, an eligible professional must
report 1 of 3 G-codes specified in the
electronic prescribing measure.
For 2010, we proposed to modify the
first G-code (G8443) to indicate that at
least 1 prescription in connection with
the visit billed was electronically
prescribed (74 FR 33597). In addition,
we proposed to eliminate the 2
remaining G-codes from the measure’s
numerator: G8445: Qualified Eprescribing System Available, but no
Prescription(s) were Generated During
the Encounter; and G8446: E-prescribing
System Available, but not Used for One
or More Prescriptions Due to Patient/
System Reasons. We solicited comments
on the proposed modifications to the
electronic prescribing measure
numerator.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed reporting numerator for the
electronic prescribing measure for 2010.
Comment: A majority of commenters
supported simplification of the
measure’s numerator to only 1 G-code.
However, one commenter was opposed
to the elimination of both the G8445 and
G8446 codes, while other commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
were specifically opposed to the
elimination of the G8446 code. The
commenters believed that continued
reporting is needed for cases in which
an eligible professional would have
electronically prescribed had electronic
prescribing been possible, such as
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to modify the G-codes for the
electronic prescribing measure. Since
we are revising the criteria for
determining that an eligible professional
is a successful electronic prescriber to
assess the actual number of electronic
prescribing events (with the minimum
threshold of 25 events) during the
reporting period rather than assessing
the percentage of eligible cases on
which an eligible professional reported
the measure, we believe it is no longer
necessary to require eligible
professionals to report the measure to us
for cases where an eligible professional
would have electronically prescribed
but electronic prescribing was not
possible or that no prescriptions were
generated.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on whether the revised
G8443 code indicates at least one
prescription ‘‘generated’’ by a qualified
system or indicates at least one
prescription ‘‘sent electronically.’’
Response: The new G-code for 2010
indicates that at least 1 prescription
created during the encounter was
generated and transmitted electronically
using a qualified electronic prescribing
system.
Comment: Another commenter
suggested that instead of modifying the
G-code to indicate that at least 1
prescription in connection with the visit
billed was electronically prescribed, we
should modify the G-code to indicate
that ‘‘at least 1 electronic prescription
submitted for all qualified prescriptions
for this visit.’’ This would allow eligible
professionals to report the G-code in all
of the following circumstances: (1) All
prescriptions were transmitted
electronically; (2) some prescriptions
were transmitted electronically; other
prescriptions did not qualify for
electronic transmittal; and (3) no
prescriptions were submitted or
qualified for electronic transmittal. The
commenter was concerned that the
proposed single G-code approach would
not allow measure rates to be calculated
as the numerator would not include
visits for which no qualified
prescriptions were submitted. The
commenter further recommended that
the measure rate calculations exclude
instances where there were qualified
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
prescriptions, but no prescriptions were
transmitted electronically.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s feedback. However, before
eligible professionals can begin using
electronic prescribing technology, they
must first adopt the technology. Since,
as we discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33593), rates for
the adoption and use of electronic
prescribing technology by eligible
professionals are still low and 2010 is
only the second year of this incentive
program, our goal for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program is to
focus on increasing eligible
professionals’ adoption of electronic
prescribing technology. We believe that
this will be facilitated by administering
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program in a
way that does not create an
unnecessarily large reporting burden on
eligible professionals in order to qualify
for the incentive.
The criteria for successful reporting
we are finalizing for 2010 are designed
to reward those eligible professionals
who demonstrate that they have
adopted a qualified electronic
prescribing system and actually used
the system in a substantial way to
electronically prescribe. In this context,
the reporting of information as to
circumstances where a professional did
not electronically prescribe is not
pertinent. Additionally, although it may
be of interest to measure the proportion
of prescribing events that are electronic,
we do not believe such detail at the
individual or group practice level is of
sufficient value to warrant the high
burden of reporting such information.
We do note that in the future the use of
Part D claims data may allow this
information to be collected without the
necessity for professionals to
specifically report such details.
Accordingly, for the 2010 electronic
prescribing measure, we are finalizing
the following numerator G-code: Gxxxx:
At least 1 prescription created during
the encounter was generated and
transmitted electronically using a
qualified electronic prescribing system.
A new G-code will be assigned by
CMS to the above code for 2010 and will
be included in the measure’s
specifications, which we will post on
the ‘‘E-Prescribing Measure’’ page of the
E-Prescribing Incentive Program section
of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/ERXIncentive. We
will post by no later than December 31,
2009, the final electronic prescribing
measure specifications for 2010.
Because the electronic prescribing
quality measure will apply only when
an eligible professional furnishes
services indicated by one of the codes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
included in the measure’s denominator,
for claims-based reporting, for example,
it will not be necessary for an eligible
professional to report G-codes for the
electronic prescribing measure on
claims not containing one of the
denominator codes. However, if
reporting a G-code, the G-code data
submission will only be considered
valid if it appears on the same Medicare
Part B claim containing one of the
electronic prescribing quality measure’s
denominator codes.
In addition, if the eligible professional
submits a Medicare Part B claim
containing one of the electronic
prescribing measure’s denominator
codes, he or she can report the
numerator G-code only when the
eligible professional furnishes services
indicated by one of the G-codes
included in the measure’s numerator.
That is, only when at least 1
prescription created during the
encounter was generated and
transmitted electronically using a
qualified electronic prescribing system.
(5) Criteria for Successful Reporting of
the Electronic Prescribing Measure
As discussed above, section
1848(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act specifies
that an eligible professional shall be
treated as a successful electronic
prescriber for a reporting period based
on the eligible professional’s reporting
of the electronic prescribing measure in
at least 50 percent of applicable cases.
For 2010, however, we proposed to
exercise our authority under section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act to revise the
criteria for submitting data on the
electronic prescribing measure (74 FR
33598). For 2010, rather than requiring
that the electronic prescribing measure
be reported for a certain proportion of
reportable cases, we proposed to make
the determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber based on a count of the
number of times (minimum threshold of
25) an eligible professional reports that
at least one prescription created during
the encounter was generated using a
qualified electronic prescribing system.
We solicited comments on the proposed
criteria for determination of successful
electronic prescriber.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed criteria for determination of
successful electronic prescriber for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program.
Comment: A majority of commenters
supported the changes proposed for the
criteria for the determination of
successful electronic prescriber for 2010
and the proposed threshold for
reporting the electronic prescribing
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61855
measure at least 25 times during the
reporting period. Some commenters,
however, expressed concern that the
proposed threshold may be insufficient
to ensure that electronic prescribing is
fully adopted into the prescriber’s
clinical practice and workflow since
some eligible professionals may be able
to meet this threshold in a matter of a
few days or weeks.
Some commenters suggested that in
lieu of a fixed threshold, we establish a
percent threshold based upon the
percent of eligible cases in 2009.
Another commenter suggested that if an
eligible professional has an electronic
prescribing system, he or she should be
using the system for all prescriptions.
Other commenters suggested a threshold
of 250–500 electronic prescribing events
during the reporting period.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ feedback, and believe that
lowering this requirement simplifies the
reporting burden, which would
encourage more eligible professionals to
participate in this incentive program,
and more importantly, to adopt an
electronic prescribing system.
We agree with commenters that some
eligible professionals may be able to
meet the criteria for successful reporting
in a matter of a few days or weeks.
However, in establishing the threshold
of 25 electronic prescribing events, we
also took into account the many valid
circumstances that would prevent
eligible professionals who have adopted
a qualified electronic prescribing system
from having 25 electronic prescribing
events during the calendar year and
variations in practice characteristics. In
addition to the patient-related, systemrelated, or legal reasons that were
formerly addressed by reporting the
G8446 code for the measure, some
eligible professionals may have few
opportunities to report the electronic
prescribing measure since they generate
a low volume of prescriptions, have few
Medicare patients, infrequently provide
the services included in the measure’s
denominator, or a combination of these
factors.
Comment: Other commenters were
concerned that the proposed changes to
the criteria for determining a successful
electronic prescriber, while lower than
the 2009 criteria, would make it more
difficult to qualify for the electronic
prescribing incentive payment. The
commenters were concerned that the
impact on eligible professionals will
vary depending on the percentage of
Medicare patients in their practice and
the volume of prescriptions generated
by the practice. For some practices 25
electronic prescriptions could be
achieved in a matter of days but for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61856
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
other practices it may be difficult or
impossible to achieve this threshold.
One commenter suggested that lowering
the reporting threshold from 25 to 15
may be enough to get an eligible
professional to adopt and use an
electronic prescribing system and to
recognize its superiority. Other
commenters suggested that we retain the
criteria to report the electronic
prescribing measure on 50 percent of
applicable cases instead.
Response: As we stated previously,
we have taken the commenters’
concerns into consideration in
establishing the proposed threshold of
25 electronic prescribing events. On
average, we believe an eligible
professional would need to have 2 to 3
electronic prescribing events per month
to be considered a successful electronic
prescriber. We believe that this is
achievable by a majority of eligible
professionals. However, we will monitor
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program results and take the
commenters’ recommendation into
consideration as we develop the criteria
for future years.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that we allow for
alternative reporting to accommodate
those who may not be able to
electronically prescribe at least 25 times
due to state or federal laws and
regulations that do not allow electronic
prescribing for narcotics or other
controlled substances.
Response: As stated previously, we
have taken into account the many valid
circumstances that would prevent
eligible professionals who have adopted
a qualified electronic prescribing system
from having 25 electronic prescribing
events during the calendar year,
including state or federal laws and
regulations that do not allow electronic
prescribing for narcotics or other
controlled substances, when we
established the proposed threshold of 25
electronic prescribing events. Therefore,
we do not believe that it is necessary to
establish alternative reporting criteria
for such eligible professionals.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, for eligible
professionals who practice in a nursing
facility and other institutional settings,
the determination of successful
electronic prescriber should be made by
measuring the electronic management of
prescription drugs instead of measuring
adoption and use of a qualified
electronic prescribing system. The
commenter recommends that eligible
professionals be required to submit,
with each eligible CPT code, a HCPCS
code verifying that all prescription
medications for the patient were
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
electronically reviewed prior to the
submission of the claims. This would
continue to incentivize eligible
professionals, who are prescribing
schedule drugs, or working in a facility
which does not provide access to
electronic prescribing or the internet, for
electronically managing patients’ drugs.
Response: We are unclear as to how
incentivizing eligible professionals for
electronically managing patients’ drugs
encourages the adoption and use of
electronic prescribing technology. In
contrast, the proposed criteria for
determining a successful electronic
prescriber encourage the adoption and
use of electronic prescribing technology
by requiring eligible professionals to
report to us that they have used a
qualified electronic prescribing system
during the reporting period. Therefore,
we are not adopting the commenter’s
recommendation.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we institute a ‘‘floor’’
or minimum number of prescriptions
that must be prescribed in order to even
be assessed for the electronic
prescribing incentive. This would
protect consultants or proceduralists
who do not prescribe medications from
being assessed a payment adjustment in
future years.
Response: We believe that such a floor
is already addressed by the limitation
required under section 1848(m)(2)(B) of
the Act. In order to avoid being subject
to the limitation for 2010 and qualify to
earn an electronic prescribing incentive
payment, eligible professionals who
meet the criteria for successful
electronic prescriber must have at least
10 percent of their Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for covered
professional services comprised of the
codes in the denominator of the
electronic prescribing measure. In
addition, we note that under section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act, eligible
professionals who are subject to the
limitation would not be subject to the
payment adjustment.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we apply the
proposed criteria for determining a
successful electronic prescriber for 2010
to the 2009 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program so that those eligible
professionals who reported that they
electronically prescribed at least 25
times in 2009 would also be eligible to
receive a 2009 electronic prescribing
incentive payment.
Response: We do not have the
authority to change the criteria for
determining a successful electronic
prescriber for 2009. Section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act does not
authorize us to revise the criteria for
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
submitting data on electronic
prescribing measures specified under
subparagraph (B)(ii) until years after
2009. Additionally, even if we had the
authority to modify the criteria for
determining a successful electronic
prescriber for 2009, we could not do so
retrospectively.
Comment: Some commenters urged us
to use our authority under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act to utilize
Part D claims to determine if eligible
professionals are prescribing a sufficient
number of prescriptions electronically.
The commenters noted that this would
be a more efficient means of capturing
the information needed by us for
determining whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber. One commenter stressed that
it is necessary for us to overcome our
concerns about the use of a certain
number of Part D prescribing events as
a basis for the incentive payment in
time for implementation of the
meaningful use criteria in 2011.
Response: We agree that using Part D
claims to determine if eligible
professionals are prescribing a sufficient
number of prescriptions electronically
could potentially be a more efficient
means of capturing the information
needed by us for determining whether
an eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber and we anticipate
that we would do so as soon as it is
practical to do so. As we stated in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33595), however, the accuracy and
completeness of the Part D data with
respect to whether a prescription was
submitted electronically by an
individual eligible professional is
unknown since that information will
not be collected on the Part D claims,
until 2010. During 2010 we anticipate
evaluating the adequacy of Part D data
to determine the feasibility of its use for
determining whether an eligible
professional qualifies as a successful
electronic prescriber. In the meantime,
we are implementing alternative
reporting mechanisms (that is, registry
and EHR reporting) for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure in 2010
in an effort to provide more flexibility
to eligible professionals.
After considering the comments, for
2010, an eligible professional will be
required to report the electronic
prescribing measure at least 25 times
during the reporting period for purposes
of meeting the criteria for successful
electronic prescriber and qualifying to
earn the electronic prescribing incentive
(subject to the limitation required under
section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act). In
other words, an eligible professional
will be required to report that he or she
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
electronically prescribed at least 25
times during the reporting period for
services indicated by one of the codes
included in the measure’s denominator.
As stated previously, by December 31,
2009, we will post the final
specifications of the measure on the
‘‘E-Prescribing Measure’’ page of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/ERXIncentive.
d. Determination of the 2010 Incentive
Payment Amount for Individual Eligible
Professionals Who Are Successful
Electronic Prescribers
Section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act
imposes a limitation on the electronic
prescribing incentive payment. The
Secretary is authorized to choose 1 of 2
possible criteria for determining
whether or not the limitation applies to
a successful electronic prescriber. The
first criterion, under section
1848(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, is based
upon whether the Medicare Part B
allowed charges for covered
professional services to which the
electronic prescribing quality measure
applies are less than 10 percent of the
total Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all covered professional
services furnished by the eligible
professional during the reporting
period. The second criterion, under
section 1848(m)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, is
based on whether the eligible
professional submits (both
electronically and nonelectronically) a
sufficient number (as determined by the
Secretary) of prescriptions under Part D
(which can, again, be assessed using
Part D drug claims data). If the Secretary
decides to use the latter criterion, then,
in accordance with section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act, the criterion
based on the reporting on electronic
prescribing measures would no longer
apply. The statutory limitation also
applies with regard to the future
application of the payment adjustment.
Based on our proposal to make the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a ‘‘successful electronic
prescriber’’ based on submission of the
electronic prescribing measure, we
proposed to apply the criterion under
section 1848(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act for
the limitation for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed criterion for the limitation.
Comment: Although the commenters
acknowledged that the limitation on the
electronic prescribing incentive
payment is required by law, a few
commenters were opposed to the 10
percent threshold because certain types
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
of eligible professionals would be
unlikely to meet the 10 percent
threshold.
Response: Unfortunately, we do not
have the authority to change the 10
percent threshold, since the threshold is
required by section 1848(m)(2)(B)(i) of
the Act. In an effort to allow more
eligible professionals to potentially
qualify for the incentive payment,
however, we have expanded the
denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure. Despite the
requirement that 10 percent or more of
an eligible professional’s charges must
be comprised of codes in the
denominator, preliminary information
from the 2009 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program indicates that over 90 percent
of eligible professionals who have
prescribing privileges do not appear to
be affected by the limitation. We believe
that expanding the denominator of the
measure will further reduce the
percentage of eligible professionals who
will be subject to the limitation.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we make available to individual
eligible professionals the percentage of
their prior year’s Medicare charges that
resulted from the codes included in the
electronic prescribing measure’s
denominator specifications since many
eligible professionals may not have the
time or analytic tools necessary to make
the determination of whether they are
likely to meet the 10 percent threshold
prior to making the decision on whether
to electronically prescribe.
Response: Unfortunately, we do not
have the resources to calculate and
provide feedback to eligible
professionals regarding the composition
of their charges. Most electronic billing
systems, however, will have this
functionality and should be able to
provide eligible professionals who use
such billing systems with this
information.
Since, as discussed above, we are
finalizing for 2010 our proposal to make
the determination of whether an eligible
professional is a ‘‘successful electronic
prescriber’’ based on submission of the
electronic prescribing measure, we also
are finalizing our proposal to analyze
the claims submitted by the eligible
professional at the TIN/NPI level to
determine whether the 10 percent
threshold is met in determining the
receipt of an electronic prescribing
incentive payment for 2010 by an
eligible professional. This calculation is
expected to take place in the first
quarter of 2011 and will be performed
by dividing the eligible professional’s
total 2010 Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all such covered professional
services submitted for the measure’s
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61857
denominator codes by the eligible
professional’s total Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services (as assessed at the
TIN/NPI level). If the result is 10
percent or more, then the statutory
limitation will not apply and a
successful electronic prescriber will
qualify to earn the electronic prescribing
incentive payment. If the result is less
than 10 percent, then the statutory
limitation will apply and the eligible
professional will not earn an electronic
prescribing incentive payment—even if
he or she electronically prescribes and
reports a G-code indicating that he or
she generated and transmitted a
prescription electronically at least 25
times for those eligible cases that occur
during the 2010 reporting period.
Although an individual eligible
professional may decide to conduct his
or her own assessment of how likely
this statutory limitation is expected to
apply to him or her before deciding
whether or not to report the electronic
prescribing measure, an individual
eligible professional may report the
electronic prescribing measure without
regard to the statutory limitation for the
incentive payment.
e. Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting of the Electronic Prescribing
Measure by Group Practices
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33599 through 33600), we discussed
making incentive payments to group
practices based on the determination
that the group practice, as a whole (that
is, the TIN), is a successful electronic
prescriber for 2010, as required under
section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. In
addition, we noted that section
1848(m)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires
that payments to a group practice by
reason of the process established under
section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act shall
be in lieu of the payments that would
otherwise be made under this
subsection to eligible professionals in
the group practice for being a successful
electronic prescriber.
(1) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
Section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act
authorizes the Secretary to define
‘‘group practice.’’ For purposes of
determining whether a group practice is
a successful electronic prescriber, we
proposed that a ‘‘group practice’’ would
consist of a physician group practice, as
defined by a TIN, with at least 200 or
more individual eligible professionals
(or, NPIs) who have reassigned their
billing rights to the TIN (74 FR 33599).
In addition, we proposed to limit the
group practices eligible to participate in
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61858
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Program through the group practice
reporting option to those group
practices selected to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding our
proposed definition of ‘‘group practice’’.
Comment: Several commenters urged
CMS to permit small and mid-sized
group practices with fewer than 200
eligible professionals to participate in
the group practice reporting option. One
commenter requested that we reconsider
the 200 individual eligible professional
thresholds for the definition of a group
practice or that we at least offer an
alternative reporting option that uses a
statistical sampling model for primary
care oriented group practices.
Response: We recognize that the
proposed required group practice size of
200 or more individual eligible
professionals limits participation. As
stated in the proposed rule (74 FR
33599), for 2010, we would like to limit
the number of groups participating in
the group practice reporting option until
we get further experience with the
group practice reporting option.
Therefore, we are not adopting the
commenters’ suggestion to permit small
and mid-sized group practices with
fewer than 200 eligible professionals to
participate in the group practice
reporting option and are finalizing the
definition of ‘‘group practice’’ for the
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option as proposed.
In order for a group practice to
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option for
2010, the group practice must be one
that is selected to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option,
which requires that group practices
have 200 or more eligible professionals.
Group practices cannot solely
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option. A group
practice can choose to participate in: (1)
both the PQRI group practice reporting
option and the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option; (2) the
PQRI group practice reporting option
but participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program as individual eligible
professionals; or (3) the PQRI group
practice reporting option but not
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program at all.
We will use this initial
implementation year to explore and
refine the group practice reporting
option and anticipate expanding this
option to group practices with less than
200 individual eligible professionals in
future program years.
Comment: A commenter urged us to
keep PQRI and the E-Prescribing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Incentive programs separate and distinct
for group practices wishing to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option.
Response: The PQRI and EPrescribing Incentive Programs are
separate and distinct incentive programs
with different program requirements.
However, in order for a group practice
to participate in the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option, one of the participation
requirements is that the group practice
must be one that is selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option. As stated previously, a
group practice can choose to participate
in: (1) Both the PQRI group practice
reporting option and the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option; (2) the PQRI group practice
reporting option but participate in the EPrescribing Incentive Program as
individual eligible professionals; or (3)
the PQRI group practice reporting
option but not participate in the EPrescribing Incentive Program at all.
Therefore, participation in the EPrescribing Incentive Program, whether
as a group practice or at the individual
eligible professional level, is optional
for those group practices selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option.
For those group practices who choose
to participate in both the PQRI and
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option, it is important to note
that the electronic prescribing measure
is not reportable using the PQRI group
practice reporting option data collection
tool. The electronic prescribing measure
is reportable via the same reporting
mechanisms that are available to
individual eligible professionals
participating in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program (that is claims, a
qualified registry, or a qualified EHR).
Comment: A commenter had concerns
that some group practices will have
difficulty ramping up for participation
in both the PQRI and electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
options between now and January 1,
2010.
Response: As we stated previously,
participation in the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option by group practices selected to
participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option is optional. To the
extent that a group practice chooses to
participate in both programs’ group
practice reporting options, it does not
need to be ready to begin the PQRI and
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting options between now and
January 1, 2010. As stated in section
II.G.2. of this final rule with comment
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
period, we are requiring interested
group practices that meet the criteria to
self-nominate by January 31, 2010 and
indicate to us whether the practice
wishes to participate in just the PQRI
group practice reporting option or both
the PQRI and electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option. The
reporting periods for both programs are
the same (that is, January 1, 2010
through December 31, 2010), the data
submission timelines, however, are
different.
In an attempt to ensure the group
practices have sufficient time to become
acclimated to the PQRI group practice
reporting option, for the 2010 PQRI, the
group practice will be notified of the
selection decision to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option no
later than the second quarter of 2010.
Training on the data collection tool is
projected to be provided in the third
quarter of 2010. The group practice will
not be expected to complete and return
the data collection tool until the end of
the first quarter of 2011.
For the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program, we proposed requiring that
reporting of the electronic prescribing
measure by group practices would occur
under the same data submission
timeline as reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure by individual
eligible professionals. The proposed
reporting mechanisms for the electronic
prescribing measure would be the same
regardless of whether an eligible
professional is participating
individually or as a group practice.
Furthermore, the electronic prescribing
measure was not proposed to be
reportable via the PQRI group practice
reporting option data collection tool.
To summarize, based on these
comments, for purposes of the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program, we are
finalizing a group practice reporting
option that will consist of ‘‘group
practice’’ being defined as a TIN with at
least 200 or more individual eligible
professionals (as identified by NPIs)
who have reassigned their billing rights
to the TIN and who are participating in
the 2010 PQRI group practice reporting
option. Therefore, unlike individual
eligible professionals who are not
required to participate in the PQRI, to be
eligible to earn an electronic prescribing
incentive in 2010, group practices that
wish to participate in the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option will be required to participate in
the PQRI group practice reporting
option. Participation in the EPrescribing Incentive Program,
including participation in the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option is, however, optional for group
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
practices that are participating in PQRI
under the group practice reporting
option. If a group practice wishes to
participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program under the group
practice reporting option, it must
indicate its desire to do so at the time
that the group practice self-nominates to
participate in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option. There is no
need for group practices to indicate
their intent to participate in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program as
individual eligible professionals when
the group practice self-nominates to
participate in the 2010 PQRI group
practice reporting option.
Group practices interested in
participating in the 2010 PQRI through
the group practice reporting option are
required to submit a self-nomination
letter to CMS, requesting to participate
in the 2010 PQRI group practice
reporting option. Instructions for
submitting the self-nomination letter
will be posted on the PQRI section of
the CMS Web site by November 15,
2009. A group practice that wishes to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option will be notified of the
selection decision to participate in the
E-Prescribing Incentive Program at the
same time that it is notified of the
selection decision for the PQRI group
practice reporting option.
In addition to meeting the eligibility
requirements discussed in section
II.G.5.e.1. of this final rule with
comment period, a group practice that
wishes to participate in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program under the
group practice reporting option will also
have to indicate how it intends to report
the electronic prescribing measure. That
is, the group practice will need to
indicate in its self-nomination letter
which reporting mechanism the group
practice intends to use for purposes of
participating in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option.
(2) Process for Group Practices to
Participate as Group Practices and
Criteria for Successful Reporting of the
Electronic Prescribing Measure by
Group Practices
For group practices selected to
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option for
2010, we proposed the reporting period
would be January 1, 2010 to December
31, 2010 (74 FR 33599 through 33600).
We proposed that physician groups
selected to participate in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program through
the group practice reporting option
would be able to choose to report the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
electronic prescribing measure through
the claims-based, the registry-based, or,
contingent upon us finalizing this
reporting mechanism for the 2010 PQRI,
the EHR-based reporting mechanism.
In order for a group practice to be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber, we proposed that the group
practice would have to report that at
least 1 prescription during an encounter
was generated using a qualified
electronic prescribing system in at least
2,500 instances during the reporting
period. We solicited comments on the
proposed criteria for determining
whether a group practice is a successful
electronic prescriber. We also invited
feedback on our underlying
assumptions.
Section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act
specifies that the limitation on the
applicability of the electronic
prescribing incentive applies to group
practices as well as individual eligible
professionals. Therefore, in determining
whether a group practice will receive an
electronic prescribing incentive
payment for 2010 by meeting the
proposed reporting criteria described
above, we would determine whether the
10 percent threshold is met based on the
claims submitted by the group practice.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed process for group practices to
participate as group practices and
criteria for successful reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure by group
practices.
Comment: One commenter agrees
with CMS’ assumptions and proposals
for group reporting and believed it is
reasonable to set criteria for successful
electronic prescribing using the 2,500
threshold. Conversely, one commenter
believed that 2,500 electronic
prescribing events during the reporting
period is too low a threshold for group
practices and suggested that the
threshold should be 25,000 to 50,000
electronic prescribing instances during
the reporting period per group practice.
One commenter believed that CMS
should retain the 50 percent rule and
thinks that establishing a numerical
target of 2,500 electronic prescribing
instances during the reporting period
creates an unbalanced incentive
depending on practice type, size, and
percent Medicare patient mix. Another
commenter stated that the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option should not be different for a
group practice versus an individual
eligible professional.
Response: By establishing a reporting
threshold of 2,500 electronic prescribing
events per reporting period per group
practice, we desired to implement a
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61859
threshold that is obtainable and
demonstrates that the group practice has
adopted and is using a qualified
electronic prescribing system. Also, by
establishing this threshold, we sought to
reduce reporting burden. A numerical
target of reporting 2,500 electronic
prescribing events per reporting period
will provide a tangible goal for the
group practices to achieve. As stated
previously, we are making every effort
to promote the adoption of electronic
prescribing by making participation
both practical and operational so that
group practices may achieve successful
reporting. In establishing the threshold
of 2,500 electronic prescribing events,
we had to take into account not only all
the circumstances that we discussed
above with respect to the threshold for
individual eligible professionals that
could prevent a group practice who has
adopted a qualified electronic
prescribing system from having 2,500
electronic prescribing events during the
calendar year but also the fact that the
impact of these circumstances will vary
depending on the types of specialties
that are affiliated with each group
practice.
Comment: A commenter expressed
that the proposed method of calculating
whether the limitation applies to a
group practice will prevent most large
multi-specialty group practices from
being able to use the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option.
Response: We do not have the
authority to change the basis for
determining the applicability of the
limitation. If we are making the
determination of successful electronic
prescriber based on reporting the
electronic prescribing measure, section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that
the limitation will apply if the Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges for all
covered professional services furnished
by the group practice for the codes to
which the electronic prescribing quality
measure applies are less than 10 percent
of the total of the Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services furnished by the
group practice.
For the reasons mentioned above and
after considering the comments, we are
finalizing for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program the group practice
reporting option discussed above.
Specifically, group practices will be
required to report the 2010 electronic
prescribing measure at least 2,500 times
during the reporting period in order for
the group practice to be considered a
successful electronic prescriber.
Group practices will be able to choose
to report the electronic prescribing
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61860
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
measure through claims, a qualified
registry, or qualified EHR product. As
discussed for individual eligible
professionals, only registries and EHR
products qualified to participate in the
2010 PQRI will be qualified for
purposes of the 2010 electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option.
In addition, in determining whether a
group practice will receive an electronic
prescribing incentive payment for 2010
by meeting the reporting criteria
described above, we will determine
whether the 10 percent threshold is met
based on our analysis of the claims
submitted by the group practice during
the reporting period. This calculation is
expected to take place in the first
quarter of 2011 and will be determined
by dividing the group practice’s total
2010 Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all covered professional
services submitted for the measure’s
denominator codes by the group
practice’s total Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services. If the result is 10
percent or more, then the statutory
limitation will not apply and a group
practice that is determined to be a
successful electronic prescriber will
qualify to earn the electronic prescribing
incentive payment. If the result is less
than 10 percent, then the statutory
limitation will apply and the group
practice will not qualify to earn the
electronic prescribing incentive
payment.
f. Public Reporting of Names of
Successful Electronic Prescribers
Section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act
requires the Secretary to post on the
CMS Web site, in an easily
understandable format, a list of the
names of eligible professionals (or group
practices) who satisfactorily submit data
on quality measures for the PQRI and
the names of the eligible professionals
(or group practices) who are successful
electronic prescribers. As required by
section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, we
proposed to make public the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices who are successful electronic
prescribers for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program on the Physician and
Other Health Care Professionals
Directory.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding
requirements under section
1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act with respect to
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program.
Comment: Some commenters
supported public reporting of the names
of successful electronic prescribers. One
commenter, in particular, noted that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
public reporting of the names of
successful electronic prescribers will
assist health plans in identifying such
entities for related requirements in
Medicare Advantage and Part D and
help private health plans identify those
that may need to be encouraged or
assisted with electronic prescribing.
Response: We are pleased to have
commenters’ support for our efforts to
make information about eligible
professionals’ adoption and use of
electronic prescribing technology
publicly available. We agree that such
information may be relevant and useful
to a broad audience.
Comment: Many commenters urged
us to post only the information required
by section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, that
is, the names of individual eligible
professionals and group practices who
are successful electronic prescribers.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33600),
we proposed to make public only the
names of eligible professionals and
group practices who are successful
electronic prescribers. We do not
anticipate posting any other information
with respect to the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program at this time.
Comment: Other commenters
recognized that we are statutorily
required to carry out public reporting of
the names of successful electronic
prescribers but are, nevertheless,
opposed to publicly releasing the names
of successful electronic prescribers or
urged us to delay releasing such
information until the public has a better
understanding of the details of the EPrescribing Incentive Program. Some of
the concerns specifically cited by
commenters include the following:
• The E-Prescribing Incentive
Program is voluntary and excludes
many eligible professionals;
• A formal independent evaluation of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program’s
processes and an analysis and
validation of the data gathered needs to
be conducted prior to any information
being publicly released;
• CMS needs to provide eligible
professionals with better access and
feedback to the quality data they report
(especially feedback on why they failed
to report successfully) before the release
of any information;
• There is little to be gained from this
effort since eligible professionals and
patients do not fully understand the
details of the program and are still
learning about this program;
• Patients may not understand the
purpose for posting this information
since the program is still new; and
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• The criteria for becoming a
successful electronic prescriber are
changing from 2009 to 2010.
Response: We are appreciative of the
commenters’ thoughtful and
constructive feedback and will take
these concerns into consideration as we
further develop our plans for publicly
reporting information from the EPrescribing Incentive Program. While
we understand the commenters’
concerns, we note that section
1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act requires us to
list the names of individual eligible
professionals and group practices who
are successful electronic prescribers in
an easily understandable format on our
Web site. As such, it is our intent to
identify the eligible professionals and
group practices who are successful
electronic prescribers for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program for
posting in 2011. We note that we
anticipate conducting an evaluation of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program and
making the national evaluation results
public through an experience report
similar to the ‘‘PQRI 2007 Reporting
Experience’’ report that we posted on
the PQRI section of the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/
Downloads/
PQRI2007ReportFinal12032008CSG.pdf.
Comment: A few commenters stressed
the importance of including appropriate
and prominent disclaimers or other
statements on our Web site that
provides information about the EPrescribing Incentive Program and
specifically state that there are valid
reasons why an eligible professional
may not have been a successful
electronic prescriber for 2010.
Response: We agree with the
commenters on the importance of
including disclaimers and other
information on the Web site that
explains the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program and its goals and the
limitations of the data being reported
(such as the fact that there are valid
reasons why an eligible professional
may not have been a successful
electronic prescriber). Thus, it is our
intent to include such language and
disclaimers on the Web site similar to
what was displayed with the 2007 PQRI
participation information that was
publicly released on the Physician and
Other Health Care Professionals
Directory in December 2008. We also
anticipate being able to update the
Physician and Other Health Care
Professionals Directory to display the
relevant disclaimers more prominently.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that eligible professionals
and group practices have an opportunity
to review their electronic prescribing
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
results before those results are made
public, including access to information
about why they were not able to
successfully report this data, and that
we continue to work with eligible
professionals on the sensitive issues that
surround this concept.
Response: Eligible professionals and
group practices will have an
opportunity to review their electronic
prescribing results via the detailed,
confidential feedback reports that will
be made available to all eligible
professionals and group practices who
participle in the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program. Eligible professionals and
group practices will have an
opportunity to obtain their feedback
reports prior to any information about
their success being publicly released.
Eligible professionals who have
concerns about their results or any other
information included on their feedback
reports are encouraged to contact the
QualityNet Help Desk at (866) 288–8912
or qnetsupport@sdps.org for assistance.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we also publicly
report the names of eligible
professionals who choose to not
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program.
Response: We do not believe it will be
meaningful to the public to know the
names of those eligible professionals
who choose not to participate in the EPrescribing Incentive Program. As some
commenters noted, the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program is a voluntary
incentive program and many eligible
professionals who have adopted and use
a qualified electronic system have valid
reasons for not participating. For
example, some eligible professionals
may not provide the services included
in the electronic prescribing measure’s
denominator and, therefore, would not
have an opportunity to report the
measure. Other professionals may know,
based on the prior year’s charges, that
they are unlikely to meet the statutory
limitation under section 1848(m)(2)(B)
of the Act that would allow them to be
eligible to qualify to earn the electronic
prescribing incentive payment.
Therefore, such eligible professionals
would most likely opt to not participate
in the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
even if they are electronically
prescribing.
After considering the comments, we
will publicly report the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices who are successful electronic
prescribers for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program on the Physician and
Other Health Care Professionals
Directory. We anticipate that the names
of individual eligible professionals and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
group practices who are successful
electronic prescribers for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program will be
available in 2011 after the 2010
incentive payments are paid.
Although we stated in the CY 2009
PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33600) and
the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69852) that we
intended to post the names of
individual eligible professionals who
meet the criteria for successful
electronic prescriber and for whom the
limitation does not apply (in other
words, eligible professionals who
qualify to earn an incentive payment),
we would like to clarify that for
purposes of publicly reporting the
names of individual eligible
professionals on the Physician and
Other Health Care Professionals
Directory, section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the
Act requires only that the Secretary post
the names of eligible professionals (or
group practices) who are successful
electronic prescribers. Therefore, with
respect to the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program we intend to post the
names of individual eligible
professionals who report the electronic
prescribing measure at least 25 times
during the 2010 reporting period for
patient encounters included in the
measure’s denominator, without regard
to whether the limitation applied to the
eligible professional and without regard
to whether the eligible professional
actually qualified to earn an incentive
payment. In addition, since the PQRI
and the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
are two separate incentive programs and
individual eligible professionals are not
required to participate in both programs
to earn an incentive under either
program, we point out that it is possible
for an eligible professional who
participates in both incentive programs
to be listed both as an individual
eligible professional who satisfactorily
submits data on quality measures for the
PQRI and is a successful electronic
prescriber under the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. Likewise, an
individual eligible professional may be
listed as an individual eligible
professional who satisfactorily submits
data on quality measures for the PQRI
but not as a successful electronic
prescriber under the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program (or vice versa) even if
he or she participated in both incentive
programs.
Similarly, for purposes of publicly
reporting the names of group practices,
on the Physician and Other Health Care
Professionals Directory, we intend to
post the names of group practices who
report the electronic prescribing
measure at least 2,500 times during the
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61861
2010 reporting period for patient
encounters included in the measure’s
denominator without regard to whether
the limitation applied to the group
practice or whether the group practice
actually qualified to earn an incentive
payment. Although any group practice
participating in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program under the group
practice reporting option would have
had to also participate in the PQRI
group practice reporting option, the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of PQRI
measures for group practices are
different from the criteria for successful
reporting of the electronic prescribing
measure by group practices. Therefore,
it is possible for a group practice to be
listed as a group practice that
satisfactorily submits data on quality
measures for the PQRI but not as a
successful electronic prescriber under
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program, or
vice versa.
6. Section 135: Implementation of
Accreditation Standards for Suppliers
Furnishing the Technical Component
(TC) of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
Services
Section 1834(e) of the Act, as added
by section 135(a) of the MIPPA, requires
that beginning January 1, 2012,
Medicare payment may only be made
for the technical component (TC) of
advanced diagnostic imaging services
for which payment is made under the
fee schedule established in section
1848(b) of the Act to a supplier who is
accredited by an accreditation
organization (AO) designated by the
Secretary.
a. Accreditation Requirement
In the proposed rule, we proposed
criteria for designating organizations to
accredit suppliers furnishing the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services as
specified in section 1834(e) of the Act.
In addition, we proposed the required
procedures to ensure that the criteria
used by an AO meets minimum
standards for each imaging modality in
§ 414.68.
We did not propose any substantive
standards that suppliers furnishing the
TC of advanced imaging would have to
meet. We have chosen to utilize clinical
guidelines that are already accepted by
the experienced accreditation
organizations already performing
accreditation. We believe that the
suppliers should be able to assimilate
these new accreditation requirements
very easily into their medical practice.
We will be designating organizations
based on, at minimum, their ability to
meet the requirements set forth in the
statute. In addition, in this rule we have
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61862
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
described the components that any
organization must have in order to be
considered for designated status.
As proposed, the CMS-designated AO
would apply standards that set
qualifications for medical personnel
who are not physicians but who furnish
the TC. The standards would describe
the qualifications and responsibilities of
medical directors and supervising
physicians. including the following:
recognizing whether a particular
medical director or supervising
physician received training in advanced
imaging services in a residency
program; and has attained, through
experience, the necessary expertise to be
a medical director or supervising
physician; has completed any
continuing medical education courses
related to advanced imaging services; or
has met such other standards as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
In addition, the standards would
require suppliers to: (1) Establish and
maintain a quality control program to
ensure the technical quality of
diagnostic images produced by the
supplier; (2) ensure the equipment used
meets performance specifications; and
(3) ensure safety of personnel. While the
statute authorizes the Secretary to
establish as criteria for accreditation any
other standards or procedures the
Secretary determines appropriate, we
did not propose to establish other
standards or procedures.
In the proposed rule, we also stated
that we expect to publish a notice to
solicit applications from entities for the
purposes of becoming a designated AO
the same day that this final rule with
comment period is issued. We still
expect to meet the January 1, 2010
statutory deadline in order to designate
organizations to accredit suppliers
furnishing the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services by waiving
the 60-day delay in the imaging
accreditation provisions in the final
rule.
We believe that we have furnished
enough detail in the proposed rule, in
addition to receiving extensive
comments from prospective AOs, so that
AOs will find that 30 days is sufficient
time to respond to the solicitation.
b. Accreditation for Suppliers
Section 1834(e) of the Act requires the
Secretary to designate and approve AOs
to accredit suppliers of the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services.
To promote consistency in accrediting
providers and suppliers throughout the
Medicare program, we proposed to
review existing procedures for the
application, selection, and oversight of
AOs detailed at 42 CFR part 488,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
subparts A and D, and apply them (with
appropriate revisions) to organizations
accrediting suppliers of the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services.
We proposed modifications to the
existing part 488 requirements to meet
the specialized needs of the advanced
imaging industry. These modifications
would require an independent AO
applying for approval as a designated
AO to include in their application:
• A detailed description of how the
organization’s accreditation criteria
satisfy the statutory standards at section
1834(e)(3) of the Act, specifically:
+ Qualifications of medical personnel
who are not physicians and who furnish
the TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
services;
+ Qualifications and responsibilities
of medical directors and supervising
physicians, such as training in advanced
diagnostic imaging services in a
residency program, expertise obtained
through experience, or continuing
medical education courses;
+ Procedures to ensure the safety of
persons who furnish the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services and
individuals to whom such services are
furnished;
+ Procedures to ensure the reliability,
clarity, and accuracy of the technical
quality of diagnostic images produced
by the supplier.
• An agreement to conform
accreditation requirements to any
changes in Medicare statutory
requirements in section 1834(e) of the
Act.
• Information to demonstrate the
AO’s knowledge and experience in the
advanced diagnostic imaging arena.
• The organization’s proposed fees for
accreditation for each modality in
which the organization intends to offer
accreditation and any plans for reducing
the burden and cost of accreditation to
small and rural suppliers.
• Any specific documentation
requirements and attestations requested
by CMS as a condition of designation
under this part.
If, after review of an AO’s submission
of information, we determined that
additional information was necessary to
make a determination for approval or
denial of the AO’s application to be
designated as an AO for suppliers of the
TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
services, the organization would be
notified and afforded an opportunity to
provide the additional information. We
could visit the organization’s offices to
verify representations made by the
organization in its application,
including, but not limited to, review of
documents and interviews with the
organization’s staff. The AO would
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
receive a formal notice from CMS
stating whether the request for
designation was approved or denied. If
approval was denied, the notice would
include the basis for denial and outline
the reconsideration procedures. We
would make every effort to issue a final
decision no more than 30 calendar days
from the time the completed
reapplication was received by CMS. An
AO could withdraw its application for
designation under section 1834(e) of the
Act at any time before the formal notice
of approval is received. An AO that was
notified that its request for designation
was denied could request
reconsideration in accordance with
§ 488.201 through § 488.211 in Subpart
D. Any AO whose request for
designation was denied could resubmit
its application if the organization (1)
Revised its accreditation program to
address the rationale for denial of its
previous request; (2) provided
reasonable assurance that its accredited
companies meet applicable Medicare
requirements; and (3) resubmitted the
application in its entirety. If an AO
requested a reconsideration of a denial,
it could not submit a new application
for the type of modality that is at issue
in the reconsideration until the
reconsideration was final.
A panel would evaluate all proposals
from AOs seeking designation under
section 1834(e) of the Act using existing
CMS survey and certification processes,
similar to those established at § 488.4.
c. Payment Rules for Suppliers of the TC
of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
Services (§ 414.68)
We would implement at § 414.68 the
statutory requirement of section 1834(e)
of the Act that all suppliers of the TC
of advanced diagnostic imaging services
be accredited by a CMS-designated AO
by January 1, 2012 for payments made
under the fee schedule established
under section 1848(b). In § 414.68(a), we
proposed to define the following:
• ‘‘Accredited supplier’’ would mean
a supplier that has been accredited by
a CMS-approved AO.
• ‘‘Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
Services’’ would mean diagnostic
magnetic resonance imaging, computed
tomography, nuclear medicine, and
positron emission tomography. We did
not propose to include other diagnostic
imaging services in this definition under
section 1834(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.
• ‘‘CMS-approved accreditation
organization’’ would mean an
independent AO designated by CMS to
perform the accreditation function
established in section 1834(e) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
d. Ongoing Responsibilities of CMS–
Approved Accreditation Organizations
We proposed to require a CMSapproved AO to perform several
activities on an ongoing basis. The
organization would provide to CMS in
written form and on an ongoing basis all
of the following:
• Copies of all accreditation surveys
of specific suppliers along with any
survey-related information that we may
require (including corrective action
plans and summaries of CMS
requirements that were not met).
• Notice of all accreditation
decisions.
• Notice of all complaints related to
suppliers of the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging service.
• Information about any suppliers of
the TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
service for which the accrediting
organization has denied the supplier’s
accreditation status.
• Notice of any proposed changes in
its accreditation standards or
requirements or survey process. If the
organization implemented the changes
before or without CMS approval, we
could withdraw approval of the AO.
• Written notice of any deficiencies
and adverse actions implemented by the
CMS-approved AO against an accredited
supplier of the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging within 2 days of
identifying such deficiencies, if the
deficiencies pose immediate jeopardy to
a beneficiary or to the general public.
• Written notice of the withdrawal to
all accredited suppliers within 10 days
of CMS’ notice to withdraw approval of
the AO.
• Summary data specified by CMS
related to the past year’s accreditation
activities and trends, on an annual
basis.
In addition, the AO would permit its
surveyors to serve as witnesses if CMS
takes an adverse action based on
accreditation findings.
e. Continuing CMS Oversight of CMS–
Approved Accreditation Organizations
We proposed to add § 414.68 to
establish specific criteria and
procedures for continuing oversight and
for withdrawing approval of an
approved AO.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(1) Validation Audits
We proposed to audit the accredited
organizations in order to validate the
survey accreditation process of
approved AOs in the TC of advanced
imaging. The audits would be
conducted on a representative sample of
suppliers who have been accredited by
a particular accrediting organization or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
in response to allegations of supplier
noncompliance with the standards.
When conducted on a representative
sample basis, we proposed that the
audit would be comprehensive and
address all of the standards or would
focus on a specific standard in issue.
When conducted in response to an
allegation, we proposed to specify that
the CMS team or our contractor would
audit for any standard that we
determined was related to the
allegations. We also proposed to require
a supplier selected for a validation audit
to authorize the validation audit to
occur and authorize the CMS team or
our contractor to monitor the correction
of any deficiencies found through the
validation audit. If a supplier selected
for a validation audit failed to comply
with the requirements at § 414.68, the
supplier would no longer meet the
Medicare requirements and, under this
proposal, the supplier’s accreditation for
the TC of the advanced medical imaging
would be revoked.
We proposed that a CMS team or our
contractor would conduct an audit of an
accredited organization, examine the
results of the AO’s own survey
procedure onsite, or observe the AO’s
survey, in order to validate the
organization’s accreditation process. At
the conclusion of the review, we would
identify any accreditation programs for
which validation audit results indicated
the following:
• A 10 percent or greater rate of
disparity between findings by the AO
and findings by CMS or our contractor
on standards that did not constitute
immediate jeopardy to patient health
and safety if not met;
• Any disparity between findings by
the AO and findings by CMS or our
contractor on standards that constituted
immediate jeopardy to patient health
and safety if not met; or
• There were widespread or systemic
problems in the organization’s
accreditation process such that the
accreditation no longer provided
assurance that suppliers met or
exceeded the Medicare requirements,
irrespective of the rate of disparity.
(2) Notice of Intent To Withdraw
Approval for Designating Authority
As proposed, if a validation audit,
onsite observation, or our concerns with
the ethical conduct (that impacted the
health and safety of the beneficiary) of
an AO suggest that the AO was not
meeting the requirements of § 414.68,
we would provide the organization
written notice of our intent to withdraw
approval of the AO’s designating
authority.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61863
(3) Withdrawal of Approval for
Designating Authority
We proposed to withdraw approval of
an AO at any time if we determined
that:
• Accreditation by the organization
no longer provided sufficient assurance
that the suppliers of the TC of advanced
imaging meet the requirements of
section 1834(e) of the Act and the
failure to meet those requirements could
pose an immediate jeopardy to the
health and safety of Medicare
beneficiaries;
• Conditions at an imaging supplier
accredited by an AO constituted a
significant hazard to the public health;
or
• The AO failed to meet its
obligations for application and
reapplication procedures.
(4) Reconsideration
We proposed to implement
requirements similar to those set out
under 42 CFR part 488 without
substantive changes, as the
requirements have been utilized for the
health care providers covered under 42
CFR part 488 since 1992. We proposed
that an AO dissatisfied with a
determination that its accreditation
requirements did not provide or do not
continue to provide reasonable
assurance that the suppliers accredited
by the AO met the applicable standards
would be entitled to a reconsideration.
We also proposed to reconsider any
determination to deny, remove, or not
renew the approval of the designating
authority to AOs if the AO filed a
written request for reconsideration
through its authorized officials or
through its legal representative.
We proposed to require the AO to file
the request for reconsideration within
30 calendar days after the issuance of
CMS notice of an adverse determination
or non-renewal. We proposed to require
the request for reconsideration to
specify the findings or issues with
which the AO disagreed and the reasons
for the disagreement. A requestor could
withdraw its request for reconsideration
at any time before the issuance of a
reconsideration determination. In
response to a request for
reconsideration, we would provide the
accrediting organization the opportunity
for an informal hearing that would be
conducted by a hearing officer
appointed by the CMS Administrator
and provide the accrediting organization
the opportunity to present, in writing
and in person, evidence or
documentation to refute the
determination to deny approval, or to
withdraw or not renew its designating
authority.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61864
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
As proposed, we would provide
written notice of the time and place of
the informal hearing at least 10 business
days before the scheduled date. The
informal reconsideration hearing would
be open to CMS and the organization
requesting the reconsideration,
including authorized representatives,
technical advisors (individuals with
knowledge of the facts of the case or
presenting interpretation of the facts),
and legal counsel. The hearing would be
conducted by the hearing officer, who
would receive testimony and documents
related to the proposed action.
Testimony and other evidence could be
accepted by the hearing officer.
However, the normal evidentiary
exclusions applicable in Federal courts
would not apply to these hearings. The
hearing officer would not have the
authority to compel by subpoena the
production of witnesses, papers, or
other evidence. Within 45 calendar days
of the close of the hearing, the hearing
officer would present the findings and
recommendations to the accrediting
organization that requested the
reconsideration. The written report of
the hearing officer would include
separate numbered findings of fact and
the legal conclusions of the hearing
officer. The hearing officer’s decision
would be final.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding our
proposals for implementation of section
135 of MIPPA.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we consider medical directors and
supervising physicians to be equivalent
positions, as they are frequently the
same.
Response: We agree and have revised
the regulation text accordingly at
§ 414.68(c)(1)(ii) to reflect that the
clinical responsibilities of the medical
director and/or supervising physician
would be identical.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that the physician should be qualified in
the modality for which the supplier is
applying. In order to ensure this
compliance, one commenter suggested
requiring billing under the NPI of that
qualified physician and not another
physician, which is commonly done to
avoid self-referral provisions. Another
commenter stated that we need to
consider that any licensed physician,
not just a radiologist who can respond
to a patient’s possible contrast reaction,
be qualified as supervising medical
directors and supervising physicians.
The commenter also suggested that
there be a degree of control over
documented quarterly on-site
interactions with nonphysician staff,
creation and review of all imaging
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
protocols along with developing quality
performance guidelines as opposed to
limiting the number of sites that the
physician may serve as the medical
director or supervising physician. The
teleradiology area also needs to be
included supervision performance
criteria.
Response: We will develop billing
policies connected to the provision of
the TC of advanced subsequent to the
issuance of this rule, and will take the
commenters’ concerns under
advisement. With respect to
performance measures for the Medical
director and/or supervising physician,
we expect that all AOs will consider
performance measures in their
credentialing and competency
evaluations.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that each designated AO should be
required to evaluate the image quality
produced as part of the AO’s
accreditation survey review process and
that the accreditation personnel should
have 5 years of specific documented
experience and training in image
acquisition and interpretation.
Response: We agree that experience in
the advanced imaging area is important.
For example, we are aware that some
organizations require that accreditation
personnel should have specific
documented experience and training in
image acquisition and interpretation for
5 years. CMS will review the standards
for all potential accrediting
organizations to determine whether it is
necessary for CMS to impose a similar
requirement. We intend to evaluate all
accreditation organization applications
based on documented evidence of
having a level of experience in
accrediting advanced imaging suppliers
and the requirements for their surveyors
who are completing these surveys.
Comment: One commenter requested
that since the timeframe before the
January 1, 2010 designation deadline
was so near, the accompanying request
for proposals should be on review prior
to the display date of this final rule.
Response: Since the notice could have
changed up to the display date of the
final rule, we did not believe publishing
a draft notice would have been helpful.
We did, however, include all of the
requirements in the proposed rule that
we intended for the solicitation notice.
Comment: Some commenters believe
that the proposed provision that exists
for equipment review is not specific
enough to guarantee a thorough
evaluation of equipment performance
and safety.
Response: We will revise our rule in
§ 414.68 to require that the equipment
used by advanced imaging suppliers
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
must meet the manufacturer’s
performance specifications.
Comment: Some commenters stated
the quality of the supplier cannot
adequately be assessed without a
comprehensive evaluation of all aspects
of the imaging service’s operation,
including personnel, image acquisition
and quality, and the quality of the final
report.
Response: We agree that all of these
components are necessary in the
evaluation of a TC supplier. We will be
evaluating AOs’ applications based on
the performance standards that are used
to make certain that these assessments
are comprehensive.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification as to whether the proposed
rules meant that advanced imaging
standards could be lowered by CMS. If
CMS changes its standards, the AO’s
experts should be given an opportunity
to comment. The commenter also asked
whether AOs could maintain or adopt
standards that were more stringent than
those required by CMS.
Response: Section 1834(e) of the Act,
as added by section 135(a) of the
MIPPA, requires that the Secretary
consult with physician specialties and
other stakeholders on provisions in this
rule. We plan to do this, as required by
the statute. Accreditation organizations
may enforce the guidelines to be issued
by CMS, or adopt standards that are
more stringent than those Medicare
requires.
Comment: Some commenters asked
about the fee structure of the designated
AOs. One commenter suggested that
CMS assist small and rural suppliers,
and that the fees be based on the
number of imaging machines, number of
testing modalities, and the number of
testing sites. Another commenter stated
the AOs should be allowed to use their
differing methodologies for reducing
accreditation costs for small and rural
suppliers. The commenter believed that
CMS was going to mandate the fee
structure for the designated AO. One
commenter suggested that we clarify the
$5,000 cost per 3-year review cycle as
an estimate of the cost per modality.
One commenter stated that they were
confused by what CMS intended the
difference to be between small and
specialty suppliers as compared to small
and rural suppliers.
Response: We will be evaluating
applications from all AOs that apply,
and make certain that all have
provisions for small and rural suppliers.
Although we will not be prescribing the
fee structure for the designated AO, we
want to see that each application has a
policy and procedure to determine cost
and assistance that would take the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
smallest supplier into consideration. As
a clarification, note that this rule only
applies to those specialty suppliers
furnishing the TC of advance medical
imaging.
Comment: Two commenters asked
about unannounced site visits. There
was concern that the site may either not
have the appropriate staff for the
modality, or in the case of a mobile unit,
may not be present on the day the
surveyor arrives. It was suggested that
either the site visits were announced or
that accrediting organizations utilize a
combination of announced and
unannounced surveys.
Response: We believe that a supplier
who ‘‘gets ready’’ for the site survey is
a supplier that is not providing quality
care and services throughout the year.
The supplier knows that a surveyor will
be onsite every 3 years and thus would
already be aware of an imminent survey.
Comment: Two commenters strongly
encouraged that we include other
diagnostic imaging services, such as
ultrasound, to be eligible for
accreditation.
Response: Section 1834(e)(1)(B)(ii) of
the Act, as added by section 135(a) of
MIPPA, specifically excludes X-ray,
ultrasound, and fluoroscopy from those
diagnostic imaging services subject to
the accreditation requirement.
Therefore, we cannot implement this
change without Congressional action.
Comment: One comment discussed
the transfer of individually identifiable
health information and other
information not intended for public
disclosure. The commenter requested
that we clarify under what
circumstances such information would
need to be transmitted and how that
information would be safeguarded.
Response: Under normal
circumstances, neither CMS or an AO
would need to transfer individuallyidentifiable personal health information
from one location to another. If,
however, we need such information for
investigational purposes it would either
be transmitted via securely or deidentified prior to transmission.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on the requirement that the
AO notify Medicare of accreditation
decisions to be intended for only those
imaging suppliers that bill Medicare.
Response: We will provide that
clarification. The requirement that the
AO notify Medicare is only required for
those suppliers billing Medicare.
Comment: Regarding the complaint
reporting process, one suggested that the
rule was not clear if the complaints that
were to be reported were with respect to
the AO or to the TC supplier being
accredited. Another commenter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
suggested that we specify the frequency
with which we expected accrediting
organizations to report complaints about
suppliers. The commenter also
suggested that we specify the types of
complaints about suppliers that would
be subject to the reporting requirement.
The commenter suggested that such
conditions include: poor image quality,
injury or harm from equipment, falsely
claiming to be accredited, unqualified
personnel, submission of false or
misleading accreditation information.
One commenter suggested that we
change from 2 calendar days to 2
business days the proposed requirement
that an AO notify CMS when it finds
deficiencies in a TC supplier that pose
an immediate jeopardy to the health and
safety of patients receiving services from
such supplier. One commenter also
requested clarification of what was
meant by ‘‘appropriate licensing
bodies,’’ since there are specific State
departments that control these entities.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that we needed to clarify the
applicability of the complaint reporting
requirement. Therefore, we are
clarifying in this final rule that the
complaint process is applicable to any
complaints that come from any source
against an accredited supplier. We also
agree that the reporting of complaints
about conditions that pose immediate
jeopardy to Medicare beneficiaries or
the general public should be reported to
CMS within 2 business days, because.
Therefore, we are also amending
§ 414.68(c)(12)(iii)(G) to state that an
approved AO will be required to notify
CMS within 2 business days of such
‘‘immediate jeopardy’’ situations.
Subsequent to the issuance of this rule,
we will issue subregulatory guidance
with respect to the frequency and types
of other reporting that are necessary. In
response to the commenter’s inquiry, we
are also noting that in the context of this
final rule, ‘‘Appropriate licensing body’’
means any regulatory body, including
State Radiation Control departments
and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Comment: Regarding circumstances in
which CMS might withdraw its
approval of an accrediting organization
(thus requiring suppliers accredited by
such organization to obtain new
accreditation), two commenters
suggested the final rule recognize that
CMS and the remaining AOs would
need to collaborate in order to distribute
such affected suppliers among other
accrediting organizations over a
reasonable time period.
Response: We agree. It certainly is our
expectation that any supplier transition
process of this sort would be
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61865
transparent, so that no disruption in
patient care would occur.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the proposal included hospitals in the
summary data from the CMS’ Services
Tracking and Reporting System. Since
the hospitals are not included in this
proposal, the commenter requested
reconfirmation that the provisions do
not apply to hospitals.
Response: In § 414.68(a), in
conformity with section 1834(e), we
state that the imaging accreditation
requirement applies only to suppliers of
the TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
services for which payment is made
under the physician fee schedule. Since
hospitals generally are not paid
pursuant to such schedule, this
accreditation rule is inapplicable.
Hospitals, including their inpatient
radiology departments, are accredited
under 42 CFR part 488.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that instead of notifying CMS of all
revisions to their accreditation
requirements, standards and policies, as
set out at proposed § 414.68(c)(12)(iii)(E)
and § 414.68(d)(1)(v), accrediting
organizations notify CMS only of major
revisions to their respective
accreditation standards or requirements
or survey processes. In this context,
‘‘major’’ would be defined as ‘‘changes
having potential impact on the
supplier’s ability to maintain
compliance with the standards or
application process.’’
Response: We agree; we will clarify
our language to indicate that ‘‘major
changes’’ mean only significant changes
from what CMS approved in the AO’s
initial approved application.
Comment: Several commenters had
questions about the proposed CMS
audits of AOs. The commenters would
like to have more information about the
procedures that CMS surveyors would
use. The commenters also stated that the
meaning of the ‘‘10 percent disparity
rate’’ was not clear. One commenter
asked that we clarify who would bear
the cost for a validation survey, what
specific information would be collected
in such surveys, and what percentage of
sites would be surveyed.
Response: We will provide
information on those specific
procedures and criteria as they are
developed. The 10 percent disparity rate
is meant to be that of a single survey
since it is important to CMS that each
supplier is furnishing all of the
standards as intended in a quality
manner. CMS pays for these validation
surveys.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on how CMS would
determine whether an AO was capable
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61866
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of making ‘‘timely reviews’’ under
proposed § 414.68(c)(6)(ii).
Response: We would consider an AO
to be making timely reviews of
suppliers’ applications if the accrediting
organization presented evidence that it
could conduct such reviews in an
orderly manner, and that all suppliers’
applications would be judged uniformly
and fairly, while still meeting the
January 1, 2012 statutory deadline.
Comment: Two commenters asked
about how AOs would prioritize
suppliers in order to meet the January
1, 2012 deadline. The commenters
believe that this practice would mean
that some suppliers would have a
preferential priority. The commenter
believes that application processing
order should instead be based upon the
date the supplier submits its application
to the accrediting organization. The
commenters went on to state that CMS
should inform suppliers of the
application requirements so that all
suppliers can be accredited by the
January 1, 2012 deadline.
Response: While we agree with the
commenters regarding education of all
suppliers, we believe that the intent of
the statute was that beneficiary services
not be affected by any supplier not
having the opportunity to meet all of the
accreditation requirements. We will give
guidance to the designated AOs so that
there is a timely review of all existing
suppliers.
Comment: Two commenters
expressed concern over how new
suppliers after January 1, 2012 would be
able to bill for the TC of advanced
imaging if they had not yet been
accredited. One commenter wanted
CMS to continue to allow those new
suppliers the ability to bill up to nine
months after January 1, 2012, as long as
the new supplier was undergoing part of
the accreditation process or received a
provisional accreditation.
Response: We do not have the
statutory authority to extend the billing
privileges past the statutory deadline of
January 1, 2012. We believe that there
will not be any disruption to beneficiary
services, as there are sufficient existing
suppliers to furnish the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification regarding the treatment of
suppliers accredited prior to January 1,
2012 as meeting the statutory
requirements for accreditation. The
commenter stated that the proposed rule
could be interpreted to mean that any
supplier accredited at any time prior to
January 1, 2010 would be considered
accredited regardless of their current
status which could include their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
accreditation having previously expired,
been revoked, or denied.
Response: Only those suppliers that
have a current, unexpired accreditation
as of January 1, 2012 will be deemed
grandfathered with respect to the
January 1, 2012 requirement.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS require that AOs report not
only revoked, withdrawn or revised
accreditation decisions, but also include
those accreditations that have expired,
closed, or ceased providing that
modality. The commenter suggested that
this report be in an Excel file format and
on a daily basis. The commenter also
stated that if CMS reviewed copies of all
survey materials and corrective action it
would overwhelm the agency.
Response: We will require all
accreditation decisions to be reported,
including revocation and expiration of
accreditation. We will require the
accrediting organizations to include in
their ongoing data the accreditation
status of all of their suppliers, which
includes the effective expiration dates
and any changes to that accreditation
status. We generally will not review
individual suppliers’ survey reports or
corrective action plans unless there is a
particular reason for us to do so. We
will consider the most effective method
of data collection.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS require a supplier to inform its
AO if it ceases providing advanced
diagnostic imaging services; to arrange
transfer of each patient’s medical record
to a subsequent receiving supplier; to
provide information to patients on how
they can obtain their personal medical
records; and to comply with any State
or local requirements for such a record
transfer.
Response: We agree with the
commenter and are taking the
suggestion. We will require a supplier to
assist beneficiaries or their legal
representative, in obtaining their
records if requested, and notify the
supplier’s AO of any changes to the
modalities being furnished at the time
the accreditation decision is made.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS clarify whether the orientation
and in-service requirements in the
proposed rule relate to the supplier or
the AO. The commenter suggested that
CMS should require AOs to direct the
orientation and in-service programs
toward image quality reviewers and on
site surveyors.
Response: We will be reviewing all
proposals to make certain that all
approved AOs have robust orientation
and in-service programs. Those
programs should standardize the
supplier review process and produce
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consistent quality surveys in both desk
reviews and site surveys.
Comment: Regarding the annual
summary data specified by CMS, one
commenter suggested the data include
the total number of sites and units
applied and accredited; pass/fail rates
by modality; results of any appeals by
modality; number and reasons for any
suspensions/revocations of
accreditation overall and by modality;
number and summary results of on-site
surveys over and by category (random,
scheduled, targeted and validation);
surveyor resources available; any new
surveyor training and summary of all
complaints overall and by modality,
including category and resolution.
Response: We will work with the
designated AOs to develop annual
reports that meet the needs of our
stakeholders and the general public.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS needs to develop a system for
communicating the supplier’s
accreditation status to the Medicare
contractors so that there are no claims
denial errors. The commenter suggested
the system to be updated on a daily
basis. The commenter also suggested
CMS institute a vigorous training
program for local contractor staff.
Response: We will look into the
necessity and feasibility of daily feeds to
the contractor. Since CMS already has a
comprehensive education program for
our contractors, we will use the existing
methods for educating all of our
contractor staffs.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification regarding what format CMS
is proposing to require when AOs
provide information to CMS.
Response: We intend the written
format to be via electronic submission
in most cases. In those cases where
Protected Health Information (PHI)
needs to be transmitted by the AO, data
files will be encrypted.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, instead of CMS instituting a formal
re-application process for AOs, CMS
could renew an AO’s deeming authority
on the basis of good standing. CMS
could consider the AO’s annual report,
any validation survey findings, and
other ongoing compliance instead of
requiring a formal reapplication process.
If CMS decided that a formal
reapplication process were to be
retained, the commenter suggested that
CMS follow the precedent set by the
Mammography Quality Standards Act
(MQSA) for their approved accrediting
bodies and set a seven year interval.
Response: We may consider such a
suggestion. We do not believe that we
would need to publish proposed
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rulemaking in order to implement a
formal re-application process.
Comment: One commenter asked
CMS to clarify whether suppliers would
still need to renew their accreditations
under the timeframes of their designated
AOs from January 1, 2010 to January 1,
2012.
Response: An accredited supplier
would still need to renew its
accreditation pursuant to the timeframe
of its designated AO between January 1,
2010 and January 1, 2012. We believe it
was the Congress’ intent under section
1834(e)(5) of the Act that all suppliers
accredited before January 1, 2010 by an
accreditation organization designated on
that date, be ‘‘grandfathered’’ with
respect to the effectiveness of their
accreditations. In other words, a
supplier accredited by a designated AO
as of January 1, 2010 would not need to
be reaccredited subsequent to the AO’s
designation by CMS until the supplier’s
term of accreditation expired. However,
this does not mean that a supplier can
let its accreditation lapse between 2010
and 2012. Once a reaccreditation
deadline has passed without
reaccreditation, the supplier would no
longer be considered accredited.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS needs to consider the
administrative time involved in
obtaining precertification for
Computerized Tomography (CT) of the
head, ear, and maxilla facial area when
determining the cost of these services.
The technician’s time involved in
performing daily quality control testing
to satisfy quality assurance
requirements for accreditation and the
physician time spent in quality
assurance committee meetings to
evaluate the images and reports has
greatly increased the cost of providing
in-office CT imaging. Another
commenter stated that operating a
certified imaging laboratory with
methodology and protocols to the
highest standards translates into
increased costs for each study.
Response: Based on supplier
interviews, maintaining the
accreditation requirement has resulted
in suppliers having opportunities to
work more efficiently and effectively,
thereby reducing the overall
administrative costs per hour.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the anticipated impact of
implementation of accreditation
standards for suppliers of the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging on family
physicians would be minimal. The
commenter supported the proposed
accreditation requirements.
Response: We thank the commenters
for the comment.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS revise the supervision level
requirement for certain CPT codes when
these services are performed with
assistance by the Registered Radiologist
Assistant.
Response: We appreciate the
information provided by the
commenters as it will assist in
understanding the role these individuals
play in the provision of imaging
services.
f. Other Issues for Consideration
In the proposed rule, we solicited
information on the role of radiology
assistants (RA) and radiology
practitioner assistants (RPA), including
the level of physician supervision that
would be appropriate when RAs and
RPAs are involved in the performance of
the TC of advanced medical imaging,
whether the role varies by State, and
related information.
Comment: Commenters provided
information concerning information on
the role of radiology assistants and
radiology practitioner assistants in the
performance of the TC of advanced
medical imaging in response to our
request.
Response: We appreciate the
information provided by the
commenters as it will assist in
understanding the role these individuals
play in the provision of imaging
services.
g. Provisions of the Final Rule
After reviewing the public comments,
we are finalizing the accreditation
provisions of the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule as follows:
• Clarifying that the—
++ Medical directors and supervising
physicians are equivalent positions;
++ Equipment used by the supplier
must performance specifications;
++ AOs may maintain or adopt
standards that are more stringent than
those of Medicare;
++ The AOs are required to notify
Medicare of the accreditation decision
of those suppliers billing Medicare
++ Accreditation requirement does
not apply to hospitals; and
++ AO only needs to notify CMS for
significant changes from what was
approved on the AO’s initial approved
application.
• Including a requirement that a
supplier must assist the beneficiary in
obtaining his/her medical records if he/
she requests.
• Including a requirement that the
supplier must notify the AO of any
subsequent changes to the modalities
being offered since the accreditation
decision was made.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61867
• Clarifying that AOs must respond to
complaints from any source with
respect to an accredited supplier.
• Changing the regulations text to
require that an AO notify CMS of any
supplier deficiency putting Medicare
beneficiaries in immediate jeopardy
within 2 business days (previously 2
calendar days).
• Confirming that when a designated
accrediting organization has its deeming
authority withdrawn, CMS and the
remaining AOs will work together in a
collaborative effort to distribute
suppliers affected by such withdrawal
amongst other accreditations
organizations within a reasonable time
period.
7. Section 139: Improvements for
Medicare Anesthesia Teaching Programs
Section 139 of the MIPPA establishes
a special payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists and provides a
directive to the Secretary regarding
payments for the services of teaching
certified registered nurse anesthetists
(teaching CRNAs). It also specifies the
periods when the teaching
anesthesiologist must be present during
the procedure in order to receive
payment for the case at 100 percent of
the fee schedule amount (the regular fee
schedule rate). These provisions are
effective for services furnished on or
after January 1, 2010.
a. Teaching Anesthesiologists: Special
Payment Rule
The criteria for the payment of
teaching anesthesiology services and the
special rule for the teaching
anesthesiologist are similar to the
current criteria for payment of teaching
surgeon services and the payment rule
for the teaching surgeon involved in
overlapping resident cases. Thus, there
is a similarity in the payment rules for
these physician specialties who work
closely together.
(1) Payment for Anesthesia Services
Furnished by a Physician
Currently, if the physician, usually an
anesthesiologist, is involved in
furnishing anesthesia services to a
patient, the services can be furnished
under one of three different scenarios.
The anesthesiologist may—
• Personally perform the anesthesia
services alone;
• Be involved in the case as a
teaching anesthesiologist with an
anesthesia resident; or
• Provide medical direction of the
performance of anesthesia services for
two, three or four concurrent cases
involving a qualified individual (who
may be a CRNA, an anesthesiologist
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61868
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
assistant (AA), an anesthesia resident, or
a student nurse anesthetist under
certain circumstances).
Under the statute and CMS policy, if
the anesthesiologist personally performs
the anesthesia service alone or is
involved in the case as a teaching
anesthesiologist with an anesthesia
resident, payment for the
anesthesiologist’s service is made at the
regular fee schedule rate.
If the anesthesiologist furnishes
medical direction for two, three, or four
concurrent anesthesia procedures, then
payment for the anesthesiologist’s
service is made, in accordance with
section 1848(a)(4)(B) of the Act, at 50
percent of the otherwise applicable fee
schedule amount.
(2) Methodology for Payment of
Anesthesia Services
Payment for anesthesia services
furnished by a physician is made under
the PFS under section 1848(b)(2)(B) of
the Act. The methodology for the
calculation of the allowable amount is
unique to anesthesia services only.
Payment is made on the basis of
anesthesia base units and time units,
calculated from the actual anesthesia
time of the case, instead of on the basis
of work, PE, and malpractice RVUs. The
base unit reflects all activities other than
anesthesia time and includes usual
preoperative and postoperative visits,
the administration of fluids, and blood
incident to anesthesia care and
monitoring services. Payment for
anesthesia services is also based on the
anesthesia CF instead of the general PFS
CF.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(3) Section 139(a) of the MIPPA
Section 139(a) of the MIPPA adds a
new paragraph at section 1848(a)(6) of
the Act to establish a ‘‘special payment
rule for teaching anesthesiologists’’.
This provision allows payment to be
made at the regular fee schedule rate for
the teaching anesthesiologist’s
involvement in the training of residents
in either a single anesthesia case or in
two concurrent anesthesia cases
furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
(4) Discussion
The Accreditation Council on
Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)
is a branch of the AMA, and it accredits
allopathic residency programs. In order
for a hospital to receive Medicare
graduate medical education payments
for its training programs, the residents
must be in an ‘‘approved medical
residency program’’ Under § 413.75(b),
an approved medical residency program
is one approved by one of the national
organizations listed in § 415.152. One of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the national organizations is the
ACGME.
ACGME’s policies and procedures
require that each accredited residency
program comply with the institutional
requirements and the specialty program
requirements. For approved anesthesia
residency programs, ACGME
requirements for faculty supervision
and training of anesthesia residents
specify that a faculty member not direct
anesthesia at more than two
anesthetizing locations in the clinical
setting. (See the ACGME Web site at
https://www.acgme.org.)
Consistent with this requirement, the
American Society of Anesthesiologists
(ASA) has advised us that, when
providing services in two concurrent
cases, a teaching anesthesiologist might
be engaged in two concurrent anesthesia
resident cases, or in two mixed
concurrent cases, one a resident case
and the other a CRNA or AA case.
The statute applies the special
payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists to the single resident
case or two concurrent cases involving
anesthesia residents as long as the
teaching anesthesiologist meets the
requirements in sections 1848(6)((A)
and 1848(6)(B) of the Act. However, the
statute does not directly address a single
resident case that is concurrent to
another case involving a CRNA, AA, or
other qualified individual who can be
medically directed. The issue is whether
the medical direction payment rules
apply to each of these cases or whether
an alternative payment policy may
apply.
As an alternative to applying the
medical direction payment rules to the
concurrent mixed cases, we proposed to
apply the payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists to the resident case
that is concurrent to another case which
is paid under the medical direction
payment rules. While this represents a
broader interpretation, it still limits the
applicability of the special payment rule
for teaching anesthesiologists to resident
cases consistent with the terms of
section 139 of the MIPPA. (See 74 FR
33603 for a more detailed discussion of
this option.)
Accordingly, we proposed to delete
the current regulatory language at
§ 414.46(e) (which is no longer relevant)
and add new language to specify that
the special payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists applies to resident
cases under the following scenarios:
• The teaching anesthesiologist is
involved in one resident case (which is
not concurrent to any other anesthesia
case);
• The teaching anesthesiologist is
involved in each of two concurrent
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resident cases (which are not concurrent
to any other anesthesia case); or
• The teaching anesthesiologist is
involved in one resident case that is
concurrent to another case paid under
medical direction payment rules.
Other than the application of the
special payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists in the mixed
concurrent case described above, we did
not propose any other revisions to our
medical direction payment policies.
Comment: Commenters supported our
interpretation of section 139 of the
MIPPA that allows the special payment
rule for teaching anesthesiologist to
apply if the teaching anesthesiologist is
involved in one resident physician case
that is concurrent to another case paid
under the medical direction payment
rules.
Response: We believe this
interpretation is consistent with the
statute and the ACGMS requirements
that allow no more than two residents
to be supervised concurrently. Our
policy would allow the special teaching
rule to apply in mixed concurrent cases,
that is, the single resident case that is
concurrent to another case not involving
a resident that is paid under our
medical direction payment rules. We are
revising § 414.46 in this final rule with
comment period as proposed.
Comment: Some commenters asked if
there will be new claims service
modifiers created for the teaching
anesthesiologist or whether teaching
anesthesiologists would continue to us
the ‘‘AA’’ service modifier. They also
asked if the ‘‘GC’’ modifier would
continue to be used for physician
supervision of resident cases.
Response: At this time, we are not
creating a new claims service modifier
for teaching anesthesiologists, but will
inform teaching anesthesiologists to
continue to use the ‘‘AA’’ modifier if
they qualify as the teaching
anesthesiologist under the three specific
scenarios discussed above. The teaching
anesthesiologist should also continue to
use the ‘‘GC’’ certification modifier. (See
Internet Only Manual (IOM) Medicare
Claims Processing Manual Chapter 12,
Section 50 K., titled Anesthesia Claims
Modifiers. This can be found at
www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals.)
b. Teaching Anesthesiologists: Criteria
for Payment
(1) Criteria for Payment of Teaching
Anesthesiologists
As part of the special payment rule
established for teaching
anesthesiologists, the statute requires
that the teaching anesthesiologist is
present during all key or critical
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
portions of the anesthesia procedure
involved. In addition, the teaching
anesthesiologist (or another
anesthesiologist with whom the
teaching anesthesiologist has entered
into an arrangement) must be
immediately available to furnish
anesthesia services during the entire
procedure.
In the proposed rule, we discussed
two options for implement this
provision. One option would allow
different teaching anesthesiologists in
the same anesthesia group practice to be
considered the ‘‘teaching physician’’ for
purposes of being present at the key or
critical portions of the anesthesia
procedure. This option would permit a
teaching anesthesiologist to handoff a
key or critical portion of the anesthesia
procedure to another teaching
anesthesiologist as long as the other
anesthesiologist is a member of the same
group. Another option presented was to
require that only one teaching
anesthesiologist must be present during
all of the key or critical portions of the
procedure, which would effectively
permit no handoffs. We proposed to
more narrowly interpret the law and
require that only one individual
teaching anesthesiologist be present
during all of the key or critical portions
of the anesthesia procedure.
Anesthesiologists, including the ASA,
have advised us that it may be common
for different members of a teaching
anesthesia group to provide the
anesthesia service instead of a single
teaching anesthesiologist. In the
proposed rule, we solicited comments
on how continuity of care and the
quality of anesthesia care are preserved
during handoffs, whether there is an
accepted maximum number of handoffs,
any industry studies that have examined
this issue, what factors contribute to
handoffs, and whether there are
anesthesia practices that do not use
handoffs. A handoff refers to any
transfer of care for any period or a
terminal transfer between two
anesthesia providers during a single
anesthesia case.
Comment: The ASA and many of its
members stated the reasons for handoffs
and their presumed benefits. In general,
the commenters remarked that handoffs
can improve the efficiency of operating
rooms, permit teaching anesthesiologists
to use their specialized skills to teach
anesthesia residents in certain cases,
prevent physician fatigue and error, and
improve quality and patient safety.
Several medical organizations
objected to our proposal and
recommended that we implement the
alternative proposal in the proposed
rule to permit different anesthesiologists
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
in the same anesthesia group practice to
be considered the teaching
anesthesiologist for purposes of being
present at the key or critical periods of
the anesthesia case.
Some commenters discussed handoffs
in general and did not specifically tie
their comments regarding handoffs to a
key or critical period of the teaching
anesthesia service.
Some commenters cited a 1982 study
in the Journal of Anesthesiology
(56:456–461), titled ‘‘Critical Incidents
Associated with Intraoperative
Exchanges of Anesthesia Personnel’’.
This article examined anesthesia
practices from four hospitals in Boston,
two of which were teaching hospitals.
The study examined 1,089 reports of
preventable errors and failures
associated with anesthesia management.
In 28 incidents, the relief anesthesia
provider in the handoff discovered an
error or cause of an error. Although 70
of the 1089 were associated with
substantive negative outcomes, none of
these incidents were caused by a
relieving anesthetist related to a
handoff.
The study noted that ‘‘there is a strong
implication that relief is beneficial more
often than not even aside from the
presumed beneficial effect on the
vigilance of the primary anesthetists.’’
The study further noted that from the
descriptions of the causes and
discoveries of errors in these reliefrelated incidents, guidance can be
drawn for the safe and effective conduct
of the intraoperative exchange of
anesthesia personnel. This article
referred to substitutions for short breaks
during long surgical procedures. It did
not specify whether any of these
substitutions took place during key or
critical periods of the teaching case.
Based on its study of relief-associated
events, the authors suggested the
adoption of specific handoff protocols
and communication processes to reduce
errors. This protocol would address
such factors as familiarity with the
status of the patient, progress of the
surgical procedure, trends in the
anesthetic course, significant medical
history, anesthesia plan, and
arrangement of equipment, apparatus,
drugs, and fluids. This is the only study
on handoffs that commenters presented.
In its comments, the ASA described
the ‘‘SBAR’’ protocol, or a variation of
it, as the handoff procedure most widely
taught and used in anesthesia practices,
both academic and private. The SBAR
protocol gives physicians a format to
follow when initiating handoffs. SBAR
is an acronym used to describe four
basic requirements for transfer of patient
care:
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61869
S = Situations: State what is going on
with the patient, the type of procedure
and when it started
B = Background: Explain clinical
background leading up to the situation,
including medical history, medications,
allergies, anesthetic management
(including drugs, fluids, and blood loss,
etc.)
A = Assessment: Provide an
assessment of the current state of the
patient and describe what problems, if
any, you think exist.
R = Recommendation: Recommend
what you think needs to be done.
According to the ASA, some
anesthesia departments have defined
written protocols that they follow for
handoffs, but many do not because the
fundamentals of the handoff process are
part of the skill set that is believed to
be taught and practiced by all teaching
anesthesiologists.
The ASA simply expressed the
opinion that the appropriate timing of a
handoff is a decision best left to the
physicians responsible for the care of
the patient. The ASA also stated that to
raise the issue of quality in anesthesia
handoffs where no issue or evidence
exists exceeds CMS’s authority in
implementing section 139 of the MIPPA.
The ASA is supportive of an approach
where its members use their judgment
to decide when to use handoffs and the
necessary information exchanged. The
ASA recommended that we implement
the payment provision only and leave
any issues involving handoffs
unexamined.
Response: Despite the existence of the
SBAR protocol, it is unclear to what
extent teaching hospitals have now
developed standardized tools,
checklists, clinical practice guidelines,
or other techniques to ensure the
appropriate exchange of information,
including the appropriate type and
content of anesthesia information, and
the assurance that optimum care occurs
during handoffs.
We identified two abstracts to be
presented to the ASA later this year that
present limited information on
handoffs. One study, ‘‘Transfer of
Anesthesia Care: Are We Hiding Bad
Outcomes?’’ by Vilma A. Joseph, M.D.,
M.P.H., Charles E. Kamen, B.A., Rhonda
D. Levine, M.D., Alla Krayman, M.S.,
and Robert S. Lagasse, M.D. This study
showed that of 1740 anesthesia cases
without a transfer of care, there were 12
recorded adverse outcomes, while there
were zero adverse outcomes in the 132
cases where there was a transfer of care.
The other study is: ‘‘Evaluating Safety of
Handoffs between Anesthesia Care
Providers’’ by Rhonda Leopold, M.D.,
Stuart Hart, M.D., Heather Scuderi
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61870
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Porter, B.A., and Neil Giovanni, M.D.’’.
This study pointed out that there are not
many tools available for anesthesia care
providers to ensure that the transfer of
care occurs without error. In 70
completed surveys involving the
transfer of care, 34 percent of anesthesia
care providers found the current
handoff process to be inadequate. The
majority did believe that
standardization of the process would
improve patient care.
There appears to be a limited amount
of research on handoffs, and a lack of a
detailed, industry-defined process on
their use. Commenters did not report
widespread use of written protocols by
academic facilities.
As noted previously, we think the
teaching anesthesiologist payment
policy in section 139 of the MIPPA and
the handoff issues are separate, but
related issues. The handoff issue is a
quality of care issue not directly
addressed in section 139 of the MIPPA.
Therefore, we are implementing the
payment provision of section 139 but
not finalizing a formal policy on
handoffs in this final rule. For future
rulemaking, we may consider working
with the industry to develop guidelines
on handoffs. These guidelines may,
among other things, address the content
and type of information exchanged
during handoffs and whether there
should be any limitations on the
number of handoffs permitted.
In response to comments, we believe
it is appropriate to implement this
payment provision consistent with
current teaching anesthesia practices
and handoff arrangements. Thus,
different anesthesiologists in the same
anesthesia group practice can be
considered the teaching physician for
purposes of the statutory requirement
that the teaching anesthesiologist be
present at the key or critical portions of
the anesthesia service. Of course, the
criteria for the presence of the teaching
physician would also be met if only one
teaching anesthesiologist was present
during the key or critical periods of the
anesthesia service.
We are revising § 415.178 to
incorporate our policy that allows either
a single teaching anesthesiologist or
different teaching anesthesiologists in
the same anesthesia group practice to be
considered the teaching physician for
purposes of being present at the key or
critical portions of the anesthesia
service.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
c. Teaching CRNAs
(1) Payment for Anesthesia Services
Furnished by a CRNA
Currently, a CRNA who provides
anesthesia services while under the
medical direction of an anesthesiologist
is paid at 50 percent of the regular fee
schedule rate as specified in section
1833(l)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act. A CRNA
who provides anesthesia services
without the medical direction of a
physician is paid the regular fee
schedule rate as specified in section
1833(l)(4)(A) of the Act.
(2) Payment for Anesthesia Services
Furnished by a Teaching CRNA With a
Student Nurse Anesthetist
The legislation that initially directed
CMS to establish the CRNA fee schedule
(that is, section 9320 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Pub.
L. 99–509)) did not address payment for
services furnished by teaching CRNAs
involved in the training of student nurse
anesthetists.
In the preamble to the CRNA fee
schedule final rule published in the July
31, 1992 Federal Register (57 FR
33888), we stated that we would pay the
teaching CRNA who is not medically
directed by a physician at the regular fee
schedule rate for his or her involvement
in a single case with a student nurse
anesthetist as long as he or she was
present with the student throughout the
anesthesia case. No payment would be
made if the teaching CRNA divided his
or her time between two concurrent
cases involving student nurse
anesthetists.
In August 2002, based on the
recommendations of the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists
(AANA), we modified our policy to
allow the teaching CRNA not medically
directed by a physician to be paid a
portion of the regular fee schedule rate
for each of two concurrent cases
involving student nurse anesthetists. If
the teaching CRNA is present with the
student nurse anesthetist during the preand post-anesthesia care for each of the
cases involving student nurse
anesthetists, the teaching CRNA can bill
the full base units (comprised of preand post-anesthesia services not
included in the anesthesia time units)
for each case and the actual amount of
anesthesia time per case. The resulting
payment for each of these anesthesia
cases is greater than 50 percent, but less
than 100 percent, of the regular fee
schedule amount because the full base
units plus the actual anesthesia time
units spent by the teaching CRNA in
each of the two cases yields a payment
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that is greater than 50 percent of the
regular fee schedule amount.
(3) Comparison of Payment Policies for
Teaching CRNAs and Teaching
Anesthesiologists
For several years, the ASA requested
that we revise our payment regulations
to allow the teaching anesthesiologist to
be paid the regular fee schedule amount
for each of two concurrent resident
cases. In the CY 2004 PFS final rule
with comment period (68 FR 63224), we
finalized a policy to permit the teaching
anesthesiologist to be paid similarly to
a teaching CRNA for each of two
concurrent resident cases. This policy
took effect for services furnished on or
after January 1, 2005.
Thus, the payment policy is the same
for a teaching CRNA for each of two
concurrent student nurse anesthetist
cases, and for a teaching
anesthesiologist for each of two
concurrent resident cases. The policy is
that the anesthesia provider is paid the
full base units plus time units, based on
the actual anesthesia time, relating to
each of two concurrent cases.
(4) Payment Policy for an
Anesthesiologist, or an Anesthesiologist
and CRNA jointly, With a Student Nurse
Anesthetist
Currently, there are circumstances
where an anesthesiologist may be
involved in the training of student nurse
anesthetists in two concurrent
anesthesia cases. These anesthesia cases
are not paid under the teaching
anesthesiologist payment policy, but are
paid under the usual medical direction
payment policy. Payment can be made
for the physician’s medical direction
(that is, 50 percent of the regular fee
schedule amount) for each of two
concurrent cases.
If an anesthesiologist is medically
directing two concurrent cases
involving student nurse anesthetists and
a CRNA is also jointly involved with the
two student nurse anesthetist cases,
then the physician service, in each case,
can be paid under the medical direction
rules at 50 percent of the regular fee
schedule. Payment for the CRNA
services would also be made at the
medically directed rate (that is, 50
percent of the regular fee schedule) for
CRNA services, but the time units used
to compute the anesthesia fee would be
based on the actual time the CRNA is
involved in each case.
(5) Section 139(b) of the MIPPA
Section 139(b) of the MIPPA instructs
the Secretary to make appropriate
adjustments to Medicare teaching CRNA
payment policy so that it—
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
• Is consistent with the adjustments
made by the special payment rule for
teaching anesthesiologists under section
139(a) of the MIPPA; and
• Maintains the existing payment
differences between teaching
anesthesiologists and teaching CRNAs.
We proposed to implement the first
directive (under section 139(b)(1) of the
MIPPA) by establishing a new payment
policy for teaching CRNAs that is
similar to the special payment rule for
teaching anesthesiologists, and to limit
applicability of the rule to teaching
CRNAs who are not medically directed.
We proposed to add a new regulation at
§ 414.61 to explain the conditions under
which the special payment rule will
apply and the method for calculating
the amount of payment for anesthesia
services furnished on or after January 1,
2010, by teaching CRNAs involved in
the training of student nurse
anesthetists. As proposed, we would
pay the teaching CRNA at the regular fee
schedule rate for each of two concurrent
student nurse anesthetist cases. Our
medical direction payment policy
would continue to apply if both an
anesthesiologist and a CRNA are
involved in a student nurse anesthetist
case that is concurrent to another
medically directed anesthesia case.
We believe the second directive in
section 139(b)(2) of the MIPPA will be
satisfied as a result of these proposals.
Section 139(b)(1) of the MIPPA instructs
CMS to make appropriate adjustments
to implement a payment policy for
teaching CRNAs that is consistent with
the special payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologists. Section 139(b)(2) of
the MIPPA instructs CMS to maintain
the existing payment differences
between teaching anesthesiologists and
teaching CRNAs. There currently are no
substantive differences in payment
between teaching anesthesiologists and
teaching CRNAs, and there would
continue to be no such differences
under our proposed policies.
Payment for Teaching CRNAs Involved
in Anesthesia Cases With Student Nurse
Anesthetists
Under current policy, when a CRNA
is involved in a single student nurse
anesthetist case, the teaching CRNA can
be paid at the regular fee schedule rate
if the teaching CRNA is present with the
student for the pre- and post anesthesia
services included in the base units and
is continuously present during the
anesthesia time of the case. We did not
propose any change to this policy.
When the teaching CRNA is involved
in two concurrent student nurse
anesthetist cases, payment is based on
the amount of anesthesia time the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
teaching CRNA spends with the student
in each case. For example, as noted in
the proposed rule, if the teaching CRNA
spends 40 percent of his or her time in
concurrent case #1 and 60 percent of his
or her time in concurrent case #2, and
the total anesthesia time in both cases
is 3 hours (or 180 minutes), then we
would currently pay as follows:
• Case #1: (Base units + (0.4 × 180/
15)) × Anesthesia CF
• Case #2: (Base units + (0.6 × 180/
15)) × Anesthesia CF
(The base units are explained earlier
in section on general anesthesiology
payment methodology.)
The current payment policy has been
predicated on paying the teaching
CRNA for his or her actual time spent
in the student nurse anesthetist case. In
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed to pay the teaching CRNA at
the regular fee schedule rate for his or
her involvement in two concurrent
cases. To bill the base units for each
concurrent case, the teaching CRNA
must be present with the student nurse
anesthetist during the pre and post
anesthesia services included in the
anesthesia base units.
If our goal is to minimize the effect of
this change on teaching CRNAs’ practice
arrangements and time devoted to cases,
then, as proposed, the teaching CRNA
would continue to devote his or her
time to the two concurrent anesthesia
cases and not be involved in other
services. The teaching CRNA would
decide how to allocate his or her time
to optimize patient care in the two cases
based on the complexity of the
anesthesia case, the experience and
skills of the student nurse anesthetist,
the patient’s health status, and other
factors.
We note that the Congress did not
amend the statutory provisions relating
to medical direction at section
1848(a)(4) of the Act. We do not believe
the directives at section 139(b) of the
MIPPA extend to other arrangements in
which an anesthesiologist alone or both
an anesthesiologist and CRNA together
jointly supervise student nurse
anesthetists during concurrent
anesthesia cases. Therefore, we did not
propose any changes to our current
payment policies for anesthesia services
furnished under other circumstances.
We proposed that when an anesthesia
provider (physician or CRNA) furnishes
anesthesia services in concurrent cases
under other circumstances, the current
policies regarding medical direction
will continue to apply.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding section
139 of the MIPPA and teaching CRNAs.
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61871
Comment: Commenters supported the
proposal to allow teaching CRNAs who
are concurrently teaching two student
nurse anesthetists to be able to bill the
regular fee schedule rate for each
anesthesia case involving the student
nurse anesthetist. The commenters
indicated this change is consistent with
the adjustment made under section 139
of the MIPPA for teaching
anesthesiologists involved in two
concurrent resident cases.
Response: We are adopting our
proposal that the teaching CRNA can be
paid the full fee for his or her
involvement in each of two concurrent
cases involving student nurse
anesthetists. While we are adopting this
policy, we are concerned that it did not
specifically address the availability of
another anesthesia provider for the
periods of concurrency for student
nurse anesthetists. (In the case of
teaching anesthesiologists and residents,
section 139 specifically requires that the
teaching anesthesiologist or another
anesthesiologist with whom the
teaching anesthesiologist has an
arrangement is immediately available to
furnish anesthesia services during the
entire procedure.)
Subsequent to issuing the proposed
rule and receiving comments, we
learned more about the supervision
requirements for student nurse
anesthetists. According to the AANA,
the standards of the Council on
Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia
Programs address supervision of student
nurse anesthetists in anesthesia cases.
These standards require that in any case
involving a student nurse anesthetist,
including concurrent cases, a qualified
anesthesia provider (CRNA or
anesthesiologist) must be present and
immediately available in the
anesthetizing locations.
Furthermore, according to these
standards, the qualified individual must
be physically present in the area and
immediately available for the student to
summon for clinical assistance should it
be required. As a result, if one teaching
CRNA were temporarily occupied,
another qualified anesthetist would
respond.
Based on information received and in
response to comments, we are requiring
that the teaching CRNA be present
during the case with the student nurse
anesthetist. For periods of concurrency
for two student nurse anesthetist cases,
we are requiring that another anesthesia
provider is available and can fulfill the
requirements of the AANA standards.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we establish the same
policy specified in section 139(a) of the
MIPPA for teaching anesthesiologists
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61872
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
involved in two concurrent resident
cases for situations where an
anesthesiologist medically directs two
concurrent student nurse anesthetists
cases. The commenters stated that this
would establish payment equity
between teaching anesthesiologists and
teaching CRNAs and not encourage
anesthesiologists to select residents over
student nurse anesthetists where the
hospital has both types of anesthesia
providers.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concern and agree that
their proposal would establish parity of
payment in certain respects. However,
in the proposed rule, we noted that the
Congress did not amend the statutory
provision relating to medical direction
at section 1848(a)(4) of the Act. We do
not believe the directives at section
139(b) of the MIPPA extend to
arrangements in which anesthesiologists
supervise two student nurse anesthetists
during concurrent cases. While the
anesthesiologist may engage in a
teaching situation with a student nurse
anesthetist, this does not constitute a
teaching anesthesiologist relationship as
conceived in the statute. The term
‘‘teaching anesthesiologist’’ as used in
the Medicare statute refers to a teaching
physician involved with a physician
resident. Therefore, we will maintain
our current policy that when an
anesthesiologist is involved in two
concurrent cases with student nurse
anesthetists, the medical direction rules
will apply.
Additionally, if we were to consider
paying each student nurse anesthetist
case at the regular fee schedule amount,
it would be unclear what payment
criteria would apply for the physician
service. The teaching anesthesiologist
criteria in section 139(a) of the MIPPA
apply only to physician resident cases
and not to student nurse anesthetist
cases. It also does not seem appropriate
to pay the regular fee schedule rate if
the services fall within the terms of the
statutory provision addressing medical
direction under which the
anesthesiologist is paid at 50 percent of
the regular fee schedule rate. Therefore,
we believe the most appropriate course
is to maintain our current policy.
Comment: Commenters also requested
that, in medical direction cases where
there are two concurrent student nurse
anesthetists directed by the
anesthesiologist and one CRNA covering
both student nurse anesthetist cases,
that each medically directed CRNA
service be paid at the usual medically
directed rate or 50 percent of the
anesthesia fee schedule.
Response: We make payment at 50
percent of the regular fee schedule
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
amount for the physician who is
medically directing the CRNA. We also
make payment at 50 percent of the
regular fee schedule amount for the
service of the CRNA who is involved
continuously with the patient in the
administration of the anesthesia service.
In the anesthesia scenario described in
the comment, the student nurse
anesthetist can be medically directed
but payment cannot be made for the
student nurse anesthetist service
because he or she is not a qualified
CRNA. If the CRNA is involved in two
concurrent cases with the student nurse
anesthetist, then we do not believe it
would be reasonable to pay the usual
medical direction fee for the CRNA
service because the CRNA is not with
the student throughout the case. We are
finalizing the policy we proposed that
the payment for the CRNA service
would be made under the medical
direction rules at 50 percent of the
regular fee schedule amount, but that
the time units used to compute the
anesthesia fee would be based on the
actual time the CRNA is involved in the
case.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS provide parallel rules for
payment involving handoffs for all
anesthesia providers, both teaching
anesthesiologists and teaching CRNAs.
Specifically, the commenter requested
that CMS define anesthesia handoffs as
the responsibility for care clearly
transferred from one qualified
anesthesia provider to the next; that
handoffs are allowed for all portions of
an anesthesia case; and that CRNAs be
treated equitably as anesthesiologists.
Response: We addressed handoffs for
teaching anesthesiologists in
conjunction with our interpretation of
the specific provision in section 139 of
the MIPPA for coverage of teaching
anesthesiologists with residents. We did
not address handoff rules for teaching
CRNAs. Because we made no proposal
on this subject, we are not
implementing the commenters’
suggestion at this time.
Comment: A commenter requested
that we establish a different payment
modifier for teaching CRNAs to use for
billing purposes when teaching student
nurse anesthetists in single or
concurrent cases. Currently, teaching
CRNAs bill these services using the
‘‘QZ’’ modifier which is the same
modifier they would use if they
furnished the service alone. A new
payment modifier would allow for
differentiation in the claims processing
system between the non-medically
directed CRNA cases with student nurse
anesthetists and those without the
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
involvement of student nurse
anesthetists.
Response: For the present, we will
continue to use the existing claims
modifier but will give consideration to
whether a different modifier is needed
to distinguish teaching CRNA cases
from cases performed by a CRNA alone.
Comment: A commenter asked if the
anesthesia teaching rules apply to an
anesthesiologist assistant (AA). The
services of AAs can be paid under the
CRNA medical direction payment rules,
but AAs must work under the
supervision of an anesthesiologist.
Response: Our proposal applies only
to teaching CRNAs who supervise
student nurse anesthetists or to an
anesthesiologist who provides medical
direction for two concurrent cases
involving student nurse anesthetists. It
does not apply to AAs.
8. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients with Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions—Cardiac
Rehabilitation Services
Section 144(a) of the MIPPA amended
Title XVIII of the Act, in pertinent part,
to establish the benefit of cardiac
rehabilitation (CR) and intensive cardiac
rehabilitation (ICR) under Medicare Part
B. The statute specifies certain
conditions for these programs, with an
effective date of January 1, 2010. The
addition of the new CR and ICR
programs is designed to improve the
health care of Medicare beneficiaries
with cardiovascular disease. This final
rule with comment period implements
these MIPPA provisions in order to
ensure CR and ICR programs enhance
the patient’s clinical outcomes.
a. Background
Intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR)
is a relatively new practice that is also
commonly referred to as a ‘‘lifestyle
modification’’ program. These programs
typically involve the same elements as
CR programs, but are furnished in
highly structured environments in
which sessions of the various
components may be combined for
longer periods of CR and may be more
rigorous.
b. Cardiac Rehabilitation Coverage
Under Medicare
One mechanism we use to establish
coverage for certain items and services
is the national coverage determination
(NCD) process. An NCD is a
determination by the Secretary with
respect to whether or not a particular
item or service is covered nationally
under Title XVIII.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Since 1982, Medicare has covered,
under an NCD, cardiac rehabilitation for
patients who experience stable angina,
have had coronary artery bypass grafts,
or have had an acute myocardial
infarction within the past 12 months.
The NCD is located in the Medicare
NCD Manual (Pub. 100–03), section
20.10. Effective March 22, 2006, we
modified the NCD language to cover
comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation
programs for patients who experience
one of the following:
• A documented diagnosis of acute
myocardial infarction within the
preceding 12 months.
• A coronary bypass surgery.
• Stable angina pectoris.
• A heart valve repair/replacement.
• A percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or
coronary stenting.
• A heart or heart-lung transplant.
Comprehensive programs must
include a medical evaluation, a program
to modify cardiac risk factors,
prescribed exercise, education, and
counseling and may last for up to 36
sessions over 18 weeks or no more than
72 sessions over 36 weeks if determined
appropriate by the local Medicare
contractors. Facilities furnishing cardiac
rehabilitation must have immediately
available necessary cardio-pulmonary,
emergency, diagnostic, and therapeutic
life-saving equipment and be staffed
with personnel necessary to conduct the
program safely and effectively who are
trained in advanced life support
techniques and exercise therapy for
coronary disease. The program must
also be under the direct supervision of
a physician. Until section 144(a) of the
MIPPA is effective on January 1, 2010.
ICR programs are covered under this
NCD and are subject to the same
coverage requirements.
c. Statutory Authority
Section 144(a) of the MIPPA amended
the Medicare Part B program by adding
new sections 1861(s)(2)(CC) and
1861(s)(2)(DD) of the Act to include
items and services furnished under a
new benefit referred to as a ‘‘cardiac
rehabilitation program’’ and an
‘‘intensive cardiac rehabilitation
program,’’ respectively. A cardiac
rehabilitation program is defined in new
section 1861(eee)(1) of the Act and an
intensive cardiac rehabilitation program
is defined in new section
1861(eee)(4)(A) of the Act.
A cardiac rehabilitation program is a
physician-supervised program that
furnishes the following: physicianprescribed exercise; cardiac risk factor
modification, including education,
counseling, and behavioral intervention;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
psychosocial assessment; outcomes
assessment; and other items or services
as determined by the Secretary under
certain conditions. These items and
services must be furnished in a
physician’s office, in a hospital on an
outpatient basis, or in other settings as
determined appropriate by the
Secretary. A physician must be
immediately available and accessible for
medical consultation and emergencies
at all times items and services are being
furnished in a CR program except when
provided in a hospital setting where
such availability is presumed. The items
and services furnished by a CR program
are individualized and set forth in
written treatment plans that describe the
patient’s individual diagnosis; the type,
amount, frequency, and duration of
items and services furnished under the
plan; and the goals set for the individual
under the plan. These written plans
must be established, reviewed, and
signed by a physician every 30 days.
An ICR program provides the same
items and services under the same
conditions as CR programs but must
demonstrate, as shown in peer-reviewed
published research, that they have
accomplished one or more of the
following: positively affected the
progression of coronary heart disease, or
reduced the need for coronary bypass
surgery, or reduced the need for
percutaneous coronary interventions
(PCIs). The peer-reviewed published
research must also show that the ICR
program has resulted in a statistically
significant reduction in 5 or more
measures from their levels before ICR
services to their levels after receipt of
such services. These measures include
low density lipoprotein; triglycerides;
body mass index; systolic blood
pressure; diastolic blood pressure; or the
need for cholesterol, blood pressure,
and diabetes medications. Beneficiaries
eligible for ICR must have experienced
the following: an acute myocardial
infarction within the preceding 12
months; a coronary bypass surgery;
current stable angina pectoris; a heart
valve repair or replacement; a
percutaneous transluminal coronary
angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary
stenting; or a heart or heart-lung
transplant. Section 1861(eee)(4)(C) of
the Act, as added by section 144(a)(1)(B)
of the MIPPA, states that an ICR
program may be provided in a series of
72, 1-hour sessions (as defined in
section 1848(b)(5) of the Act), up to 6
sessions per day, over a period of up to
18 weeks.
The statute authorizes the Secretary to
establish standards for the physician
supervising the ICR and/or CR programs
to ensure that the physician has
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61873
expertise in the management of
individuals with cardiac
pathophysiology and is licensed by the
State in which the CR program (or ICR
program) is offered. These standards
ensure that the physician is responsible
for the program and, in consultation
with appropriate staff, is involved
substantially in directing the progress of
individuals in the program.
d. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
We proposed to add § 410.49,
‘‘Cardiac Rehabilitation Program and
Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation
Program: Conditions of Coverage’’ to our
regulations.
Below is a summary of what we
proposed for the new ICR and CR
benefit in the proposed rule. (To read
the proposed rule in its entirety, see the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33606 through 33610, and 33675
through 33676.)
We proposed definitions with respect
to the programs and services related to
CR and ICR programs.
We listed the cardiac-related
conditions for which CR and ICR items
and services are eligible for coverage
under this new benefit. We received
several comments to add other
conditions unrelated to cardiac
conditions and will address those
comments in section II.G.8.e. below.
We proposed that CR and ICR
programs may only be provided in a
physician’s office or a hospital on an
outpatient basis. Any additional settings
will be added through future
rulemaking.
We proposed that only a physician as
defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act
may establish the written individualized
treatment plan, review the plan and
update that plan. We received a few
comments on this provision, specifically
requesting that staff other than the
physician should be able to update the
plan. We address those comments in the
section II.G.8.e. of this rule.
We proposed components of the CR
and ICR program. All of the items and
service related to the ICR and CR
programs must be individualized to the
beneficiary and delivered as part of the
CR and ICR program. Any additional
mandatory items and services will be
added through future rulemaking.
We defined outcomes assessment as
an evaluation of the patient’s progress in
the program using assessments from the
commencement and conclusion of CR
and ICR programs that are based upon
patient centered outcomes. We also
outlined the timing of when the patient
centered outcomes must be measured—
at the beginning of the CR and ICR
program, prior to each 30-day review of
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61874
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the individualized treatment plan, and
at the end of the CR and ICR program.
Based on the outcomes assessment,
the beneficiaries’ plan of care should be
updated as needed to ensure that the
beneficiary continues to receive
appropriate items and services based on
his or her clinical needs.
We proposed the number of sessions
that may be provided to a beneficiary
participating in a CR program. The
number of sessions that may be
provided as part of an ICR program were
specifically set forth in the statute and
were included in the proposed rule as
well.
We requested comments for specific
physician standards that should be
required to ensure that the physician is
qualified to supervise the CR and ICR
program. In addition to requesting
comments for physician standards, we
discussed two physician roles in the CR
and ICR programs.
• Medical director: The physician
who oversees or supervises the CR and
ICR program at each site and who has
expertise in the management of patients
with cardiac pathophysiology. This
person must be involved substantially
in directing the progress of individuals
in the program.
• Supervising physician: A physician
that is immediately available and
accessible for medical consultations and
medical emergencies at all times items
and services are being furnished under
the CR and ICR program. This physician
must also have expertise in the
management of individuals with cardiac
pathophysiolgy.
We have added definitions for the
medical director and supervising
physician to the regulations text and
discuss these additions in section
II.G.8.f. of this final rule with comment
period.
We noted in the proposed rule that
physician supervision of the program is
limited to a physician who is the
program medical director or a program
staff physician serving as the
supervising physician. This person must
be a physician as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act and not another CR
or ICR staff member.
We proposed that the statutorilyrequired ongoing physician availability
for medical consultations and medical
emergencies would be met through
existing definitions for direct physician
supervision in physicians’ offices and
hospital outpatient departments at
§ 410.26(a)(2) (defined through cross
references to § 410.32(b)(3)(ii)) and
§ 410.27(f), respectively. We stated that
direct supervision, as defined in the
regulations, is consistent with the
language of the MIPPA because the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
physician must be present and
immediately available where the
services are being furnished. The
physician must also be able to furnish
assistance and direction throughout the
performance of the services, which
would include medical consultations
and medical emergencies.
For CR and ICR services provided in
physicians’ offices and other Part B
settings paid under the PFS, we
proposed that the physician must be
present in the office suite and
immediately available to furnish
assistance and direction throughout the
performance of the service or procedure
in accordance with the § 410.26(b)(5) as
described in § 410.26(a)(2) of this
subpart (defined through cross
references to § 410.32(b)(3)(ii) of this
subpart). This does not mean that the
physician must be in the room when the
service or procedure is performed.
For CR and ICR services provided to
hospital outpatients, direct physician
supervision is the standard set forth in
the April 7, 2000 OPPS final rule with
comment period (68 FR 18524 through
18526) for supervision of hospital
outpatient therapeutic services covered
and paid by Medicare in hospitals and
provider-based departments of
hospitals. We stated that we currently
define and specify the requirement for
direct supervision for services furnished
in provider-based departments of
hospitals at § 410.27(f). For this
purpose, the physician must be on the
premises of the location (meaning the
provider-based department) and
immediately available to furnish
assistance and direction throughout the
performance of the procedure. This does
not mean that the physician must be
present in the room when the procedure
is furnished. We also noted that if we
were to propose future changes to the
physician office or hospital outpatient
policies for direct physician
supervision, we would provide our
assessment of the implications of those
proposals for the supervision of cardiac
rehabilitation services at that time. We
note that in the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC
proposed rule (74 FR 35362 through
35370), we proposed changes to the
policy for direct physician supervision
of hospital outpatient therapeutic
services. We have addressed the
application of the proposed and final
hospital outpatient physician
supervision policies in section II.G.8.e.
below.
The MIPPA provisions state that in
the case of items and services furnished
under such a program in a hospital,
physician availability shall be
presumed. As we have stated in the CY
2009 OPPS/ASC final rule with
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comment period (73 FR 68702 through
68704), the longstanding presumption
relating to direct physician supervision
for hospital outpatient services means
that direct physician supervision is the
standard for supervision of hospital
outpatient therapeutic services covered
and paid by Medicare in hospitals and
provider-based departments of
hospitals, and we expect that hospitals
are providing services in accordance
with this standard.
We received the majority of the
comments on the above supervising
physician provision and have addressed
those in section II.G.8.e. of this final
rule.
In our proposal, we noted that the
program medical director may fulfill
both roles of medical director and
supervising physician (of individual CR
and ICR services furnished to patients)
provided that the requirements for
direct physician supervision as required
in § 410.26 and § 410.27 are met when
CR or ICR items and services are
furnished, as discussed above.
In addition to the CR requirements,
section 1861(eee)(4) of the Act requires
ICR programs to meet several additional
standards. To become qualified, an ICR
program must demonstrate through
peer-reviewed, published research that
it has accomplished one or more of the
following: (1) Positively affected the
progression of coronary heart disease;
(2) reduced the need for coronary
bypass surgery; or (3) reduced the need
for percutaneous coronary interventions
(PCIs). A qualified ICR program must
also demonstrate through peer-reviewed
published research that the ICR program
accomplished a statistically significant
reduction for patients in 5 or more
specific measures from the individual’s
levels before ICR services to their levels
after receipt of such services. These
measures include: (1) Low density
lipoproteins; (2) triglycerides; (3) body
mass index; (4) systolic blood pressure;
(5) diastolic blood pressure; and (6) the
need for cholesterol, blood pressure,
and diabetes medications. To ensure
that ICR programs meet these standards,
we proposed that ICR programs apply to
CMS to receive approval as a qualified
ICR programs. Only approved programs
would be eligible for Medicare coverage
and would be required to undergo
regular re-evaluation to maintain such
status. We did not propose any specific
approval process(es), but requested
comments on what process should be
adopted by CMS. No comments were
received advocating for any specific
process(es), but we did receive
comments requesting that any process
adopted must allow public input and be
open and transparent. We have
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
addressed these comments and the ICR
approval process in section II.G.8.e. of
this final rule.
e. Analysis of and Response to Public
Comments
We received over 100 public
comments. Many were supportive of our
proposals to establish CR and ICR rules.
Most comments also addressed several
of the proposed provisions in the rule.
The following is a summary of the
issues and our responses.
Comment: Regarding the application
of the direct physician supervision
requirement to hospital outpatient
services, many commenters noted that
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule cited
references to the current regulations in
§ 410.27(f), while the CY 2010 OPPS/
ASC proposed rule proposed several
new policies for the direct supervision
of hospital outpatient therapeutic
services. The commenters requested that
CMS clarify that for hospital outpatient
services, the proposed definitions and
policies would apply.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concerns and requests for
clarification and have attempted to
clarify the direct physician supervision
requirement below. The proposed
general policies for the direct
supervision of hospital outpatient
therapeutic services would apply to CR
and ICR services furnished to hospital
outpatients, with the exception of the
required credentials of the supervising
practitioner, as specifically discussed in
the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC proposed rule
for CR and ICR services. Consistent with
section 1861(eee)(2)(B) of the Act, a
physician must be the supervising
practitioner for CR and ICR services in
a hospital setting. The final policies for
payment and direct physician
supervision of CR and ICR services
furnished to hospital outpatients are
discussed in detail in section XII.B.3.
through 4. of the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC
final rule with comment period.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS allow NPPs to
satisfy the physician supervision
requirements for CR and ICR services.
The commenters stated that the
proposal in the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC
proposed rule would allow certain NPPs
(nurse practitioners, physician
assistants, clinical nurse specialists and
certified nurse-midwives) to provide
direct supervision of services which
they may perform themselves within
their State scope of practice and
hospital-granted privileges and
following all other requirements. The
commenters concluded that CMS
should not exclude CR and ICR services
from this new policy.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concern regarding
allowing NPPs to satisfy the physician
supervision requirement. We cannot
adopt this request because the statutory
language of the MIPPA defines both
cardiac rehabilitation and intensive
cardiac rehabilitation as ‘‘physiciansupervised’’ programs. A physician is
defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
The MIPPA also specifically requires
that ‘‘a physician is immediately
available and accessible for medical
consultation and medical emergencies
at all times items and services are being
furnished under the program * * *;’’
The text of the statute uses the word
‘‘physician’’ and does not include NPPs.
We believe, based on the statutory
language in MIPPA and the statutory
definition of physician, that the statute
does not provide us the flexibility to
allow the supervising role to be filled by
a non-physician practitioner. In other
words, for the purposes of the CR and
ICR programs, whether furnished in a
physician’s office, hospital outpatient
setting or other Part B setting, the direct
physician supervision definition applies
only to a physician as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS remove the
requirement from § 410.49(f) for patients
to participate in a minimum of 2 CR
sessions per week. The comments noted
that such a requirement is not supported
by specific published evidence and that
many patients benefit from fewer than 2
sessions of CR per week. In addition,
patients who have difficulty attending
CR (due to long traveling distance,
limited access to transportation, etc.)
may not be able to attend 2 sessions per
week and should not be prohibited from
participating in CR because of
transportation barriers.
Response: We understand and agree
with these concerns and have removed
from § 410.49(f) the requirement for
patients to participate in a minimum of
2 CR sessions per week, as improved
outcomes have been demonstrated in
patients who participate in fewer than 2
CR sessions each week.
Comment: Many commenters also
recommended that CMS revise the time
period over which patients are eligible
for CR services. The commenters
suggested that we allow coverage for CR
services for up to 36 sessions over 36
weeks. Additional commenters
requested that we remove a provision
that enabled Medicare contractors to
extend coverage to up to 72 sessions.
Response: We agree with the
comments requesting coverage for 36
sessions over 36 weeks. We have
removed the requirement for CR
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61875
patients to participate in a minimum of
2 CR sessions each week, and we have
revised proposed § 410.49(f) to allow up
to 36 sessions over 36 weeks. While the
proposal to cover up to 36 CR sessions
over up to 18 weeks was reasonable and
consistent with the NCD, we agree that
improved outcomes have been
demonstrated in patients who
participate in as little as one CR session
per week.
We disagree with the suggestion that
we remove contractor discretion under
section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act to
approve additional sessions of CR. As
noted in the background, the statute
required that CR programs be highly
individualized and structured to meet
an individual’s needs. The programs are
directed by physicians with expertise in
cardiac pathophysiology. Our
experience has been that not all patients
require, and not all supervising
physicians support, additional sessions
for all beneficiaries. While some
patients may continue to benefit from
additional sessions, we believe that
beneficiaries and the Medicare program
will be best served if the 36 additional
CR sessions are approved by local
Medicare contractors based on each
individual patient’s specific
circumstances. Therefore, we have
changed the final rule to allow coverage
of up to 36 CR sessions for up to 36
weeks and with the option for Medicare
contractors to approve an additional 36
sessions over an extended period of
time. The amount of additional time is
determined by the Medicare contractor.
Comment: Various commenters
requested that we use the term
‘‘comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation’’
rather than ‘‘general cardiac
rehabilitation’’ when referring to CR
programs (as opposed to ICR programs).
Other commenters request that CMS not
use the term ‘‘intensive cardiac
rehabilitation’’ when referring to
lifestyle modification programs as such
a term implies that these programs are
more effective than CR programs.
Response: We understand the
confusion regarding the terminology
used to describe CR and ICR, but do not
agree with the public comments
recommending that we use different
terminology. We used the adjective
‘‘general’’ for ‘‘cardiac rehabilitation’’ in
the preamble and some sections of the
proposed rule to try to distinguish CR
programs from ICR programs for the
benefit of the reader. We accept the
commenter’s premise that a different
adjective could have been used for that
purpose. In the final regulation text in
§ 410.49(a), we removed the adjective
‘‘general.’’ We are not adopting the
recommendation to change the adjective
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61876
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
to ‘‘comprehensive’’ cardiac
rehabilitation. We believe that term may
be even more confusing given the
existence of the separate ‘‘intensive
cardiac rehabilitation’’ definition in
§ 410.49(a). In order to avoid any
confusion caused by an adjective, we
will describe the benefit in section
1861(eee)(1) of the Act as ‘‘cardiac
rehabilitation.’’ We will amend the
regulation in § 410.49(f) to eliminate the
adjective ‘‘general.’’ We disagree with
commenters that suggested that the term
‘‘intensive cardiac rehabilitation’’
should not be used. Intensive cardiac
rehabilitation was the term specifically
used in the MIPPA and added in section
1861(eee)(4) of the Act. In addition to
the regulatory text changes, the
preamble of the final rule refers to
‘‘cardiac rehabilitation’’ and ‘‘intensive
cardiac rehabilitation.’’
Comment: Some commenters
expressed confusion or suggested the
need for clarification regarding the
process by which ICR programs become
approved by CMS and how individual
sites wishing to furnish ICR items and
services are able to participate. Other
commenters disagreed with our
proposal. Some commenters stated that
establishing a process for ICR program
approval should include stakeholder
involvement and should not result in
significant administrative costs. These
commenters also insisted that the
process be clear and concise so that all
stakeholders know how to become
approved as an ICR program or site.
Response: We agree with many of the
points offered by the commenters and
are clarifying the process for the
approval of ICR programs and the
specific sites furnishing these new part
B services. Based on the comments we
received, we are using the NCD process
to determine whether an ICR program
meets the statutory requirements set
forth in section 1861(eee)(4) of the Act.
The NCD process, as authorized by
section 1862(l) of the Act, is open,
transparent, and provides an
opportunity for public comments on a
proposed national coverage
determination (NCD). The NCD process
is a well known process; therefore,
stakeholders know what to expect when
we open an NCD to review an ICR
program. In addition to using the NCD
process to determine whether ICR
programs fall within the scope of the
new Part B benefit, this final rule with
comment period clarifies the distinct
roles of an ICR approved program and
the individual sites that would provide
the ICR items and services. An ICR
program is a physician-supervised
program that furnishes cardiac
rehabilitation and has shown, in peer-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
reviewed published research, that it
improves patients’ cardiovascular
disease through specific outcome
measurements. By statute, an ICR
program must demonstrate by peerreviewed published research that the
program satisfies specific metrics. We
typically consider and review peerreviewed published literature through
the NCD process. An ICR site, on the
other hand, is a hospital outpatient
setting or physician’s office that is
providing intensive cardiac
rehabilitation utilizing an approved ICR
program. For purposes of appealing an
adverse determination, an ICR site is
considered a supplier (or prospective
supplier) as defined in § 498.2.
In this final rule with comment
period, we are requiring that all ICR
programs be approved through the NCD
process. The NCD process will review
each ICR program based on peerreviewed published research, to ensure
the program (or programs) under
evaluation demonstrates that it satisfies
the specific standards set forth in
section 1861(eee)(4) of the Act. This
process will involve at least one 30-day
public comment period at which time
the public may comment on the
proposed decision. We believe this
process allows for significant
stakeholder involvement and is open
and transparent, consistent with the
commenters’ request. Once we have
approved an ICR program or programs
through the NCD process, individual
sites wishing to furnish ICR items and
services via an approved ICR program
may enroll with their local Medicare
contractor to become an ICR program
supplier as outlined in § 424.510.
We note that this enrollment process
will ensure that specific sites meet the
remaining statutory and regulatory
requirements needed to furnish ICR
services and provide a mechanism to
appeal an adverse determination. With
regards to billing and payment of CR
and ICR services, physician office
suppliers and hospital providers will
continue to use their CMS Certification
Number (supplier or provider number)
and appeals related to the payment of
claims will follow those separate
processes.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed opposition to the proposed
requirement for all ICR programs to
request and receive approval as a CMS
approved ICR program based on peerreviewed published research
demonstrating that the program
accomplishes specific outcomes.
Response: We do not agree with
public commenters who oppose the
provision requiring approval of all ICR
programs. We believe that the statute
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requires ICR programs to be evaluated
based on peer reviewed published
research. The only way we are able to
ensure that ICR programs are
demonstrating these outcomes and that
ICR sites are eligible for payment as
required by the MIPPA is by reviewing
the program using peer reviewed
published research. We agree that the
process adopted by CMS to review ICR
programs must include public input and
the NCD process will provide an
opportunity for public participation.
The NCD process may be internally
generated by CMS or requested by an
external party. ICR programs evaluated
through an internally generated NCD are
not required to submit peer-reviewed
published research, as CMS identifies
relevant research during the evidence
review process. ICR programs that
submit an NCD request, should submit
the peer-reviewed published research
upon which they are requesting
approval. Specific information on the
NCD process is available in the Federal
Register notice (68 FR 55634).
Once ICR programs are approved
through the NCD process, individual
sites wishing to furnish ICR services
must enroll with their local Medicare
contractors. The ICR sites will be
required to demonstrate that they meet
the remaining regulatory and statutory
requirements relating to state licensure,
expertise in the management of
individuals with cardiac
pathophysiology, cardiopulmonary
training, and certification in basic life
support and advanced cardiac life
support. By requiring enrollment via a
local Medicare contractor as a supplier,
a prospective ICR site would be entitled
to appeal rights as outlined in 42 CFR
part 498 if a site is not approved as
meeting those standards. As noted
above, this enrollment does not affect
reporting and payment of CR and ICR
services furnished by the hospital
provider in the hospital outpatient
setting. A hospital’s enrollment as an
ICR site ensures a separate appeal right
related to the ICR site approval.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that we remove the
requirement for ICR programs seeking
approval to submit peer-reviewed
published research in order to achieve
approval. The commenters stated that
most sites where ICR services are
furnished do not publish their own data
and should not have to collect
voluminous data in order to become
approved if the program is modeled
after another program for which
research has been published.
Response: We agree that individual
sites furnishing ICR services are not
required to submit data specific to the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
site. It was not our intent to require each
site where ICR items and services were
being furnished to submit peer-reviewed
published research specific to their site.
Rather we intended, and have further
clarified in this final rule with
comment, that we will evaluate peerreviewed published research to approve
ICR programs through the NCD process.
The peer-reviewed published research
required for CMS approval as an ICR
program is not a requirement of the
individual ICR sites. Peer-reviewed
published research submission is only a
requirement of the ICR programs being
reviewed for CMS approval via the NCD
process. We are amending § 410.49(c)(3)
to eliminate the need for reporting site
specific outcome data.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we include additional
indications for coverage of CR and ICR
services. One commenter requested
coverage for patients diagnosed with
diabetes, breast cancer, prostate cancer,
and metabolic syndrome. Another
commenter requested coverage for
patients with heart failure, peripheral
artery disease, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, metabolic syndrome,
post breast cancer treatment, and
watchful waiting for prostate cancer.
Response: We do not agree that CR
and ICR services should be covered for
these non-cardiac patient populations.
Extending ICR to other illnesses would
appear to require additional legislation.
We do not agree, based on currently
available evidence, that coverage of CR
should be expanded to include heart
failure patients. If we determine based
on supportive evidence that coverage for
CR should be expanded to additional
cardiac patient populations, such a
decision will be made through an NCD.
Comment: Numerous commenters
requested that CMS completely remove
the requirement for the CR medical
director to ‘‘review and sign the plan
prior to initiation of CR’’ for all CR
patients. The commenters state that
such a requirement requires the medical
director to review each patient’s
medical record to determine if the
referring physician’s treatment plan is
appropriate and such a review is
‘‘completely unrealistic, unnecessary,
potentially costly and could prevent
patients from receiving their therapy in
a timely manner.’’
Response: We do not agree with the
public comments requesting that we
remove the requirement for a physician
to review and sign patients’ treatment
plans. We have clarified at
§ 410.49(b)(2)(v) that the treatment plan
must be signed by a physician. We also
note the importance of ensuring that the
medical director and all CR and ICR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
staff are familiar with the treatment plan
and any changes to the treatment plan.
While the medical director is not
required to scrutinize each patient’s
medical record, he or she should be
aware of the patient’s conditions and
progress through the program. As the
medical director is responsible for the
program as a whole, he or she should at
least be knowledgeable of each patient’s
progress through CR or ICR.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we establish clear,
concise practice guidelines for
practitioners to follow. We received
numerous comments addressing
qualifications for CR and ICR program
medical directors, supervising
physicians and support staff. Many
commenters referred to the American
Heart Association (AHA)/American
Association of Cardiovascular and
Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR)
description of medical director duties
and levels of expertise as preferred
guidelines and other comments stressed
the importance of administration and
management experience for the medical
director. Guidelines released by the
AHA/AACVPR were also cited with
respect to standards for supervising
physician(s) and support staff.
Commenters suggested that CR and ICR
staff be certified in Basic Life support
(BLS) and meet performance measures
identified by the AACVPR. Other
commenters recommended that all staff
maintain current cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) certification and
advanced cardiac life support (ACLS)
certification and automated external
defibrillator (AED) training.
Commenters also requested that CMS
stress the importance of incorporating a
multidisciplinary staff in CR and ICR
programs.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ requests and
recommendations. In the proposed rule,
we solicited comments on whether we
should adopt practice guidelines and if
so what guidelines should be adopted.
We did not receive any comments on
specific guidelines CMS should adopt
besides the AHA/AACVPR guidelines
discussed in the preamble of the
proposed rule. While those guidelines
are encouraged for CR and ICR programs
and sites, we are not mandating that
those guidelines be used in this final
rule with comment period. Instead we
have required in § 410.49(d) and (e) that
in addition to the statutory required
qualifications, the medical director and
supervising physician(s) must have
cardiopulmonary training in basic life
support or advanced cardiac life
support.
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61877
Comment: Commenters requested that
we recognize registered dietitians and
occupational therapists as part of the CR
and ICR multidisciplinary team.
Response: We agree that these
professionals may be part of the
multidisciplinary team working with CR
and ICR patients during CR and ICR
sessions. While they may comprise part
of the CR and ICR support staff, they
may not supervise sessions or bill
separately for services furnished during
CR or ICR sessions. For more
information on payment issues, see
section II.G.8.g. of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we remove the
requirement for CR and ICR patients to
participate in aerobic exercise during
every CR or ICR session.
Response: We understand these
commenters’ concerns but believe these
commenters misunderstood the aerobic
exercise requirement. In the proposed
rule, (§ 410.49(b)(2)(i)), we proposed to
require patients to participate in aerobic
exercise each day CR and ICR services
are furnished. If patients participate in
more than one CR or ICR session in a
single day, then they are required to
exercise aerobically in one, but not
every, session.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we revise the language
addressing outcomes assessments to
recognize that some patient-centered
outcomes will not demonstrate
measurable changes within a 30-day
period and should not be measured as
frequently as every 30 days.
Response: We agree with these
commenters that certain outcomes
measures may not change significantly
in a 30-day period and will allow CR
and ICR programs flexibility with
respect to what outcomes must be
measured every 30 days. Measurement
of outcomes that typically exhibit no or
minute changes during a 30-day period
is not required.
f. Provisions of the Final Regulation
This final rule maintains and refines
coverage for CR for beneficiaries with
the six conditions as originally
established in Pub. 100–03, section
20.10 as this coverage was determined
to be reasonable and necessary under
section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act due to
a high level of supporting clinical
evidence. We may use the NCD process
in the future if necessary to identify
additional medical indications for
cardiac patients who could obtain CR
under Medicare Part B.
In § 410.49(a), we provide definitions
of key terms used in this section. Most
of the key terms received no comments
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61878
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and our final rules are identical to the
proposed definition terms for: (1)
Cardiac rehabilitation; (2)
individualized treatment plan; (3)
outcomes assessment; (4) physician; (5)
physician-prescribed exercise; and (6)
psychosocial assessment. We have
changed the term intensive cardiac
rehabilitation to intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program, but maintained
the original definition, in order to
delineate between ICR programs and
ICR program sites in § 410.49(a).
We have added the following terms
and definitions to § 410.49(a):
• Intensive cardiac rehabilitation
program site which means a hospital
outpatient setting or physician’s office
that is providing intensive cardiac
rehabilitation utilizing an approved ICR
program.
• Medical director which means a
physician that oversees or supervises
the cardiac rehabilitation or intensive
cardiac rehabilitation program at a
particular site.
• Supervising physician which means
a physician that is immediately
available and accessible for medical
consultations and medical emergencies
at all times items and services are being
furnished to individuals under cardiac
rehabilitation and intensive cardiac
rehabilitation programs.
In § 410.49(b), we set forth the general
rules for covered beneficiary
rehabilitation services and describe the
required components of the program.
The covered patient populations remain
unchanged and include beneficiaries
who have experienced one or more of
the following:
• An acute myocardial infarction
within the preceding 12 months.
• A coronary artery bypass surgery.
• Current stable angina pectoris.
• Heart valve repair or replacement.
• Percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or
coronary stenting.
• A heart or heart-lung transplant.
We are changing the final indication
to include ‘‘cardiac’’ when discussing
other conditions that may be considered
for coverage. The final indication states,
for cardiac rehabilitation only, other
cardiac conditions as specified through
a national coverage determination.
The required components of cardiac
rehabilitation programs remain
unchanged, but we have clarified that
the individualized treatment plan must
be established, reviewed, and signed by
a physician every 30 days.
In § 410.49(c), we establish the
specific standards that ICR programs
must meet. We have clarified how an
ICR program will be evaluated through
the NCD process, and how specific ICR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
sites will be evaluated to ensure those
entities meet the regulatory
requirements.
In order to utilize a clear and
transparent process for approving ICR
programs, the programs will be
evaluated through the NCD process to
determine if each program demonstrates
through peer-reviewed published
research that it has accomplished one or
more of the following for its patients:
• Positively affected the progression
of coronary heart disease.
• Reduced the need for coronary
bypass surgery.
• Reduced the need for percutaneous
coronary interventions.
ICR programs must also demonstrate
through peer-reviewed published
research a statistically significant
reduction in 5 or more of the following
measures for patients from their levels
before CR services to after CR services:
• Low density lipoprotein.
• Triglycerides.
• Body mass index.
• Systolic blood pressure.
• Diastolic blood pressure.
• The need for cholesterol, blood
pressure, and diabetes medications.
Individual sites wishing to furnish
ICR items and services through an
approved ICR program must enroll with
their local Medicare contractor as an
ICR program site. An ICR site will be
considered a supplier or putative
supplier for purposes of the appeals
process in 42 CFR part 498 related to the
approval of the ICR site.
In § 410.49(d), we list the specific
standards that physicians must meet to
be a medical director or supervising
physician. All medical directors and
supervising physicians must possess all
of the following:
• Expertise in the management of
individuals with cardiac
pathophysiology.
• Cardiopulmonary training in basic
life support or advanced cardiac life
support.
• Be licensed to practice medicine in
the State in which the cardiac
rehabilitation program is offered.
In § 410.49(f), we list the specific
limitations for the number of and time
period over which CR and ICR sessions
may be provided. The limitations for
ICR coverage remain unchanged and
allow for coverage of up to 72, 1-hour
sessions, up to 6 sessions per day, over
a period of up to 18 weeks. We have
changed the limitations for CR coverage
to allow a maximum of 2, 1-hour
sessions per day for up to 36 sessions
over up to 36 weeks with the option for
an additional 36 sessions over an
extended period of time if approved by
the Medicare contractor under
1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In addition to the provisions above,
we have made the following revisions in
the final rule:
• To clarify that the proposed and
final policies for the direct supervision
of hospital outpatient therapeutic
services, as discussed in the CY 2010
OPPS/ASC final rule with comment
period, do apply to CR and ICR services
furnished to hospital outpatients. Due to
specific language in the MIPPA
pertaining to a physician being
immediately available and accessible for
medical consultation and medical
emergencies at all times items and
services are being furnished under the
program, a physician as defined in
section 1861(r)(1) of the Act must
supervise CR and ICR sessions, whether
furnished in physicians’ offices,
hospital outpatient settings, or other
Part B settings.
• To remove the term ‘‘general
cardiac rehabilitation’’ and replace with
‘‘cardiac rehabilitation.’’
• To clarify CR and ICR medical
director and supervising physician
standards.
• To clarify that CR and ICR patients
must exercise aerobically each day CR
and/or ICR services are furnished and
are not required to exercise aerobically
during every CR or ICR session. If more
than one session is furnished during 1
day, then patients are required to
exercise aerobically during only one of
the sessions.
• To allow flexibility in the 30-day
patient centered outcomes
measurements in order to allow
outcomes that may not exhibit changes
during a 30-day period of time to be
measured less frequently, but no fewer
times than at the beginning and end of
patients’ participation in a CR or ICR
program.
g. Coding and Payment
(1) Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Payment
Currently, the following CPT codes
are used for CR services described in
section 144(a) of the MIPPA: CPT code
93797, Physician services for outpatient
cardiac rehabilitation; without
continuous ECG monitoring (per
session) and CPT code 93798, Physician
services for outpatient cardiac
rehabilitation; with continuous ECG
monitoring (per session). We did not
propose to revise these codes under the
PFS because the CR program authorized
by the existing National Coverage
Determination (NCD) is essentially the
same as what is included in the MIPPA.
(2) Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation
Payment
The statute requires that the hospital
Outpatient Prospective Payment System
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(OPPS) payment amount for CR services
be substituted for ICR under the PFS,
specifically the payment for CPT codes
93797 and 93798 or any succeeding
HCPCS codes for CR. We proposed to
create two new HCPCS codes for ICR
services. These codes may only be billed
by ICR programs that have been
approved by CMS. The proposed codes
are as follows:
• GXX28, Intensive cardiac
rehabilitation; with or without
continuous ECG monitoring with
exercise, per session.
• GXX29, Intensive cardiac
rehabilitation; with or without
continuous ECG monitoring; without
exercise, per session.
These HCPCS codes will be
recognized under the PFS and the
OPPS. Under the OPPS, the existing CR
HCPCS codes, CPT codes 93797 and
93798, are assigned to APC 0095
(Cardiac Rehabilitation) for CY 2009.
Because the payment under the PFS for
the two proposed ICR G-codes is
required to be the same as the payment
for CR services under OPPS, we
proposed to pay the same amount as
will be established through rulemaking
for CY 2010 OPPS. We proposed that
this amount will be adjusted for the
appropriate locality by applying the
GPCI under the PFS. The CY 2010
proposed APC assignments and
payment rates for these two ICR G-codes
were published in the CY 2010 OPPS/
ASC proposed rule (74 FR 35361).
We note that when a CR/ICR service
is furnished in a hospital outpatient
department, a physician cannot bill the
Medicare contractor for CR/ICR unless
the physician personally performs the
CR/ICR service. To personally perform
the CR/ICR service, the physician would
provide direct care to a single patient for
the entire session of CR/ICR that is
being reported. In this case, the hospital
would report the CR/ICR service and be
paid the OPPS payment amount for the
facility services associated with the CR/
ICR session and the physician would
report and be paid the PFS amount for
the CR/ICR service. A physician cannot
bill under the PFS for CR/ICR services
furnished in a hospital for which the
physician furnishes only supervision or
for services furnished in part by others.
If the physician furnishes no direct CR/
ICR services for a given session on a
given day or provides direct CR/ICR
services for less than the full session,
then only the hospital would report the
CR/ICR services and these services
would be paid only under the OPPS.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
payment of CR services under section
144(a) of the MIPPA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Note: We received comments concerning
the role of physical therapists, and
occupational therapists in providing CR, ICR,
and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Those
comments are addressed in the PR section
which follows this section.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the physician work and staff resources
required to perform the mandatory
outcomes assessment are not valued in
the physician work and PE RVUs
established for CPT codes 93797 and
93798. The commenter recommends
separate reporting and payment for the
outcomes assessment.
Response: We note that an outcomes
assessment is part of the CR benefit
established by the Congress. While it
may not have been described
specifically in the CR program
authorized by the existing NCD we
believe an assessment of the patient’s
condition before initiating treatment
and at periodic intervals to measure the
patient’s progress would be an expected
part of treatment. In addition we note
that the language at § 410.49 has been
revised to allow more flexibility with
regard to the outcomes that must be
measured every 30 days. Section 410.49
requires that patient centered outcomes
measurements must be taken no fewer
times than at the beginning and end of
a patient’s participation in a CR or ICR
program.
Comment: Some commenters
requested an increase in the payment for
traditional CR. One commenter also
stated concerns about the way payment
for ICR was established.
Response: The MIPPA made no
substantive changes to the CR program
authorized by the existing NCD and
reported using CPT codes 93797 and
93798. Therefore, we proposed no
changes to payment for these codes
under the PFS. Under the statute, the
payment for ICR under the PFS is based
on the OPPS payment amount for CR
services. Please see section XII.B.3 of
the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC final rule for a
discussion of how the payment amounts
for CR and ICR were established under
the OPPS.
Payment for CR
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2010 proposal,
without modification, to pay for CR
using CPT codes 93797 and 93798.
Payment for ICR
We also are also finalizing our CY
2010 proposal to adopt the new 2010
PFS HCPCS G-codes for ICR with the
following descriptors:
• G0422, Intensive cardiac
rehabilitation; with or without
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61879
continuous ECG monitoring, with
exercise, per hour, per session); and
• G0423, Intensive cardiac
rehabilitation; with or without
continuous ECG monitoring, without
exercise, per hour, per session.
As required by statute, payment under
PFS for these services will be based on
the OPPS payment amount for CR
services. For more information on how
the OPPS payment amount for ICR was
established, see section XII.B.3 of the
CY 2010 OPPS/ASC final rule. We have
added the phrase ‘‘per hour’’ to the
descriptors of these codes because we
believe that CR services generally last
one hour as documented by existing
claims data for CR services. Section
1861(eee)(4)(C) of the Act provides for
up to 72, 1-hour sessions of ICR and
hence, adding ‘‘per hour’’ to the two
new HCPCS code descriptors for ICR
services implements the statutory
definition of an ICR session as being 1
hour of service.
Moreover, we have established the
payment for ICR services on the
presumption that one session represents
1 hour of care. Therefore, we believe
that it is appropriate to specify in the
descriptors of the HCPCS codes for ICR
services that one unit of the code
represents 1 hour of care. As discussed
previously, CR is covered for up to 36
1-hour sessions, with a minimum of 1
session per week and a maximum of 2
sessions per day, and Medicare
contractors have authority to approve
additional sessions, up to 72 sessions,
over an additional period of time.
Section 144(a)(1) of the MIPPA
authorizes coverage of ICR programs in
a series of 72, 1-hour sessions, up to 6
sessions per day, over a period of 18
weeks.
9. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients With Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions—Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Services
Section 144 of the MIPPA amended
Title XVIII of the Act to provide for
coverage of pulmonary rehabilitation
(PR) under Part B, under certain
conditions, for services furnished on or
after January 1, 2010. This final rule
with comment period implements the
new Medicare standards for a
pulmonary rehabilitation program and
establishes the requirements for
furnishing such items and services to
Medicare beneficiaries with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
COPD is one of the more common and
severely debilitating chronic respiratory
diseases, exemplified by chronic
bronchitis and emphysema. Other
conditions in this category include
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61880
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
persistent asthma, bronchiectasis,
primary pulmonary hypertension,
obesity-related respiratory disease, and
ventilator dependency. This rule
implements section 144(a) of the MIPPA
to permit coverage and payment and to
establish guidelines and standards as
required by the statute.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
a. Background
A PR program is typically a
multidisciplinary program, individually
tailored and designed to optimize
physical and social performance and
autonomy of care for patients with
chronic respiratory impairment. The
main goal is to empower and facilitate
the individuals’ ability to exercise
independently. Exercise is combined
with other training and support
mechanisms to encourage long-term
adherence to the treatment plan. The
appropriate PR program will train and
motivate the patient to attain his or her
maximum potential in self-care and
overall quality of life.
Prior to the MIPPA, some components
of a pulmonary rehabilitation program
were covered in office settings as
individual services or as services
incident to physician services.
b. Statutory Provisions of Section 144 of
the MIPPA
In pertinent part, section 144 of the
MIPPA amended section 1861(s)(2) of
the Act to add a new subparagraph (CC)
establishing coverage and payment of
items and services furnished under a
‘‘pulmonary rehabilitation program.’’ A
pulmonary rehabilitation program is
defined in new subsection (fff)(1) to
mean a ‘‘physician supervised program’’
that furnishes several specific items and
services. Pulmonary rehabilitation
consists of certain mandatory
components including all of the
following:
• Physician-prescribed exercise.
• Education or training (to the extent
that the education and training is
closely and clearly related to the
individual’s care and treatment and is
tailored to such individual’s needs).
• Psychosocial assessment.
• Outcomes assessment.
• Other items and services
determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate under certain conditions.
These mandatory components are to be
provided in physicians’ offices, hospital
outpatient settings, and other settings
determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
A physician must at all times be
immediately available and accessible for
medical consultation and medical
emergencies when PR items and
services are being furnished under the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
program. The individual’s treatment is
furnished under a written treatment
plan for each beneficiary participating
in a PR program. The plan is developed
by a physician in conjunction with the
interdisciplinary team. A physician,
who is involved in the patient’s care
and has knowledge of his or her
condition, must establish and review
the plan and it must be signed by a
physician every 30 days. This plan must
include the individual’s diagnosis, the
scope of services to be provided in
terms of type, amount, frequency and
duration, and the goals set for the
individual. To be covered and receive
payment from Medicare, the PR program
must provide all of the specified
mandatory items and services.
The statute authorizes the Secretary to
establish standards for the physician
supervising the PR program to ensure
the physician has expertise in the
management of individuals with
respiratory pathophysiology and is
licensed by the State in which the PR
program is offered. These standards
ensure that the physician is responsible
for the program and, in consultation
with appropriate staff, is involved
substantially in directing the progress of
individuals in the program.
c. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
We proposed to add § 410.47,
‘‘Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program:
Conditions of Coverage’’ to our
regulations. The following is a summary
of our proposals from the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule. For the full text, please
see the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33610 through 33614, and 33673
through 33674).
We proposed several definitions with
respect to the services related to PR.
These were for:
• Pulmonary rehabilitation.
• Individualized treatment plan.
• Outcomes Assessment.
• Physician.
• Physician-prescribed exercise.
• Psychosocial assessment.
We also proposed that Medicare
would cover PR for beneficiaries with
moderate (Stage II) to severe COPD
(Stage III) when referred by the
physician treating chronic respiratory
diseases. Moderate and severe COPD
was defined using the GOLD
classification II and III.
We proposed that any additional
covered clinical indications for the PR
program would be added using the
National Coverage Determination
process.
We proposed that all PR programs
must have the following components:
• Physician-prescribed exercise;
• Education or training;
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Psychosocial assessment;
• Outcomes assessment; and
• An individualized treatment plan.
The individualized treatment plan must
be established, reviewed, and signed by
a physician (as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act) every 30 days.
The MIPPA provisions also
authorized the Secretary to include
other mandatory items and services
within the scope of the PR program
under certain conditions. We did not
propose any other items or services.
However, we stated that if we determine
that the addition of any other items or
services is appropriate, additions will
made and implemented through future
rulemaking.
We proposed that PR may be provided
in a physician’s office or in a hospital
outpatient setting. If we determine that
additional settings are appropriate,
those settings will be added through
future rulemaking. All settings should
have all equipment and staff necessary
to provide statutorily-mandated items
and services.
We proposed that physicians
furnishing PR items and services must
have expertise in the management of
individuals with respiratory
pathophysiology and be licensed in the
State in which the PR program is
offered.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule
with comment period (74 FR 33613), we
discussed that section 144 of the MIPPA
includes requirements for immediate
and ongoing physician availability and
accessibility at all times for both
medical consultations and medical
emergencies when items and services
are being furnished under the program.
We proposed to define such availability
in accordance with existing definitions
for direct physician supervision services
furnished in physician offices and
hospital outpatient departments at
§ 410.26(a)(2) (defined through cross
reference to § 410.32(b)(3)(ii)) and
§ 410.27(f), respectively. We stated that
direct supervision, as defined in the
regulations, is consistent with the
language of the MIPPA because a
physician must be present and
immediately available where and when
the items and services are being
furnished. A physician must also be
able to furnish assistance and direction
throughout the performance of the
services, which would include medical
consultations and medical emergencies.
For PR services furnished in
physicians’ offices and other Part B
settings paid under the PFS, we stated
that this means that the physician must
be present in the office suite and
immediately available to furnish
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
assistance and direction throughout the
performance of the service or procedure
in accordance with § 410.26(a)(2) and
(b)(5). It does not mean that the
physician must be in the same room
when the service or procedure is
performed.
For PR services furnished in hospital
outpatient settings, we stated that direct
physician supervision is the standard
set forth in the April 7, 2000 OPPS final
rule with comment period (68 FR 18524
through 18526) for supervision of
hospital outpatient therapeutic services
covered and paid by Medicare in
hospitals and provider-based
departments of hospitals. We currently
define and specify the requirement for
direct supervision for services provided
in provider-based departments of
hospitals at § 410.27(f). For this
purpose, the physician must be on the
premises of the location (meaning the
provider-based department) and
immediately available to furnish
assistance and direction throughout the
performance of the procedure. This does
not mean that the physician must be
present in the room when the procedure
is performed.
The MIPAA provisions state that in
the case of items and services furnished
under such a program in a hospital,
physician availability shall be
presumed. As we have stated in the CY
2009 OPPS/ASC final rule with
comment period (73 FR 68702 through
68704), the longstanding presumption of
direct physician supervision for hospital
outpatient services means that direct
physician supervision is the standard
and we expect that hospitals are
providing services in accordance with
this standard.
We proposed that up to 36 sessions in
the facility setting are appropriate, no
more than one session per day. Patients
should generally receive 2 to 3 1-hour
sessions per week. We solicited
comments regarding the proposed
number of sessions. We addressed these
comments in the response to public
comment section of this final rule with
comment.
d. Analysis and Response to Public
Comments
We received many public comments
on various provisions of our proposed
rule. Comments were generally
supportive of the new PR program but
requested some changes related to the
sessions and covered conditions.
Commenters were in support of our
definitions of pulmonary rehabilitation,
individual treatment plan, psychosocial
assessment, physician, and physicianprescribed exercise. The commenters
also were supportive of the physician
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
standards but asked for clarification of
the direct supervision rules. The
commenters suggested that we add
language acknowledging the role and
use of the PR staff/interdisciplinary
team.
We also received comments related to
NCDs but they were largely focused on
the effect of the rule on current local
coverage determinations (LCDs).
Commenters did not request the
addition of new items and services. We
received a few comments regarding the
addition of settings for PR, such as the
CORF.
We received numerous comments
noting that in the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC
proposed rule with comment period (74
FR 35362 through 35370), we proposed
that certain NPPs may supervise
hospital outpatient therapeutic services
that are within their State scope of
practice and hospital granted privileges,
provided that they also continue to meet
all other requirements. Commenters
requested that we allow the use of NPPs
for PR services because NPPs may
provide and supervise other therapeutic
services in the HOPD. We received
several significant comments and are
providing our responses below.
Comment: We received comments
requesting that we expand coverage to
another level of COPD, very severe
COPD (Stage IV). The commenters
stated that very severe COPD should be
included since the GOLD guidelines
recommend PR for patients with Very
Severe COPD (Stage IV). The
commenters also cited the NETT trial in
which they state that the very severe
COPD patients had significant
improvement as a result of the PR
program.
Response: As a result of the
comments, we are expanding the final
policy and adding very severe COPD
(Stage IV) as a covered condition. Based
upon the evidence cited by the
commenters and our own independent
evidence review. We believe it is
appropriate to allow coverage for COPD
for the PR program. Commenters
provided evidence from the National
Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT)
which included patients with very
severe COPD who were required to
participate in pulmonary rehabilitation;
trial results showed this sample of
patients had significant improvement in
exercise, dyspnea, and quality of life.
Commenters also provided 2008 GOLD
guideline evidence which supports the
addition of very severe COPD. They
cited GOLD guidelines which identify
PR as the standard of care for patients
with COPD stages II–IV and that all
COPD stages benefit from an exercise
program. Specifically, included in this
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61881
patient population, the GOLD
guidelines support PR for individuals
with very severe COPD (Stage IV), while
also suggesting consideration of surgical
treatments. To the extent this patient
group is able to engage in all of the
mandatory components, including
aerobic exercise, we believe patients
would experience a clinical benefit.
GOLD classification IV (Very Severe
COPD) is defined as FEV1/FVC 70
percent and FEV1 <30 percent of
predicted or FEV1 <50 percent
predicted plus chronic respiratory
failure.
Comment: We received numerous
comments requesting that we expand
coverage to a variety of other chronic
respiratory conditions in addition to the
proposed ones, (moderate to severe
COPD). Most of the major respiratory
care organizations submitted substantial
comments pertaining to this issue. The
conditions for which expansion was
requested include cystic fibrosis,
interstitial lung disease, restrictive chest
wall disease, pulmonary hypertension,
respiratory disorders associated with
obesity, lung cancer, very severe COPD
(stage IV), and bronchiectasis. The
commenters requested that we add all of
the requested conditions in the final
rule, because the commenters allege
substantial clinical benefit for all of
them from a PR program.
Response: We proposed to use the
national coverage determination process
to consider expanding coverage of PR
for other chronic respiratory diseases
should adequate evidence support these
additional uses. While the statute would
permit expansion to other respiratory
conditions, the data reviewed thus far
did not substantiate the clinical benefit
of PR for conditions beyond COPD. In
making determinations for national
coverage, the Medicare program is an
evidence-based program. The chronic
respiratory disease population is a
highly clinically diverse patient
population. As such, determining the
appropriate conditions for coverage
within the patient population requires a
thorough review of existing evidence to
meet the ‘‘reasonable and necessary
standard’’ in accordance with section
1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
In this final rule with comment
period, we announce that we will
consider other conditions for which a
PR program can be used through the
NCD process. The number of various
respiratory diseases is expansive and
variance within the stages of each
disease is broad. The need for, and
benefit of, a PR program may relate to
the specific respiratory function rather
than a broad category of diseases. The
NCD process will enable us to evaluate
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61882
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the medical and scientific evidence to
properly ascertain the specific
conditions, and appropriate patients for
whom a PR program is most beneficial.
However, in the interim, until the NCD
process is complete, the respiratory
services previously allowed by local
contractors for other medical conditions
under other part B benefit categories
remain in effect.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we add all of the
requested conditions in the final rule
because the commenters believe the
proposed rule will supersede existing
LCDs which currently allow some
respiratory/pulmonary type services for
a variety of other chronic respiratory
lung diseases, including COPD.
Response: As explained above, we do
not agree that the limitation of PR
programs to one covered condition
(moderate to very severe COPD) through
the final rule will eliminate the ability
of beneficiaries to obtain other
respiratory services that are available
under local coverage decisions based on
other benefit categories. The individual
respiratory services currently covered
do not constitute a comprehensive PR
program but individualized services that
may also be components of a program.
Accordingly, to the extent these existing
individual respiratory services are
reasonable and necessary, a local
contractor may still cover them. If the
patient has COPD that qualifies for
coverage of pulmonary rehabilitation
under this final rule with comment
period, we would expect to see services
furnished under the PR program and
billed using the specific PR code. To the
extent the provider is billing for the
comprehensive PR code, the PR program
implemented must meet all of the
requirements outlined herein and be the
only PR service billed. To the extent we
add other conditions through the NCD
process, some LCDs may become
obsolete in the future.
Comment: We received a significant
number of comments regarding the
number of sessions for the PR program.
Some commenters stated that our
proposal of 36 sessions does not reflect
the standard of care nationally.
Commenters recommended that we
allow between 60 and 72 sessions and
allow more than one session per day,
based in part on the experience of the
Lung Volume Reduction Surgery
patients in the NETT trial. Under that
trial, certain patients were allowed a
total of 30 sessions, each required to be
minimally 2 hours in duration. Other
commenters noted that the typical PR
sessions may average 2 hours or more.
The major professional organizations
requested 72 hours of pulmonary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
rehabilitation, ‘‘based on the
individual’s medical necessity and
reaching a level of optimal care’’.
Response: We agree with commenters
that additional sessions may be
appropriate in some circumstances.
However, any PR program, due to the
broad spectrum of patients, inherently
necessitates a very individualized plan
of treatment. Therefore, in this final rule
with comment period, we are
authorizing our contractors to approve
up to an additional 36 sessions when
medically necessary. This would
provide qualifying beneficiaries access
of up to 72 sessions of PR when
appropriate.
Even within the population of
patients with moderate to very severe
COPD, an individual’s ability to
participate in additional sessions would
require a specific review of evidence to
determine whether an additional 36
sessions are warranted under section
1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. This case-bycase expansion allows greatest
flexibility for individual needs. It also
takes into account the short term nature
of the program based on lifestyle
modification goals towards self
management of the disease. Since the
programs are highly individualized, we
do not specify a duration by which
sessions must be completed; this allows
the possibility of sessions, if necessary,
up to the maximum allowable of 72,
over a longer period of time.
Comment: We received a number of
comments regarding the number of
sessions per day for the PR program.
Some commented that our proposed
sessions do not reflect the standard of
care nationally. Commenters
recommended that we allow more than
one session per day.
Response: We agree with commenters
that some patients may be capable of
more than one PR session per day. The
patient with very severe COPD may not
be able to participate in a prolonged
aerobic exercise session, and may
benefit from 2 shorter periods of aerobic
exercise within each session. Also, two
sessions will facilitate greater logistical
ease for those in rural areas who may
want to do multiple sessions in a day,
for example, morning and afternoon,
and/or provide an opportunity for more
compromised COPD patients to engage
in two shorter aerobic sessions in a day.
Therefore, we will allow up to two 1hour sessions per day.
Comment: Some commenters asked
that we include language in this
regulation which minimally refers to the
use of, and role of, the interdisciplinary
team and/or PR staff.
Response: We agree that the
disciplinary team/PR staff play an
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
important role under the direction of the
physician. These team members may
include, but are not limited to, nurses,
social workers, respiratory therapists,
and dietitians. (See regulations text,
‘‘Physician standards’’.) We have
revised § 410.47(e)(1) to emphasize this
point.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we allow NPPs to provide
the direct supervision, rather than
requiring supervision by a physician in
accordance with the definition in
section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Response: The statutory language of
the MIPPA defines pulmonary
rehabilitation as a ‘‘physiciansupervised’’ program. A physician is
defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
The MIPAA also specifically requires
that ‘‘a physician is immediately
available and accessible for medical
consultation and medical emergencies
at all times items and services are being
furnished under the program, except
that in the case of items and services
furnished under such a program in a
hospital, such availability shall be
presumed.’’ The text of the statute uses
the word ‘‘physician’’ and does not
include NPPs. We believe, based on the
statutory language in MIPPA for
pulmonary rehabilitation programs, that
the statute does not provide us the
flexibility to allow the supervising role
to be filled by a non-physician
practitioner. In other words, for the
purposes of PR programs, whether
furnished in a physician’s office or
hospital outpatient setting, the direct
physician supervision definition applies
only to a physician as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act. As discussed
previously, the supervision requirement
is satisfied if the physician meets the
requirements for direct supervision for
physician office services at § 410.26 and
for hospital outpatient services at
§ 410.27. The final policies for payment
and direct physician supervision of PR
services furnished to hospital
outpatients are discussed in detail in
section XII.B.2 and B.4 of the CY 2010
OPPS/ASC final rule with comment
period.
Comment: A few commenters
requested that we provide a session
which is ‘‘no more than 1 hour’’. The
commenters believe that for some
individuals, an hour would be the
maximum time they could physically
participate due to their compromised
condition.
Response: We disagree. We believe
that a maximum of 1 hour would not
afford sufficient time for most patients
to receive both the mandatory aerobic
exercise and any other component
services. Those in rural areas may want
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
to participate in longer sessions due to
travel logistics.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that we require at least 30 minutes of
exercise.
Response: We disagree. Imposing a
strict standard of minimal 30 minutes of
exercise is not realistic; the programs
are highly individualized. Many
patients may not, at least initially, be
able to participate in thirty minutes of
aerobic exercise.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we use the Silver Sneakers program at
the YMCA for PR in the Medicare
program. The commenter remarked it
costs only $40 per month.
Response: While we generally
encourage beneficiaries to exercise, we
do not agree that this particular
suggestion would be feasible. We do not
expect that a typical YMCA would meet
the statutory requirements related to
physician standards and supervision, or
perhaps the facility standards for safety
and equipment. Further, YMCAs are not
currently recognized as Medicare
suppliers or providers.
Comment: A few commenters
requested that we include a CORF as a
PR setting.
Response: While the statute would
allow the Secretary to cover PR in
additional settings, we are not
expanding the settings in this final rule.
The CORF statutory definition, in
section 1861(cc) of the Act, provides
requirements for all services provided in
that facility type. The CORF facility
does not meet the supervision
requirements imposed by the MIPPA. In
accordance with section 1861(cc)(1) of
the Act, the term ‘‘CORF’’ provides, in
part, ‘‘comprehensive rehabilitation
facility means a facility which—(A) is
primarily engaged in providing (by or
under the supervision of physicians)
diagnostic, therapeutic, and restorative
service to outpatients for the
rehabilitation of injured, disabled, or
sick persons.’’ (Emphasis added)
‘‘(B) provides at least the following
comprehensive outpatient following
rehabilitative (i) physicians’ services
(rendered by physicians, as defined in
section 1861 (r) (1) who are available at
the facility on a full or part-time basis;’’
(Emphasis added). The definition of
services and reference to the injured or
disabled population is consistent with
the mandate for rehabilitative services,
which we maintain are not directed
towards the chronically ill patients with
respiratory disease such as COPD. The
CORF statutory provisions allow a
physician to be in the facility part-time.
This conflicts with the MIPPA
provisions for the physician
supervision, that is, being immediately
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
available and accessible at all times
items services are being furnished under
the program. However, the MIPPA PR
program does not eliminate or affect the
PT services provided in accordance
with the CORF regulations at § 410.100.
Initially, a COPD patient may be in need
of PT services (in or outside of a CORF)
in order to strengthen their muscles to
prepare for the PR program. By
clarifying the services in a CORF, which
are mandated to include a majority of
physical therapy, we sought to delineate
these services from those provided in a
PR program focused on the condition of
COPD.
Comment: Commenters support the
requirement that a physician must
create an individualized plan of
treatment for pulmonary rehabilitation.
However, some commenters requested
that we clarify whether we intend that
physicians must personally create each
plan of care or whether physicians may
review and approve a plan of care
created by pulmonary rehabilitation
staff.
Response: A physician must establish
the individualized treatment plan;
however, there can be input from the
pulmonary rehabilitation staff with
respect to the plan.
The MIPPA provisions require that PR
services be provided under written
individualized treatment plans
‘‘established, reviewed, and signed by a
physician every 30 days.’’ The
individualized plan includes the
individual’s diagnosis, the types of
services appropriate, the frequency and
duration, and the treatment goals. This
plan may initially be developed by the
referring physician or the PR physician.
If the plan is developed by the referring
physician who is not the PR physician,
the PR physician must also review and
sign the plan prior to initiation of PR.
The PR staff may make
recommendations for modifications to
the program, but the physician will still
modify the plan as needed, and review
and sign the plan every 30 days.
e. Provisions of the Final Rule
In the final rule we are adopting the
provisions as set forth in the July 2009
proposed rule with the following
revisions:
• Based on public comments and the
GOLD guidelines we are expanding
coverage to include individuals with
very severe COPD (Stage IV) as a
covered condition. We are modifying
the final rule § 410.47 (b)(1)
‘‘Beneficiaries who may be covered’’, to
state the addition. The GOLD standard
evidence defines GOLD classification IV
(Very Severe COPD) as FEV1/FVC 70
percent and FEV1 <30 percent of
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61883
predicted or FEV1 <50 percent
predicted plus chronic respiratory
failure.
• We expanded section § 410.47(f) to
include additional sessions by changing
the total number of allowable sessions
to 72 sessions; we did so by allowing an
additional 36 at contractor discretion
when medically necessary. We also
expanded the daily number of the
allowable sessions from one session to
two sessions.
• We added definitions in § 410.47(a)
for the ‘‘Medical director’’ and the
‘‘Supervising physician’’.
In addition, we are making the
following clarifying and technical
changes:
• We clarified in § 410.47(c)(5) that
the physician establishing the treatment
plan needs to be one who is involved in
the patient’s care and has knowledge of
his or her condition.
• We added language in § 410.47(e)(1)
to clarify the physician interaction with
PR staff.
• We added the word ‘‘medicine’’ in
§ 410.47(e)(4) to conform the rule to the
MIPPA statutory language.
• We added language in § 410.47(e)(3)
for training requirements related to the
use of emergency equipment; this
correlates to the established
requirements in the proposed rule for
availability of this equipment.
• We added in § 410.47(f) the words
‘‘up to’’ to clarify the contractor is
permitted to prescribe any additional
amount lower than, and up to, 36
sessions based on medical necessity. We
also added a reference to the pertinent
statute.
f. Coding and Payment
We proposed to create one HCPCS
code to describe and to bill for the
services of a PR program as specified in
section 144(a) of the MIPPA, GXX30
(now assigned code number G0424,
Pulmonary rehabilitation, including
aerobic exercise (includes monitoring),
per session, per day). This G-code is to
be billed when the patient performs
physician-prescribed aerobic exercises
that are targeted to improve the patient’s
physical functioning and may also
include the other aspects of pulmonary
rehabilitation, such as education and
training. Because the physician’s role in
the PR program is defined in a similar
manner to that in the cardiac
rehabilitation program, we stated that
the physician work component should
be analogous to that of CPT code 93797,
cardiac rehab without telemetry.
Therefore we proposed work RVUs of
0.18 RVUs for this new G-code. Using
this same reference code, we proposed
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61884
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
that the malpractice RVUs would be
0.01 RVUs.
To establish the PE RVU payment for
the proposed new PR G-code, we
reviewed the PE inputs of similar
services, particularly those of the
respiratory therapy HCPCS codes,
G0237 and G0238, as well as the cardiac
rehabilitation codes, CPT codes 93797
and 93798 for non-facility settings.
Given that various individuals, acting
under the supervision of a physician,
can make up the PR multidisciplinary
team, we proposed that the clinical
labor for the PR G-code could be best
represented by the following labor types
taken from the PE database: the nurse
‘‘blend’’ (RN/LPN/MTA), the respiratory
therapist (RT), the social worker/
psychologist and the medical/technical
assistant—which we selected to
represent various specialists involved in
furnishing this service; these are valued
at $0.37, $0.42, $0.45, and $0.26 per
minute, respectively. Using an average
of these values, $0.375 per minute, we
proposed to use the nurse blend labor
type found in the cardiac rehabilitation
CPT codes, at $0.37 per minute, as the
typical value for the PR clinical labor
and assigning 28 minutes of clinical
labor time for the new PR G-code based
on the various components of the
proposed PR program.
For the equipment PE inputs, we
reviewed the direct PE inputs for similar
existing codes and proposed a pulse
oximeter (with printer), a 1-channel
ECG, and a treadmill. Since no typical
supplies were listed for similar existing
codes in the PE database, we did not
propose any specific supplies for this
proposed new G-code.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding
payment for pulmonary rehabilitation
services under section 144(a) of the
MIPPA.
Comment: Some commenters asked
that we confirm that the services of
physical therapists are not part of the
PR, CR, or ICR benefits authorized by
section 144(a)(1) of the MIPPA and are
always paid under the physical therapy
benefit and that, therefore, the therapy
services do not require physician
supervision when furnished as part of a
PR, CR, or ICR program, including in the
HOPD.
With regard to PR, some commenters
stated that we have a longstanding
history of recognizing the services of a
therapist as an integral part of a PR
program and requiring that these
services be reported and paid as PT
services. Specifically, the commenters
indicated that in the CY 2002 PFS final
rule (66 FR 55246) and in the current
Medicare Claims Processing Manual
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(Pub. 100–04, Chapter 5, section 20.A),
we specify that when physical
therapists treat respiratory conditions,
they should report CPT codes for PT in
the 97000 series and should not report
HCPCS codes G0237, Therapeutic
procedures to increase strength or
endurance of respiratory muscles, one
on one, face to face, per 15 minutes
(includes monitoring); G0238,
Therapeutic procedures to improve
respiratory function or increase strength
or endurance of respiratory muscles,
one on one, face to face, per 15 minutes
(includes monitoring); or G0239,
Therapeutic procedures to improve
respiratory function or increase strength
or endurance of respiratory muscles,
two or more individuals (includes
monitoring). The commenters added
that in the September 25, 2007 Decision
Memo for Pulmonary Rehabilitation
(CAG–00356N), CMS recognized the
importance of PT to patients with
pulmonary conditions and stated that
these services should be billed and paid
under the PT benefit. The commenters
stated that a plan of care developed by
a physical therapist to improve
pulmonary function for a patient with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD), which meets the medical
necessity criteria for PT services, is
covered and paid under the PT benefit.
The commenters explained that the
therapy plan of care is separate from the
benefits authorized by section 144(a)(1)
of the MIPPA. The commenters believe
it should continue to be reported under
the CPT codes for PT services, and
should be paid under the PT benefit.
In addition, with regard to CR/ICR,
the commenters requested that CMS
confirm that skilled PT services that are
rendered in the CR setting by a qualified
physical therapist should be conducted,
reported, and paid as PT services, and
that physician supervision is not
necessary in the CR setting when the
physical therapist is delivering
treatment that clearly meets the criteria
for a PT service. The commenters
explained that we have recognized and
codified that PT is a separate benefit
and that physical therapists are
qualified to perform certain services
independent of direct physician
supervision. Similar comments were
received concerning occupational
therapy services.
Response: Section 144(a)(1) of the
MIPPA authorized a new
comprehensive PR benefit, and also
codified specific benefits for CR and
ICR. Therefore, we believe that
outpatient Part B providers and
suppliers should furnish the full scope
of the PR, CR, or ICR benefit as
comprehensive programs to those
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
patients who qualify for coverage. We
would not expect the component
services of PR, CR, and ICR programs to
be unbundled and billed separately by
different providers or practitioners
under other benefit categories, such as
the PT benefit.
In the outpatient physicians office
setting, we expect that most patients
participating in PR, CR, or ICR programs
authorized by section 144(a)(1) of the
MIPPA and covered by Medicare will be
debilitated based on their underlying
medical condition, age, or other factors.
In order to develop a PR, CR, or ICR
treatment plan, some debilitated
patients may require evaluations by
therapists on the multidisciplinary
team, in addition to assessments by
other team members. In order to
participate successfully in the
prescribed exercise component of the
PR, CR, or ICR program, we also expect
that these patients may receive
individualized treatments by therapists
on the multidisciplinary team and
others to promote the increased
functionality that is a principle goal of
PR, CR, and ICR programs. As we stated
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule, the
items and services furnished by a CR or
PR program are individualized and set
forth in written treatment plans for each
beneficiary (74 FR 33607 and 33611).
We believe these evaluations and
individualized treatments are a part of
the PR, CR, or ICR program for those
beneficiaries who need them. As such,
we believe they should be conducted by
one or more members of the
multidisciplinary team of the PR, CR, or
ICR program with the appropriate
expertise.
While we have not defined PR, CR, or
ICR services as always including
therapists’ services as part of the
comprehensive benefit (74 FR 33608
and 33614), we have acknowledged in
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule that
written treatment plans are highly
individualized and that there should be
flexibility in the type, amount,
frequency, and duration of services
provided in each session (74 FR 33607).
We expect that physical therapists
could conduct assessments and
individualized treatments as part of the
PR, CR, or ICR program because
physical therapists have the knowledge
and skills to assist in addressing
common problems that lead to
physicians ordering PR, CR, or ICR
services for their patients, including
poor aerobic capacity, poor endurance,
and shortness of breath, in the context
of chronic pulmonary or cardiovascular
disease. In the context of PR, while we
also stated that individuals requiring PR
services have a chronic respiratory
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
disease and are in need of supervised
aerobic exercise, not PT, we
acknowledged that patients require
assessments to address individualized
needs and the provision of a mix of
services necessary to address those
needs (74 FR 33613).
Patients in PR, CR, or ICR programs
must receive the full complement of
care as defined under these benefits as
specified in section 144(a)(1) of the
MIPPA, in accordance with their
individualized treatment plan,
including assessments and prescribed
exercise. Additionally, the standard
HCPCS coding guidance instructs
practitioners and providers to report the
code for the procedure or service that
most accurately describes the service
performed. As stated in Section
20.12.1.b. of Chapter 5 of the Medicare
Contractor Beneficiary and Provider
Communications Manual, in instances
where several component services,
which have different CPT/HCPCS codes,
may be described in one more
comprehensive code, only the single
code most accurately describing the
procedure performed or service
rendered should be reported. Therefore,
we would expect that when physical
therapists provide evaluations and
individualized treatment services under
a PR, CR, or ICR treatment plan, these
services would be billed as PR, CR, or
ICR services under the PR, CR, or ICR
CPT or Level II HCPCS G-codes that
apply. When these programs are
provided in a physician office setting
and the physical therapist serves as a
member of a multidisciplinary team, the
services may not be separately billed as
therapy services or as services incident
to physician services and they need not
follow the requirements of those
policies. Services must be provided
according to the policies for PR, CR, or
ICR. For example, for therapy services
in physician offices, qualifications of
therapists, 90-day certification of plan of
care, supervision by NPPs, treatment
notes, and progress reports do not apply
unless required by PR, CR, and ICR
policies. As discussed in detail in
sections II.G.8.e. and II.G.9.d. above in
this final rule with comment period, for
purposes of PR, CR, and ICR services,
the required direct supervision must be
provided by a doctor of medicine or
osteopathy as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act for all services
furnished under the plan. For services
provided in physician’s offices, direct
supervision is defined in accordance
with existing requirements and the
existing definition of direct physician
supervision for all therapeutic services
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
furnished in physician offices at
§ 410.26.
We continue to believe that direct
supervision, as defined in the
regulations, is consistent with the
language of the MIPAA because a
physician must be present and
immediately available where services
are being furnished. A physician must
also be able to furnish assistance and
direction throughout the performance of
the services, which would include
medical consultations and medical
emergencies.
We expect that most patients who
meet the diagnosis requirements for
coverage of PR, CR, or ICR would
receive component services covered
under the PR, CR, or ICR benefit as part
of a comprehensive PR, CR, or ICR
program, subject to the coverage and
payment policies that we are finalizing
in this final rule with comment period
and the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC final rule
with comment period. We understand
that some component services of PR,
CR, or ICR have previously been
furnished to beneficiaries and paid by
Medicare under other benefits, such as
the outpatient PT benefit.
As stated above, since section
144(a)(1) of the MIPPA authorized a
new comprehensive PR program and
legislated the CR benefit to also
recognize ICR services, we believe that
outpatient Part B providers and
suppliers should furnish the
components of PR, CR, or ICR as
comprehensive programs to those
patients who qualify for coverage. We
would not expect the component
services of PR, CR, and ICR programs to
be unbundled and billed separately by
different providers or practitioners
under other benefit categories, such as
the PT benefit. Therefore, we expect that
it would be uncommon for a patient
receiving care under a PR, CR, or ICR
treatment plan to also be receiving PT
services under a separate PT plan of
care.
There may be patients with therapy
needs that are outside the treatment
plan appropriate for PR, CR, or ICR and
such patients should receive medically
necessary PT services specific to those
other needs under a PT plan of care and
according to the policies for PT services.
However, we would not expect it to be
the norm that PT services and PR, CR,
or ICR services are furnished to the
same beneficiaries in the same day.
Clearly, a single period of care can only
be billed as one type of treatment
service, so providers and suppliers
could never bill both PT and PR, CR, or
ICR services for the same time period for
the same patient (for example, during an
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61885
hour session from 10 to 11 a.m. on a
single date of service).
We plan to monitor claims data for
PR, CR, and ICR services as well as any
additional claims for therapy services. If
we detect patterns of care that are
inconsistent with our stated
expectations for PR, CR, or ICR services
and therapy services, we may encourage
Medicare contractors to review cases in
which a provider or supplier reports
both types of services for the same
patient during the same span of time
(for example, over a several month
period) or we may propose changes to
our payment methodologies for these
services.
After considering the public
comments received, we are clarifying
that we would expect component
services that are furnished under a PR,
CR, or ICR treatment plan to
beneficiaries who qualify for PR, CR, or
ICR services to be furnished as PR, CR,
or ICR services, regardless of whether
they are furnished by a physical
therapist or other healthcare
practitioner, and that all of the coverage
and payment requirements, including,
but not limited to, the physician
supervision requirements for services
incident to a physician in the physician
office setting, apply to those PR, CR, or
ICR services. We expect that providers
and suppliers of Part B services will
furnish the comprehensive set of
services that is described in the criteria
for PR, CR, or ICR programs to
beneficiaries who qualify for the benefit.
Similar comments were expressed
concerning the inclusion of
occupational therapy services in PR
programs. The policies for occupational
therapy services are the same as for
physical therapy services.
Comment: Some commenters believed
there were flaws in our method of
determining the payment rate. The
commenters did not agree that the
physician work in pulmonary
rehabilitation mirrors the physician
work in cardiac rehabilitation without
telemetry (CPT 93797). The commenters
stated that CPT code 93797 has 11
minutes of physician time, but we
applied a similar payment for a
minimum of 60 minutes of PR service.
Some commenters thought we should
multiply the physician work RVUs of
CPT code 93797 by 4 for a 60-minute
session. Some commenters also stated
that the respiratory therapy services
paid by the G-codes currently are valued
at about $15–20 for each 15 minutes of
service and that we are proposing to pay
$16 for a 1-hour session which is not
enough to cover and pay for the services
required.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61886
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We do not agree that the
physician work is substantially different
in CR than in PR. We do not expect that
the physician work for a 60-minute PR
session equals 60 minutes. We believe
the work is performed primarily by the
multidisciplinary team, and not the
physician. The current G-codes were
valued for respiratory therapy services
and not for a comprehensive pulmonary
rehabilitation program.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that our staffing and equipment
assumptions were not valid. For
example, some commenters stated that
the list of individuals recommended by
the guidelines for PR should be reflected
by those included in the PE for PR.
Commenters stated that PR includes
review of data that is comparable to
telemetry, such as EKG and oximetry.
The commenters indicated that the
equipment needed for PR should be
included in the payment.
Response: We anticipate that a variety
of team members will contribute to PR
during a session, and we have blended
the values of the types of staff that we
believe would most commonly be used.
In response to the comments, we have
increased the variety of team members
included in the mix. However, we have
not included physical therapists or
occupational therapists in the PE
because we anticipate that beneficiaries
who are eligible for the PR program will
not typically require physical therapy as
part of their PR program. If a therapist
does participate as a member of the
team, we believe that therapist typically
would be furnishing PR services to meet
PR goals that do not require the skills
of a therapist. In addition, we have
revised the PE to include more
equipment as requested.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that the pulmonary
rehabilitation code exclude certain
services that they would like to bill
separately, especially the 6 minute walk
test, outcomes assessments, 30 day
reviews, physician E/M services,
therapy codes, the current G0237–9
codes, and related services such as
94620, 94667, and 94667. The
commenters stated that bundling the
services of the PR program will result in
reduced payment rates that could shut
down PR programs.
Response: The pulmonary
rehabilitation therapy G-codes were
developed for a comprehensive
pulmonary rehabilitation program as
described in the statutory benefit. All of
the services of the program are included
in the payment. We would expect that
an individual who is receiving PR
services would receive the full
complement of services within the PR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
program and that these services would
be billed using the PR HCPCS code
G0424. We recognize that an individual
may require additional medically
necessary services such as physician E/
M or physical therapy, outside of the PR
plan of care. However, as we noted
above, we will monitor billing patterns
to assess whether the full scope of
services is being furnished to patients
under PR treatment plans. If we detect
patterns of care that are inconsistent
with our expectations, we may
encourage Medicare contractors to
review cases in which a provider or
supplier reports services for the same
patient during the same span of time
that might be considered part of a PR
treatment plan, and as a result, we may
propose changes to our payment
methodologies for these services.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that the current HCPCS Gcodes for therapeutic procedures for
respiratory function (G0237, G0238 and
G0239) continue to be used to bill for
pulmonary rehabilitation, E/M, and
diagnostic services for pulmonary
rehabilitation programs.
Response: The current HCPCS Gcodes were developed for use in CORFs
and other settings to describe the
provision of respiratory therapy
services. They continue to be
appropriate for use in CORFs for this
purpose. Outside of the CORF setting
those codes are not appropriate for use
in office settings to provide pulmonary
rehabilitation services under the new
pulmonary rehabilitation program as
defined by the MIPAA. The pulmonary
rehabilitation benefit was added by
Congress for the purpose of covering
services for patients with certain
pulmonary conditions who require a
coordinated program of treatment.
The existing HCPCS G-codes do not
represent the full scope of services in a
comprehensive PR program now
authorized by the new PR benefit. We
want to ensure that when a physician
office bills and is paid for PR services
that it attests to meeting all of the
requirements of the comprehensive PR
program by the reporting of a HCPCS Gcode specific to a PR session. We would
expect beneficiaries who could qualify
for a PR program, where a program is
available, to receive services related to
those conditions in such a program
rather than having services unbundled
and provided separately outside a PR
program. Therefore, specific codes have
been developed to identify and make
payment for services furnished as part
of pulmonary rehabilitation programs.
However, a beneficiary who was
receiving treatment in a CORF and in
need of respiratory therapy services
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
could receive those services and the
CORF could bill using the existing Gcodes, as they would have prior to the
MIPPA.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern about the duration of
the PR session which we proposed as a
minimum of 1 hour. The commenters
alleged the session is capped at 1 hour
and requested longer sessions. The
commenters maintained that the typical
PR session is a minimum duration of 2
to 3 hours.
Response: We did not cap the length
of the session at 1 hour, but proposed
to require a minimum of 1 hour of
treatment. Implied in these comments is
justification for a higher payment rate,
related to a longer duration for a
session. In response to comments
requesting longer treatments, we are
adding the phrase ‘‘per hour’’ to the new
HCPCS code G0424 descriptor to
conform the descriptor of the code to
the basis for the payment being made for
one unit of the code and to enable
suppliers to determine when one
session of PR ends and the second
session begins. The code descriptor is
G0424, Pulmonary rehabilitation,
including exercise (includes
monitoring), per hour, per session.
In addition, we are modifying our
final policy to cover up to 2 sessions of
PR per day.
After reviewing the public comments,
we will finalize our proposals with
modifications. In summary, we will:
• Change the HCPCS code descriptor
as follows: G0424, Pulmonary
rehabilitation, including aerobic
exercise (includes monitoring), per hour,
per session.
• As discussed above, we will also
allow up to two sessions of PR per day.
• Modify PE inputs, as recommended
by commenters, resulting in increased
PE RVUs. However, we continue to
believe the physician work for PR is
comparable to CR and will make no
changes to the work RVUs.
10. Section 144(b): Repeal of Transfer of
Title for Oxygen Equipment
a. Payment Rules for Oxygen and
Oxygen Equipment
(i) Overview
The general Medicare payment rules
for durable medical equipment (DME)
are set forth in section 1834(a) of the Act
and 42 CFR part 414, subpart D of our
regulations. Section 1834(a)(1) of the
Act and § 414.210(a) of our regulations
establish the Medicare payment for a
DME item as equal to 80 percent of
either the lower of the actual charge or
the fee schedule amount for the item.
The beneficiary coinsurance is equal to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
20 percent of either the lower of the
actual charge or the fee schedule
amount for the item once the deductible
is met.
Specific rules regarding payment for
oxygen and oxygen equipment are set
forth in sections 1834(a)(5), (a)(9),
(a)(14) and (a)(21) of the Act and
§ 414.226 of our regulations. Suppliers
are paid a monthly payment amount for
furnishing medically necessary
stationary oxygen equipment under the
class described in § 414.226(c)(1)(i) and
oxygen contents (for both stationary and
portable). Equipment in the stationary
class includes stationary oxygen
concentrators, which concentrate
oxygen from room air; stationary liquid
oxygen systems, which use oxygen
stored as a very cold liquid in cylinders
and tanks; and gaseous oxygen systems,
which administer compressed oxygen
directly from cylinders.
We also pay a monthly add-on
payment to suppliers furnishing
medically necessary portable oxygen
equipment falling under one of two
classes described in § 414.226(c)(1)(ii)
and (iii). Equipment in these classes
includes traditional portable equipment
that includes portable liquid oxygen
systems and portable gaseous oxygen
systems and oxygen generating portable
equipment (OGPE) that includes
portable oxygen concentrators and
oxygen transfilling equipment used to
fill portable tanks or cylinders in the
home. Both the liquid and gaseous
oxygen systems (for stationary and
portable) require on-going delivery of
oxygen contents.
(ii) Provisions of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 (DRA)
Section 5101(b) of the DRA amended
section 1834(a)(5) of the Act by limiting
monthly rental payments to suppliers
for oxygen equipment to 36 months of
continuous use. At the end of this 36month rental period, suppliers were
required to transfer title of the oxygen
equipment to the beneficiary. This
requirement started for existing
beneficiaries using oxygen on January 1,
2006 and new beneficiaries using
oxygen on or after January 1, 2006. The
provision also required payments for
oxygen contents continue after title to
the equipment has been transferred. In
the November 9, 2006 Federal Register,
we issued the ‘‘Home Health
Prospective Payment System Rate
Update for CY 2007 and Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 Changes to
Medicare Payment for Oxygen
Equipment and Capped Rental Durable
Medical Equipment’’ final rule (71 FR
65884) to implement these DRA
changes. We amended § 414.226 to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
clarify that the monthly rental payments
for items falling under the classes now
described in § 414.226(c)(1)(i) thru (iii)
are made for periods of continuous use
not to exceed 36 months. We revised the
rules regarding a period of continuous
use for the rental of DME in § 414.230
of our regulations to clarify the
continuous use determination. We also
added § 414.226(f) requiring a supplier
to transfer title to the oxygen equipment
to the beneficiary on the first day after
the 36th continuous month in which
payment is made for the equipment. In
addition, we revised § 414.226 to allow
monthly payments to suppliers for
furnishing gaseous or liquid oxygen
contents for use with either beneficiaryowned stationary equipment or
beneficiary-owned portable equipment.
Section 5101(b) of the DRA also
authorized payments for maintenance
and servicing of beneficiary-owned
oxygen equipment if the Secretary
determined such payments to be
reasonable and necessary. We
determined that paying for necessary
repairs and periodic maintenance and
servicing of beneficiary-owned oxygen
equipment was reasonable and
necessary to ensure that oxygen
equipment owned by beneficiaries
continued to function properly. Without
these payments, we were concerned that
there was little incentive for suppliers to
maintain this equipment, because the
equipment was no longer owned by the
supplier.
In the November 9, 2006 final rule, we
established other safeguards for
beneficiaries receiving oxygen and
oxygen equipment, which are set forth
at § 414.210(e)(5) and § 414.226(g).
Section 414.210(e)(5) requires
suppliers—after transferring title of the
oxygen equipment to the beneficiary—to
furnish replacement equipment at no
cost to the beneficiary or the Medicare
program if the item furnished by the
supplier does not last (that is, it breaks
down and is irreparable) for the entire
reasonable useful lifetime established
for the equipment in accordance with
§ 414.210(f)(1). Per § 414.210(f), a
beneficiary is allowed to elect to receive
new oxygen equipment if the original
equipment has been in continuous use
by the beneficiary for the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime. Section
414.210(f)(1) states the reasonable useful
lifetime for equipment is determined
through program instructions. In the
absence of program instructions, the
carrier may determine the reasonable
useful lifetime for equipment, but in no
case can it be less than 5 years.
Computation is based on when the
equipment is delivered to the
beneficiary, not the age of the
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61887
equipment. If the beneficiary elects to
obtain new oxygen equipment after the
reasonable useful lifetime, the payment
is made in accordance with § 414.226(a).
Section 414.226(g)(2) prohibits
suppliers from replacing oxygen
equipment prior to the expiration of the
36-month rental period unless a specific
exception applies. This was intended to
protect the beneficiary from the supplier
changing the beneficiary’s equipment in
order to maximize Medicare payments.
For example, the supplier may want to
move a beneficiary from a portable
oxygen concentrator to portable gaseous
equipment for which Medicare makes
additional payments after the 36-month
rental period ends.
Section 414.226(g)(4) provides that,
by no later than 2 months before the
date on which the supplier must
transfer title to oxygen equipment to the
beneficiary, the supplier must disclose
to the beneficiary: (1) whether, in the
case of oxygen transfilling equipment
and stationary or portable oxygen
concentrators, it can maintain and
service the equipment after the
beneficiary acquires title to it; and (2)
whether, in the case of stationary or
portable gaseous or liquid oxygen
systems, it can continue to deliver
oxygen contents to the beneficiary after
the beneficiary acquires title to the
equipment.
(iii) Provisions of Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act (MIPPA) Section 144(b)—
Repeal of Transfer of Ownership of
Oxygen Equipment
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period, we outlined the
provisions of section 144(b) of the
MIPPA (73 FR 69875 through 69876).
Section 144(b) of the MIPPA repeals the
requirement that the supplier transfer
title to oxygen equipment to the
beneficiary after the 36-month rental
period. In its place, section 144(b)
establishes a 36-month rental cap and
amends section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act
by adding three new payment rules and
supplier requirements for furnishing
oxygen and oxygen equipment after the
36-month rental period. Each of these
provisions is discussed below.
(a) Furnishing Oxygen Equipment After
the Rental Cap
Under this new provision, the
supplier that furnishes oxygen
equipment during the 36-month rental
period must continue to furnish the
oxygen equipment after the 36-month
rental period. The supplier is required
to continue to furnish the equipment
during any period of medical need for
the remainder of the reasonable useful
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61888
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
lifetime of the equipment. Section
144(b) does not provide any exceptions
to this requirement. For example, if the
beneficiary relocates outside the
supplier’s normal service area at some
time after the 36-month rental period
but before the end of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment, the
supplier must make arrangements for
the beneficiary to continue receiving the
equipment at his or her new place of
residence. This responsibility is not
transferred to another supplier. It is
important to note that § 414.226(g)(1)(ii)
does not apply this same requirement in
situations where the beneficiary
relocates during the 36-month rental
period. We received comments from
interested parties on whether this
should be changed in light of the repeal
of transfer of ownership of oxygen
equipment and other recently enacted
provisions of the MIPPA.
We revised § 414.226(f) to conform
our regulations to this new requirement.
We deleted the transfer of ownership
requirement and added the new
requirement that the supplier must
continue furnishing the oxygen
equipment after the 36-month rental
period during any period of medical
need for the remainder of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment.
In addition, we revised § 414.230 to
specify that under no circumstance will
a new period of continuous use begin
following the 36-month rental period
and before the end of the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime since the
supplier is responsible for furnishing
the equipment after the 36-month rental
period for any period of medical need
for the remainder of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment.
Regardless of the length of any break in
medical need that occurs following the
36-month rental period, once the break
ends and medical need for the oxygen
equipment resumes, the supplier is
obligated to continue furnishing the
item for no additional rental payments
until the end of the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime. If the
equipment’s reasonable useful lifetime
ends during the break in medical need,
the supplier is under no obligation to
continue furnishing the equipment.
However, in accordance with
§ 414.210(f), the beneficiary may elect to
obtain new equipment in these
situations. If the beneficiary elects to
obtain new equipment, a new 36-month
rental period begins. It is important to
note that, in accordance with section
5101(b)(2)(B) of the DRA, in the case of
beneficiaries receiving oxygen
equipment on December 31, 2005, the
36-month rental period begins on
January 1, 2006. However, in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
accordance with § 414.210(f)(1), the
reasonable useful lifetime of durable
medical equipment, including oxygen
equipment, begins on the date that the
equipment is first delivered to the
beneficiary. The reasonable useful
lifetime of oxygen equipment furnished
to beneficiaries on December 31, 2005,
is not adjusted to begin anew on January
1, 2006, to correspond with the start of
the 36-month rental period. Therefore,
in these situations, the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime may end at
any point during or after the 36-month
rental period depending on the first day
the equipment was delivered to the
beneficiary. In these situations, a new
period of continuous use and a new 36month rental period would begin if the
beneficiary elects to obtain new
equipment.
We also revised § 414.210(e)(2), (e)(4)
and (e)(5) to delete regulatory text
which relates to beneficiary ownership
of oxygen equipment. In addition, we
deleted § 414.210(e)(3) because
beneficiaries will no longer own oxygen
tanks and cylinders. Because
§ 414.210(e)(3) was deleted, we
redesignated § 414.210(e)(4) and
§ 414.210(e)(5) as § 414.210(e)(3) and
§ 414.210(e)(4), respectively.
We also revised § 414.226 to state that
the protection against supplier
replacement of oxygen equipment,
unless an exception applies, continues
to be in effect after the 36-month rental
period ends. Specifically, we revised
§ 414.226(g)(2) to indicate that this
prohibition applies until the expiration
of the reasonable useful lifetime
established for the equipment. As
discussed in the November 9, 2006 final
rule (71 FR 65894), we believe this is a
necessary safeguard for the beneficiary
against changes in equipment made by
the supplier in order to maximize
payments resulting from moving from
one modality to another. Finally, we
deleted § 414.226(g)(4) because the
transfer of ownership of oxygen
equipment provision has been repealed,
rendering this provision inapplicable.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses.
Comment: Numerous commenters
requested a delay in the implementation
of the 36-month rental cap on oxygen
and oxygen equipment. Many
commenters expressed concerns about
the impact of the 36-month cap on
suppliers. Some commenters stated the
amendments of section 144(b) of the
MIPPA are sparse and that more time is
needed to consider options for
implementing these amendments to the
statute. Other commenters had concerns
that the program has not issued
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
adequate guidance to implement these
provisions.
Response: While we recognize that
the regulatory changes established new
requirements for oxygen suppliers after
the 36 month payment cap, the statutory
mandate for implementing the 36-month
oxygen payment cap does not provide
any flexibility for a delay in the
implementation of this provision. In
accordance with section 1834(a)(5) of
the Act, as amended by section 5101(b)
of the DRA, we are required to limit
monthly payments to suppliers for
oxygen equipment to 36 months of
continuous use, effective January 1,
2006. Since implementation of the 36month rental cap is required by section
5101(b) of the DRA, it is outside the
scope of this rulemaking effort, which
addresses implementation of section
144(b) of the MIPPA. Section 144(b) of
the MIPPA amendments to section
1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act, repealing the
transfer of ownership of oxygen
equipment after the 36-month payment
rental cap, were effective January 1,
2009. CMS was committed to meeting
this statutory mandate. We note that
sub-regulatory guidance was issued
which provided additional details on
implementing the provisions of section
144(b) of the MIPPA.
Comment: Many commenters disagree
that the 36-month rental cap on oxygen
and oxygen equipment applies to all
equipment, accessories, and supplies
used in conjunction with the oxygen
equipment (other than the oxygen
contents). They believe that separate
payment should be allowed after the cap
for replacement supplies and
accessories such as cannulas, tubing,
and regulators.
Response: As discussed in the above
response, implementation of the 36month rental payment cap for oxygen
equipment was mandated by section
5101(b) of the DRA. The cap applies to
both the monthly payment amount for
oxygen and oxygen equipment and the
portable equipment add-on payments.
Since 1989, suppliers have been paid, in
accordance with the rules set forth in
section 1834(a)(5) of the Act and
§ 414.226 of our regulations, a monthly
payment amount that includes payment
for all equipment, accessories, supplies,
and stationary and portable oxygen
contents. The November 9, 2006 final
rule (71 FR 65885) to implement section
5101(b) of the DRA provides additional
discussion on the implementation of the
oxygen 36-month rental payment cap.
Section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act only
authorizes payment for oxygen contents
following the 36-month cap. These rules
mandate continued payments for
furnishing oxygen contents for use with
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
gaseous or liquid oxygen equipment
after the cap. The statute does not
authorize payment after the cap for
accessories and supplies used with the
oxygen equipment.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that the Congress repealed the
provisions of the DRA requiring transfer
of title for oxygen equipment to the
beneficiary because the Congress
realized that oxygen recipients need
frequent services from suppliers. These
commenters believe that the new
regulatory changes did not address the
number of oxygen service visits thereby
permitting reductions in service visits
and quality of care.
Response: In accordance with section
1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act, we have revised
§ 414.226(f)(1) to require a supplier who
furnished oxygen equipment to a
beneficiary during the 36th month of
continuous use to continue furnishing
the equipment for any period of medical
need until the end of the reasonable
useful lifetime established for the
equipment. Section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the
Act authorizes payments following the
36-month cap for oxygen contents. The
statute does not authorize payment after
the cap for services related to furnishing
oxygen equipment other than
maintenance and servicing of the
equipment, which is addressed in
section II.G.10.c. below in this section.
Comment: A number of commenters
noted that accreditation standards
require oxygen suppliers to have on-call
availability 24 hours a day to respond to
patient respiratory issues. However,
without additional program
reimbursement after the 36-month cap,
these commenters believe that suppliers
may not adequately comply with the
accreditation requirement unless
accreditation is addressed separately at
§ 414.226.
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of the rule. The accreditation
standards are required by Section
1834(a)(20) of the Act, as amended by
Section 302 of the Medicare Prescripton
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (MMA). Section
424.57(c)(22) requires compliance with
accreditation as part of the DMEPOS
supplier standards. Also, if a supplier is
found to not meet a mandatory supplier
standard such as accreditation
requirements, we may invoke
administrative remedies. In accordance
with § 424.57(d), failure to meet a
mandatory supplier standard may be
addressed by revoking a supplier’s
billing privileges.
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that we did not amend our
regulations to include beneficiary
safeguards to prevent oxygen suppliers,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
who do not want to provide services
after the 36 month cap, from forcing
more complex and costly oxygen
patients into skilled nursing facilities or
forcing beneficiaries to pay out-ofpocket for certain services.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s interest in the prevention
of abuse to oxygen beneficiaries. We
believe beneficiary safeguards for
prevention of abuse when furnishing of
oxygen and oxygen equipment are
encompassed in the DMEPOS supplier
standards. The supplier standard at
§ 424.57(c)(1) requires the supplier to
operate its business and furnish
Medicare-covered items in compliance
with all applicable Federal and State
licensure and regulatory requirements.
Also, § 414.226(f) of our regulations
requires that the supplier that furnishes
oxygen equipment for the 36th
continuous month during which
payment is made must continue to
furnish the equipment during any
period of medical need for the
remainder of the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime. The supplier
may not charge the beneficiary or the
program for services associated with
meeting these requirements. Thus, if it
is determined that the supplier is out of
compliance with these requirements,
CMS sanctions may apply.
As we discussed above, if a supplier
is found to not meet a mandatory
supplier standard, we may invoke
administrative remedies. For example,
in accordance with § 424.57(d), failure
to meet a mandatory supplier standard
may be addressed by revoking a
supplier’s billing privileges.
Comment: A number of commenters
suggested amending our regulations to
provide additional reimbursement after
the 36-month cap when the oxygen
supplier must assist beneficiaries due to
power outages caused by natural
disasters and other emergencies.
Another commenter explained that an
emergency could be defined as a
beneficiary who is having trouble
breathing after facing an unexpected
environmental emergency situation.
Response: Section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the
Act authorizes specific types of
payments following the 36-month cap.
The statute mandates continued
payments for oxygen contents for use
with gaseous or liquid oxygen
equipment after the cap. Other than
maintenance and servicing of the
equipment, which is addressed in
section II.G.10.c. below, the statute does
not authorize other payment for services
related to furnishing oxygen equipment.
Thus, if a beneficiary’s concentrator
cannot function due to a power outage,
the supplier may meet the beneficiary’s
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61889
oxygen needs by furnishing gaseous or
liquid stationary equipment until the
power resumes at the beneficiary’s
home. If oxygen equipment is lost or
irreparably damaged due to an
emergency situation such as a fire or
flood, Medicare payment can be made
for replacement of the oxygen
equipment in accordance with
§ 414.210(f)(2).
Comment: Numerous commenters
opposed the provisions in
§ 414.226(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) which
requires the supplier to arrange to
furnish oxygen equipment and oxygen if
the beneficiary relocates to an area that
is outside the normal service area of the
supplier that initially furnished the
equipment. Many commenters
emphasized small and rural suppliers
will have greater difficulty making
arrangements outside their service area
because these suppliers do not have
expertise and resources to enter many
arrangements outside their service area.
Several commenters were concerned
that supplier licensing and accreditation
is not applicable outside their state or
normal service area and this would
present problems when supervising the
furnishing of oxygen services for a
beneficiary that relocates outside their
service area. A few commenters noted
that the costs associated with
transferring a beneficiary to an out of
area supplier were not discussed and
thus a reasonable basis for the
provisions at § 414.226(f)(1)(ii) and
(f)(2)(ii) had not been established. One
commenter contended that
§ 414.226(f)(2) is inconsistent with other
regulations for the DME competitive
bidding program.
Response: We understand there may
be challenges with furnishing oxygen
and oxygen equipment to traveling and
relocating beneficiaries. However, in the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69876), we explained that
the provisions of section 144(b) of the
MIPPA do not contain exceptions to the
36 month rental cap for situations when
a beneficiary travels or permanently
relocates to another area. In instances in
which a beneficiary relocates outside of
the normal service area of a supplier,
the current supplier must make
arrangements in the new service area
with a Medicare-enrolled supplier who
is required to be compliant with all
applicable Federal and State licensure
and regulatory requirements.
Furthermore, we have worked with our
contractors who issued subregulatory
guidance on billing for situations when
a beneficiary travels or permanently
relocates because these situations
necessitate attention to the date of
service and location of the supplier. We
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61890
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
will continue to monitor this issue and
if necessary, develop additional
subregulatory instructions. Concerns
related to the regulations for the
DMEPOS competitive bidding program
are not in the scope of these regulatory
changes.
Comment: Some commenters noted
that beneficiaries that have not reached
the end of the 36-month cap may
confront difficulties in securing a new
supplier in an area that is outside the
normal service area of the supplier that
initially furnished the equipment since
the new supplier will receive a reduced
number of payments before the end of
the 36-month rental period. Several
commenters requested confirmation that
§ 414.226(g) does not require that the
supplier furnish or make arrangements
to furnish oxygen to a beneficiary
outside of the service area during the
36-month rental period.
Response: Regulatory changes
concerning the 36-month rental cap are
outside the scope of this rule which is
intended to implement the provisions of
section 144(b) of the MIPPA. As a result,
we are finalizing § 414.226(f)(1)(ii) and
(f)(2)(ii) as proposed.
However, as discussed in our
response above, we have worked with
our contractors who issued
subregulatory guidance on billing for
situations when a beneficiary travels or
permanently relocates because these
situations necessitate attention to the
date of service and location of the
supplier. When a beneficiary travels or
relocates during the 36-month rental
period, the existing supplier can aid the
beneficiary in locating a supplier in the
new service area. In addition,
ombudsman staff at 1–800–Medicare
has been trained to assist beneficiaries
in these situations to find a new
supplier. We will continue to monitor
this issue closely and will take
appropriate actions to address these
situations.
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification on how to apply
the § 414.230 requirement of continuous
use for durable medical equipment to
the 36-month rental cap for oxygen
equipment.
Response: In the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR
69937), we added § 414.230(h) to our
regulation on determining a period of
continuous use to clarify that after the
36-month rental period, a new period of
continuous use does not begin under
any circumstance in the case of oxygen
equipment furnished between the end of
the 36-month rental cap and the end of
the equipment’s reasonable useful
lifetime. The statute and regulation
require a supplier to continue
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
furnishing the oxygen equipment after
the 36th continuous month for any
period of medical need for the
remainder of the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime. Additional
details pertaining to the definition of
continuous use of oxygen and oxygen
equipment both before and after the 36month rental cap have been issued
through sub-regulatory guidance as part
of the implementation of the 36-month
rental cap mandated by the DRA. In
addition to transmittal 421 (Change
Request 6297), we provided program
guidance on January 26, 2009 to
contractors containing oxygen and
oxygen equipment continuous use
policies. These policies have been
posted on the contractors’ Web sites.
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification on supporting
documentation for replacement oxygen
equipment after the expiration of the 5year useful lifetime.
Response: When oxygen equipment is
replaced because the equipment has
been in continuous use by the patient
for the equipment’s reasonable useful
lifetime, a new Certificiate of Medical
Necessity (CMN) is required to establish
a new 36-month rental period and new
reasonable useful lifetime. Suppliers
must also furnish documentation in
order to verify that the equipment being
replaced has been in use for at least 5
years. Additional details pertaining to
the documentation required to support
the replacement of oxygen equipment
after the expiration of the 5-year
reasonable useful lifetime have been
issued through Medicare contractor
subregulatory guidance which has been
posted on the contractor’s Web sites.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the requirements at
§ 414.226(f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i) for a
supplier to continue furnishing oxygen
and oxygen equipment after the cap
prevent a beneficiary from changing
suppliers if the supplier is performing
poorly. This potentially results in the
beneficiary being forced to utilize a low
quality supplier for at least 5 years.
Response: Section 144(b) of the
MIPPA requires that the supplier
furnishing equipment in the 36th
continuous month continue furnishing
the equipment during any period of
medical need for the remainder of the
reasonable useful lifetime of the
equipment, as determined by the
Secretary. We believe the language of
section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act, as
amended by 144(b) of the MIPPA, is
clear. Since oxygen contents are
furnished as part of the continued
furnishing of gaseous or liquid oxygen
equipment, this requirement extends to
oxygen contents furnished after the cap.
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
This is explained in more detail in
section II.G.10.b below. Regarding the
quality of items and services provided
by suppliers of oxygen and oxygen
equipment, beneficiaries who encounter
such problems should report them by
contacting 1–800–Medicare. A
beneficiary ombudsman will work to
resolve the issue. Also, we note that
program requirements are now in place
and require suppliers of oxygen and
oxygen equipment to have surety bonds
and be accredited to meet mandated
quality standards. Failures to remain in
compliance with these quality standards
will be reported to the supplier’s
accreditation organization.
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification on changing
oxygen equipment systems during and
after the oxygen rental period.
Response: During and after the 36month rental period, if the beneficiary’s
physician orders a change in modality
(oxygen equipment delivery system), the
supplier must furnish that new modality
without a restart of the 36-month rental
period per the continuous use
regulations at § 414.230. Section
414.226(g)(2) prohibits a supplier from
changing a beneficiary’s oxygen
equipment/modality during the 36
month payment period without a
physician’s order, unless the equipment
is lost, stolen, irreparably damaged, or
in cases where the beneficiary elects to
upgrade to newer technology
equipment. Also, § 414.226(g)(1)
requires that the supplier that furnished
oxygen equipment for the first month
during which payment is made must
continue to furnish the equipment for
the entire 36-month period unless
certain specific exeptions apply.
After consideration of the public
comments, we are finalizing these
provisions without modification.
b. Payment for Oxygen Contents After
the Rental Cap
Section 144(b)(1) of the MIPPA
amends section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(II) of
the Act and requires us to continue to
make payments to suppliers for
furnishing oxygen contents after the 36month rental cap for oxygen equipment
ends. Under this provision, an oxygen
supplier that furnished liquid or
gaseous oxygen equipment during the
36-month rental period, and is required
by section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act
to continue furnishing the equipment
after the 36-month rental period ends,
will receive payment for furnishing
oxygen contents necessary for use with
liquid or gaseous oxygen equipment
after the 36-month rental period.
Section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(II) of the Act
establishes the payment amount for the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
oxygen contents as that set forth in
section 1834(a)(9) of the Act.
We revised § 414.226(d) and (f) to
specify that payment shall be made for
oxygen contents for use with supplierowned liquid or gaseous oxygen
equipment furnished after the 36-month
rental period. An oxygen supplier that
furnishes liquid or gaseous oxygen
equipment during the 36-month rental
month must continue to furnish the
oxygen contents for any period of
medical need for the remainder of the
reasonable useful lifetime of the liquid
or gaseous oxygen equipment
established in accordance with
§ 414.210(f)(1). This requirement is
necessary because liquid and gaseous
oxygen systems (stationary and
portable) require on-going delivery of
oxygen contents in tanks or cylinders to
furnish oxygen to the patient. We
believe that the MIPPA provisions when
read together provide that the supplier
that continues to furnish liquid or
gaseous oxygen equipment in
accordance with section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act is also
required to furnish the oxygen contents
housed in those tanks. This is based on
the nature of the benfit and the
requirement in the statute that the
supplier ‘‘must continue to furnish’’ the
equipment during any period of medical
need. Empty tanks furnished in
accordance with section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act would
provide no benefit to the patient, since
the patient would not be receiving
oxygen through the equipment.
We revised § 414.226(f) to specify that
the supplier must make arrangements
for the beneficiary to continue receiving
the equipment if the beneficiary
relocates at some time after the 36month rental period but before the end
of the reasonable useful lifetime of the
equipment. Likewise, we revised
§ 414.226(f) to specify that, in the case
of liquid or gaseous equipment
(stationary and portable) the supplier
must make arrangements for the
beneficiary to continue receiving oxygen
contents if the beneficiary relocates at
some time after the 36-month rental
period but before the end of the
reasonable useful lifetime of the liquid
or gaseous equipment (stationary and
portable). The supplier must make
arrangements for the beneficiary to
continue receiving the oxygen contents
and equipment at his or her new
residence.
Comment: One commenter noted the
rule does not specify if Medicare pays
for the delivery of oxygen contents
when the beneficiary elects to purchase
their oxygen equipment.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: In accordance with
§ 414.226(d)(3)(i) and § 414.226(d)(4)(i),
payment is made for the delivery of
oxygen contents used with beneficiaryowned equipment as long as such
contents are medically necessary.
Comment: Several commenters
questioned the billing instructions for
oxygen contents with regards to HCPCS
codes, supporting documentation, and
units of service.
Response: Since the publication of the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period, we have released subregulatory
instructions on these issues for oxygen
and oxygen equipment. The contents of
these instructions have been posted on
the contractors’ Web sites.
Comment: Some commenters
requested increased payments for higher
contents usage. One commenter stated
that after the 36 month cap, individual
patient usage may increase due to a
change in patient condition requiring
more oxygen contents. The commenters
suggested the supplier should be
permitted to issue an Advanced
Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and bill the
beneficiary for nonassigned claims.
Response: Section 144(b)(1) of
MIPPA, which amends section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii) of the Act, does not
provide for additional payments for
volume adjustments on content
payments after the 36-month rental cap.
The monthly payments for oxygen
contents include payment for oxygen
contents needed for the entire month.
The payment amount does not vary
depending on the quantity (low or high)
of oxygen needed. Use of an ABN is
therefore not appropriate in these
situations.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on whether a
nonparticipating DME supplier who has
accepted assignment of claims for
oxygen and oxygen equipment during
the 36-month rental cap period has to
continue to accept assignment of claims
for oxygen contents furnished after the
36-month cap.
Response: Since nonparticipating
suppliers can elect to accept assignment
on a claim by claim basis, a nonparticipating supplier can decide to
provide oxygen contents on an
unassigned basis after the 36-month
payment cap.
After consideration of the comments
received, we are adopting these
provisions as final without
modifications.
c. Maintenance and Servicing of
Supplier-Owned Oxygen Equipment
After the Rental Cap
Section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(III), as
amended by section 144(b)(1) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61891
MIPPA, authorizes payment for
maintenance and servicing of supplierowned oxygen equipment furnished
after the 36-month rental period if we
determine such payments are reasonable
and necessary.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period, we determined that it
is not reasonable and necessary to pay
for servicing (repair) and non-routine
maintenance of supplier-owned oxygen
equipment. Given that the supplier
owns the equipment, we believe the
supplier should be responsible for
maintaining its equipment in working
order as it did during the 36-month
rental period. In addition, warranties
covering 5 years are generally available
for the top selling brands of oxygen
equipment and as discussed in the
November 9, 2006 final rule (71 FR
65917) and the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69878), we
understand from manufacturers that
such products are generally dependable.
In a September 2006 report entitled
‘‘Medicare Home Oxygen Equipment:
Cost and Servicing,’’ (OEI–09–04–
00420), the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) of the Department of Health and
Human Services found that only 22
percent of beneficiaries who began
renting oxygen equipment in 2001
rented the equipment for 36 months or
longer. Recent claims data analysis
indicates that more than 75 percent of
Medicare beneficiaries do not rent
oxygen equipment for longer than the 36
months (see Table 52 in section XIII. of
this final rule with comment period.)
Therefore, oxygen equipment is
returned to suppliers before the end of
the 36-month rental period in more than
75 percent of cases, and suppliers are
then able to furnish the equipment to
other beneficiaries, starting new 36month periods of rental payments for
the same equipment. Given that
equipment that is less than 5 years old
requires minimal maintenance and
servicing, and in more than 75 percent
of oxygen equipment rental episodes,
suppliers receive more than 36 rental
payments for the same piece of
equipment, we concluded that suppliers
should be responsible for maintaining
their equipment in working order after
the 36-month rental period as they did
during the 36-month rental period.
Although we determined as part of
the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period provisions that it is not
reasonable and necessary to make
payments for repair or non-routine
maintenance of the supplier-owned
oxygen equipment, we made an initial
determination applicable to CY 2009
only that it is reasonable and necessary
for the safety of the beneficiary to make
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61892
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
payments for periodic, in-home visits by
suppliers to inspect oxygen
concentrators and transfilling
equipment and provide routine
maintenance and servicing during these
visits to ensure that the equipment is
functioning properly. Therefore, we
revised § 414.210(e)(2), to provide
payment in 2009 for general
maintenance and servicing of supplierowned oxygen concentrators and
transfilling equipment furnished after
the 36-month rental period in
accordance with section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act consistent
with our authority in section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(III) of the Act. Payments
are made in 2009 when the supplier
performs routine maintenance and
servicing as part of a visit to the
beneficiary’s home, 6 months after the
36-month rental period ends. Payments
in 2009 for a maintenance and service
visit may be made when the beneficiary
is at home or at a temporary residence
(for example, a vacation residence). For
each visit, payment is equal to the
Medicare allowed payment amount for
30 minutes of labor associated with
repair of beneficiary-owned DME. As we
indicated in the November 9, 2006 final
rule for implementing section 5101(b) of
the DRA (71 FR 65917), we believe that
payment for 30 minutes of labor will
adequately compensate suppliers for
general maintenance and servicing visits
based on findings by the OIG in their
September 2006 report (OEI–09–04–
00420) that many routine maintenance
activities performed by suppliers on
concentrators could be performed
within that timeframe.
Separate payment is not made for
parts replaced during the general
maintenance and servicing visit, as the
primary purpose of the periodic visit is
to check the supplier-owned equipment
to ensure that it is functioning properly.
If parts need to be replaced in order to
make the equipment serviceable, we
concluded that the supplier should be
responsible for replacing the parts on
equipment from their inventory that
they are furnishing to the beneficiary in
order to meet the beneficiary’s medical
need for oxygen.
We solicited comments from
interested parties on whether these
payments should continue past CY
2009. The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses.
Comment: Numerous commenters
were in favor of continuing payment for
maintenance and servicing visits past
2009. However, many commenters
stated that a biannual maintenance and
servicing payment is insufficient in
frequency. Other commenters suggested
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
that limiting maintenance and servicing
payments to visits every 6 months will
result in patients being hospitalized due
to respiratory conditions. The
commenters suggested that more
frequent maintenance and servicing
visits will prevent hospitalizations.
Commenters also opposed basing the
payment amount for maintenance and
servicing on 30 minutes of labor. These
commenters felt that the payment
amount of two units of labor was
inadequate to cover travel, labor
(average 2 to 4 hours for travel and visit
time), repairs, and supplies for a home
visit. Several commenters requested
clarification on the specific timeframe
for when a maintenance and servicing
visit may occur after the end of the 36month rental period. Several
commenters requested that we provide
more specific data and the methodology
used to compute the reimbursement for
a maintenance and servicing visit.
A number of commenters suggested
that the maintenance and servicing rules
and payments for oxygen equipment
should be similar to those described at
§ 414.229(e) for capped rental items
furnished prior to January 1, 2006.
Under these rules, the maintenance and
servicing payment amounts are made
every 6 months, beginning 6 months
after the end of the rental cap period
and cover all maintenance, servicing,
and repair of the equipment that is
needed after the rental cap. The
payment amounts are limited to one
month’s rental payment for the item.
Response: We appreciate the
comments received and agree that
continuing maintenance and servicing
payments for oxygen concentrators and
transfilling equipment past 2009 is
reasonable and necessary for the safety
of the beneficiary. We are also clarifying
that the supplier that furnishes the
equipment during the 36th continuous
month during which payment is made
is responsible for continuing to furnish
the equipment after the 36th continuous
month (after the cap) and is responsible
for furnishing equipment in good
working order regardless of the
implementation of section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(III) of the Act. We
would like to stress this point for
commenters who suggest that
beneficiaries will be harmed unless
these payments are sufficient to cover
specific costs incurred by the supplier
for maintaining and servicing supplierowned equipment.
Nevertheless, we agree with
commenters that it is reasonable and
necessary to increase the maintenance
and servicing payment established for
2009 to further ensure the equipment is
maintained and serviced by the
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supplier, thereby protecting
beneficiaries who rely on oxygen
equipment to deliver a sufficient
concentration and quantity of oxygen on
an uninterrupted basis. We also agree
with commenters who believe that it is
reasonable and necessary to establish
rules for maintenance and servicing of
certain oxygen equipment that are
similar to the rules described at
§ 414.229(e) for capped rental items
furnished to beneficiaries beginning on
or before December 31, 2005.
These rules allow payment every 6
months, beginning 6 months after the
end of the rental cap period, for all
necessary maintenance and servicing. In
accordance with § 414.229(e), a
reasonable fee is established for
maintenance and servicing not to
exceed 10 percent of the purchase price
of the item. Our experience and an OIG
report from June 2002 entitled
‘‘Medicare Maintenance Payments for
Capped Rental Equipment’’ (OEI–03–
00–00410) indicates that such rules
more than adequately reimbursed
suppliers for maintenance and servicing
of capped rental items. In addition, we
believe it is necessary to continue
requiring that suppliers make visits
every 6 months to the beneficiary’s
home to inspect the oxygen equipment
to ensure that all of the equipment
maintenance and servicing needs are
being addressed.
Regarding the fee for maintenance and
servicing, in order to model the
payment for maintenance and servicing
of certain oxygen equipment after the
capped rental maintenance and
servicing provision at § 414.229(e), it is
necessary to develop maintenance and
servicing payments for oxygen
equipment in a way that ensures that
the amount does not exceed 10 percent
of the purchase price of the equipment.
The monthly payment amount for
oxygen and oxygen equipment includes
payment for oxygen contents in addition
to equipment rental and is not
established based on a percentage of the
purchase price of the equipment, as is
the case for capped rental items. In the
September 2006 report on oxygen
equipment, the OIG found that the
average cost of an oxygen concentrator
was $587. Increasing this amount to a
2010 price based on the percentage
change in the Consumer Price Index for
all Urban Consumers (CPI–U) from 2006
to 2010 yields a purchase price of $660.
We note that the percentage change in
the CPI–U from June 2008 to June 2009,
the factor used to inflate prices from
2009 to 2010, is a negative 1.41 percent.
Therefore, we use a factor of zero
percent as the indicator for inflation for
this year. Establishing the maintenance
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and servicing fee based on 10 percent of
this average price would result in a
payment of $66 for CY 2010. For
subsequent years, the payment amount
will be adjusted based on the covered
item update for DME as set forth in
section 1834(a)(14) of the Act.
After careful consideration of
comments on this issue, we are adding
§ 414.210(e)(5) to make ongoing
maintenance and servicing payments for
oxygen concentrators and transfilling
equipment (or equipment other than
stationary or portable gaseous or liquid
oxygen equipment) furnished on or after
July 1, 2010 based on a reasonable fee
not to exceed 10 percent of the purchase
price for a stationary oxygen
concentrator. We are making these
changes effective for items furnished on
or after July 1, 2010, to allow time for
necessary systems changes. We are
revising § 414.210(e)(2) to continue the
maintenance and servicing policy
established for certain oxygen
equipment for 2009, for items furnished
from January 1, 2010 through June 30,
2010. For items furnished on or after
July 1, 2010, the maintenance and
servicing payments would be made
following each subsequent 6-month
period until either medical necessity
ends or the beneficiary elects to obtain
new equipment. Only one maintenance
and servicing payment will be made
during each 6-month period for any
combination of concentrator and oxygen
transfilling equipment used by the
beneficiary in their home. The
maintenance and servicing payment
includes payment for all necessary
maintenance and servicing of the
beneficiary’s oxygen concentrator
(stationary or portable) and transfilling
equipment and a minimum of one
required visit to the beneficiary’s home
to inspect the equipment. Consistent
with our existing policy, no payment is
made for maintenance and servicing of
gaseous or liquid oxygen equipment.
Finally, in response to comments, we
are revising § 414.210(e)(2), and adding
(e)(2)(iii) and (e)(5)(iv) to clarify that the
visit to the beneficiary’s home must
occur during the first month of the 6month period. This will ensure that the
visits occur in 6-month intervals so that
maintenance and servicing necessary to
keep the equipment in good working
order for the next 6 months is performed
for each subsequent 6-month period and
avoids overlap of 6-month maintenance
and servicing episodes.
Comment: One commenter asked for
clarification as to whether suppliers can
enter into a service contract with the
beneficiary after the 36-month cap for
additional maintenance and service
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
visits along with any necessary on-call
visits.
Response: In accordance with
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act and
regulations at § 414.226(f)(1), the
supplier is responsible for furnishing, or
making arrangements to furnish, the
oxygen equipment in good working
order for any period of medical need
after the 36-month cap for the remainder
of the reasonable useful lifetime of the
equipment. In addition, as indicated
above, we are revising § 414.210(e)(2)
and § 414.210(e)(5) to make payment for
ongoing maintenance and servicing of
equipment other than gaseous or liquid
oxygen equipment after the cap.
Therefore, we believe it would be
inconsistent with these provisions for
suppliers to require that beneficiaries
enter into service contracts for
maintenance and servicing of rented
oxygen equipment at any time or to
charge the beneficiary for maintenance
and servicing of equipment beyond
those allowed by regulations at
§ 414.210(e). As explained previously,
the supplier is required to furnish
gaseous or liquid oxygen equipment in
good working order during the 36month rental period and following the
36-month rental period when payments
continue for delivery of oxygen
contents. Therefore, it would be
inconsistent with these provisions for
the supplier to charge the beneficiary for
maintenance and servicing of gaseous or
liquid oxygen equipment.
After consideration of the comments
received, we are adopting as final
§ 414.210 by revising § 414.210(e)(2) and
adding § 414.210(e)(5).
d. Other Public Comments Received on
the CY 2009 PFS Final Rule With
Comment Period
Comment: Several commenters noted
that CMS did not discuss the
application of policies for Advanced
Beneficiary Notices (ABN) on the period
following the 36-month oxygen payment
cap.
Response: Using an ABN in the post
36-month period is only applicable
when upgrading to medically
unnecessary equipment or equipment
with features that are not medically
necessary. As a result, we do not
anticipate frequent application of an
ABN during the post 36-month period
and did not incorporate this issue in our
regulations at § 414.226(f) and (g).
Comment: Several commenters
explained that currently respiratory
therapists are not separately reimbursed
as licensed practitioners under the PFS.
As a result, they receive payment for
their professional services from
suppliers receiving payment for
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61893
furnishing oxygen equipment. Thus,
reductions in payment for home oxygen
equipment will adversely affect
payments for respiratory therapists. The
commenters requested that payment
should be established for respiratory
therapists under the PFS.
Response: This topic of Medicare
coverage and payment for the
professional services of licensed
respiratory therapists is not a subject of
the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period or this final rule with
comment period for implementation of
section 144(b) of MIPPA and therefore
outside the scope of this rule.
Comment: Several commenters raised
concern that our regulations do not
address situations where an oxygen
supplier discontinues its business or
declares bankruptcy. The commenters
believe a new supplier will refrain from
accepting patients from a terminating
supplier because the new supplier will
receive fewer monthly rental payments
and upon reaching the payment cap, the
new supplier must continue furnishing
the oxygen and oxygen equipment for
the remainder of the reasonable useful
lifetime of the equipment.
Response: We will evaluate current
regulations to determine if oxygen
equipment that is lost due to bankruptcy
can be replaced. We are not addressing
bankruptcy in this rulemaking which is
intended to address the provisions of
section 144(b) of the MIPPA.
Comment: Several commenters
objected that our regulation at
§ 414.210(f)(1) establishes that the
reasonable useful lifetime of DME
cannot be less than 5 years and instead
recommended that the regulation be
revised for oxygen equipment to 3 years.
One commenter stated most oxygen
compressors expire after approximately
9,000 to 10,000 hours of use of the
equipment. Additionally, one
commenter requested clarification on
whether the useful lifetime restarts if
the oxygen equipment has been changed
or replaced after the equipment was
originally delivered to the patient but
before the expiration of 5 years.
Response: The reasonable useful
lifetime begins with the initial delivery
date of the equipment. Equipment can
be changed for another oxygen modality
or replaced without affecting the
duration of the reasonable useful
lifetime as long as there is not a break
in the medical necessity of oxygen
(break in need) during the 36-month
rental period, for at least 60 days plus
the days remaining in the last paid
rental month. It is important to note,
however, that our regulations did not
propose an amendment to
§ 414.210(f)(1) and as such, revisions to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61894
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the length of the reasonable period are
outside the scope of this rulemaking
effort.
11. Section 152(b): Coverage of Kidney
Disease Patient Education Services
Section 152(b) of the MIPPA provides
for coverage of kidney disease education
(KDE) services for patients. The
following is an outline of our final rule
to implement the statutory amendments.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
a. Statutory Authority
Section 152(b) of the MIPPA amended
section 1861(s)(2) of the Act by adding
a new subparagraph (EE) ‘‘kidney
disease education services’’ as a
Medicare-covered benefit under Part B.
This new benefit is available for
Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with
Stage IV CKD, who in accordance with
accepted clinical guidelines identified
by the Secretary, will require dialysis or
a kidney transplant. KDE services will
be designed to provide comprehensive
information regarding:
• The management of comorbidities,
including delaying the need for dialysis;
• Prevention of uremic
complications;
• Options for renal replacement
therapy (including hemodialysis and
peritoneal dialysis, at home and incenter, as well as vascular access
options and transplantation);
• Ensuring that the beneficiary has
the opportunity to actively participate
in his or her choice of therapy; and
• Tailored to meet the needs of the
beneficiary involved.
b. Public Meetings
Section 1861(ggg)(3), as added by
section 152(b) of the MIPPA, requires
that the Secretary set standards for the
content of the KDE services after
consulting with various stakeholders,
who to the extent possible, had not
received industry funding from a drug
or biological manufacturer or dialysis
facility. On November 6, 2008, and
December 16, 2008, we held two
feedback sessions to solicit stakeholder
comments regarding the implementation
of section 152(b) of the MIPPA. Both
feedback sessions were open to the
public. In addition to the feedback
sessions, we conducted an internal
review of the available medical
evidence, literature, and currently
available CKD patient education
programs. Transcripts from both events
are available on the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
CoverageGenInfo/
08_CKD.asp#TopOfPage. A summary of
the feedback sessions is available in the
proposed rule (74 FR 33615 through
33616).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
c. Summary of Proposed Rule and
Comments
We proposed, consistent with section
1861(ggg) of the Act, to amend 42 CFR
part 410 to add new § 410.48 for KDE
services as a Medicare Part B benefit.
The following is a summary of the
provisions of the proposed rule, and the
comments we received on the proposed
rule, and the changes we are making in
this final rule regarding coverage of KDE
under section 152(b) of the MIPPA. We
received broad support from
commenters regarding the addition of
KDE services as a Medicare Part B
covered benefit. Most were generally
pleased with the proposed rule and
commended us for our expeditious
implementation of the MIPPA
provisions. Commenters appreciated
that CMS collected and incorporated
broad stakeholder feedback in the
development of the proposed rule.
(1) Definitions (§ 410.48(a))
As related to the implementation of
section 1861(ggg) of the Act, we
proposed the following definitions in
§ 410.48:
• Kidney Disease Patient Education
Services: Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(1) of the Act, we defined
Kidney Disease Patient Education
Services as face-to-face educational
services provided to patients with stage
IV CKD. We specified that KDE services
are provided in a face-to-face manner
based on stakeholder feedback received
during the consultation meetings and
our general rulemaking authority. Faceto-face education is consistent with
sections 1861(ggg)(C)(ii) and (iii) of the
Act, which provide that the services
should be designed to ensure that the
beneficiary has the opportunity to
actively participate in the choice of
therapy and be tailored to meet the
needs of the beneficiary involved.
Comment: One commenter agreed
with our proposal to define KDE as faceto-face educational services provided to
patients with Stage IV CKD. Several
commenters asked us to consider
allowing the services to be provided via
telehealth and in Federally qualified
health centers (FQHCs), since multiple
education sessions may be difficult for
some patients due to transportation
issues and recommended that KDE
services be added to the telehealth
services at § 410.78. One commenter
stated that we have recognized
telehealth as a ‘‘face-to-face’’ encounter
in the past.
Response: We appreciate the concerns
raised by commenters regarding access
to services in rural areas. In the
proposed rule, we specified that KDE
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
services be provided in a face-to-face
manner based on stakeholder feedback
received during the consultation
meetings and our general rulemaking
authority. Face-to-face education is
consistent with sections 1861(ggg)(C)(ii)
and (iii) of the Act, which provide that
the services should be designed to
ensure that the beneficiary has the
opportunity to actively participate in
the choice of therapy and be tailored to
meet the needs of the beneficiary
involved.
At this time, we believe that it would
be more appropriate to consider the
addition of KDE services for telehealth
through full notice and comment
procedures in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, based on the experience
we gain observing the KDE programs
over 1 year. We will accept requests for
consideration to add KDE services to the
list of approved telehealth services in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule if
received prior to December 31, 2009.
For more information on submitting a
request for an addition to the list of
Medicare telehealth services, including
where to mail these requests, visit our
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
telehealth/.
Comment: One commenter stated that
qualified persons should be precluded
from using videos as a method for
providing KDE services since patients
need to ask questions and may fall
asleep during a video due to their
illness and anemia levels.
Response: We received similar
feedback from stakeholders during the
feedback sessions and understand the
commenter’s concerns about using
videos as a method for providing KDE
services. We agree that a video is not an
appropriate modality for providing KDE
services, which is why we specify that
KDE services are services provided in a
face-to-face manner.
We are retaining the definition of
Kidney Disease Patient Education
Services as proposed in this final rule.
• Physician: For purposes of KDE
services, we proposed to define
physician using the definition in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act; it defines
‘‘physician’’ as ‘‘a doctor of medicine or
osteopathy legally authorized to practice
medicine and surgery by the State in
which he or she performs such function
or action (including a physician within
the meaning of section 1101(a)(7) [of the
Act].’’ We received no comments
regarding our proposed definition of
physician and are adopting this
definition in this final rule.
• Qualified Person: Consistent with
section 1861(ggg)(2)(A) of the Act, for
purposes of KDE services, we proposed
to define a ‘‘qualified person’’ as a
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
physician (as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act); a physician
assistant (PA), nurse practitioner (NP),
or clinical nurse specialist (CNS) (as
defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the
Act, and implemented in § 410.74,
§ 410.75, and § 410.76 of this subpart).
A provider of services located in a rural
area is also included in the statute’s
definition of a qualified person. Section
1861(u) of the Act defines ‘‘provider of
services’’ to be ‘‘a hospital, critical
access hospital, skilled nursing facility,
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation
facility, home health agency, hospice
program or, for purposes of sections
1814(g)and section 1835(e) [of the Act],
a fund’’. We define a ‘‘qualified person’’
to include a provider of services located
in a rural area and would include each
of these healthcare entities except for a
‘‘fund.’’
In order for a provider of services to
be a ‘‘qualified person,’’ the entity must
be located in a rural area. We include
in the definition of a ‘‘qualified person’’,
only those hospitals, critical access
hospitals (CAHs), skilled nursing
facilities (SNFs), comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facilities
(CORFs), home health agencies (HHAs),
and hospice programs that are located in
a rural area under section 1886(d)(2)(D)
of the Act (as defined in our regulations
at § 412.64(b)(ii)(C)) and include
hospitals and CAHs that are reclassified
from urban to rural status pursuant to
section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act, as
defined in § 412.103. Specifically,
§ 412.64(b)(ii)(C) defines ‘‘rural’’ to
mean any area outside an urban area,
which § 412.64(b)(ii)(A) defines as a
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as
defined by the President’s Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Therefore, we believe that a hospital,
CAH, SNF, CORF, HHA, or hospice
program that is not physically located in
an MSA should be considered ‘‘rural’’
for this benefit.
Section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act,
implemented in § 412.103, requires us
to treat hospitals that meet specified
criteria as geographically rural under
section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act even
though they are physically located in an
MSA. Because the statute identifies
these hospitals as rural, we believe that
it is appropriate to consider these
hospitals as qualified persons for
purposes of the KDE benefit.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we consider adding
various other healthcare professionals to
the definition of a qualified person
including registered dietitians, renal
dieticians, licensed dieticians, nutrition
support clinicians (nutrition support
physician, nurse, or pharmacist),
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
medical nutrition therapists, nephrology
social workers, registered nurses,
nephrology nurses, and/or transplant
coordinators as qualified persons or as
members of a multi-disciplinary team
headed by the qualified person to
provide KDE services. One commenter
was concerned that dietary advice
provided by physicians, nurses, and
NPs, while well meaning, is often overly
restrictive, and could lead to
malnutrition and lower quality of life.
One commenter requested that at least
one of the sessions be designated for the
patient to meet with a registered
dietitian. One commenter stated that a
dietitian who is board certified in renal
adds additional competency to his or
her qualifications to provide KDE
services.
Response: The Congress did not
specifically authorize the Secretary to
approve additional healthcare
professionals within this defined term.
Therefore, we are not accepting the
comments to further expand the
definition to include other healthcare
professionals.
Comment: Regarding providers of
services located in rural areas, one
commenter recommended that we rely
on facilities to schedule the appropriate
staff to teach KDE services in these
facilities and not to narrow the clinical
practice activities beyond those
permitted within each state’s clinical
scope of practice laws.
Response: Providers of services are
responsible for providing proper staffing
of KDE services. We encourage facilities
to review the standards for content of
KDE services when determining who
will be providing such services, similar
to how a facility would choose the
appropriate staff for other facility
functions.
Comment: One commenter disagreed
with our proposed definition of a
provider of services located in a rural
area as a ‘‘qualified person’’ who may be
paid for kidney disease education
services. The commenter believes that
the definition of a provider of services
in a rural area should include rural
hospital-based dialysis facilities. The
commenter stated that these types of
facilities are the only dialysis facilities
that could be interpreted as a qualified
person under section 1861(ggg)(2)(A)(i)
of the Act and that renal dialysis
facilities not located within a hospital
are not providers of services under
1861(ggg)(2)(B). Furthermore, the
commenter indicated that, as a practical
matter, hospital-based dialysis facilities
in rural areas are the only providers of
services that would be capable of
providing kidney disease education
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61895
services as the Congress intended under
the provisions of MIPAA.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s request to include dialysis
facilities within the definition of a
‘‘provider of services located in a rural
area.’’ Section 1861 (ggg)(2)(B) of the
Act explicitly excludes renal dialysis
facilities from being ‘‘qualified persons’’
for purposes of the kidney disease
education benefit. The statute does not
provide an exception for dialysis
facilities located within hospitals. We
do not consider dialysis facilities
located in a hospital to be different from
a freestanding dialysis facility for
purposes of the statutory exclusion.
In addition, section 1861(u) of the Act
defines a provider of services to be a
hospital, critical access hospital, skilled
nursing facility, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facility, home
health agency, or hospice. The
provisions of MIPAA require that the
provider of services must be located in
a rural area in order to furnish KDE
services. In implementing the KDE
benefit, to exclude these providers of
services located within a rural area
would be contrary to the statutory
definition of the term ‘‘provider of
services.’’
Therefore, in this final rule with
comment period and as specified in the
statutory definition of a ‘‘qualified
person,’’ we consider a qualified person
to be either a physician (as defined in
section 1861 (r)(1) of the Act) or a PA,
NP, or CNS; or a provider of services
located in a rural area, which includes
a hospital, critical access hospital,
skilled nursing facility, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facility, home
health agency or hospice. A qualified
person under this benefit does not
include a renal dialysis facility, whether
freestanding or hospital-based,
regardless of whether the renal dialysis
facility is located in a rural area or not.
While the hospital-based renal dialysis
facility located in a rural area is not a
‘‘qualified person’’ for purposes of
payment for KDE services, we note that
the hospital of which the hospital-based
renal dialysis facility is a part would
meet the definition of a ‘‘qualified
person’’ because it is in a rural area.
• Renal Dialysis Facility: The
Congress has provided in section
1861(ggg)(2)(B) of the Act that a ‘‘renal
dialysis facility’’ may not be a ‘‘qualified
person.’’ We proposed to define this
term, consistent with § 405.2102 of this
title, as ‘‘a unit which is approved to
furnish dialysis services(s) directly to
ESRD patients.’’ We received no
comments on the definition and are
adopting the proposed definition in this
final rule.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61896
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
• Stage IV Chronic Kidney Disease:
Section 1861(ggg)(1)(A) of the Act states
that KDE services shall be furnished to
beneficiaries diagnosed with Stage IV
CKD, who according to accepted clinical
guidelines identified by the Secretary,
will require dialysis or a kidney
transplant. Based on stakeholder
feedback, we proposed to define Stage
IV CKD as kidney damage with a severe
decrease in GFR quantitatively defined
by a GFR value of 15–29 ml/min/1.73
m2, using the Modification of Diet in
Renal Disease (MDRD) Study formula.1
Because there are currently no agreed
upon accepted clinical guidelines that
describe the stage IV patients who
would eventually require dialysis or a
kidney transplant, we proposed to cover
all stage IV patients. We received no
comments regarding our proposed
definition of Stage IV CKD or regarding
clinical guidelines for identifying
beneficiaries with stage IV CKD that will
require dialysis or a kidney transplant.
Therefore, we are adopting our
proposed definition of Stage IV CKD in
this final rule.
(2) Covered Beneficiaries (§ 410.48(b))
Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(1)(A) of the Act, we proposed
that Medicare beneficiaries are eligible
to receive KDE services if the
beneficiaries are diagnosed with Stage
IV CKD (as defined in new § 410.48(a)),
and have been referred for such services
by the physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that we modify the
provisions regarding beneficiaries
eligible to receive KDE services to
indicate that the beneficiary be
diagnosed with at least stage IV CKD.
Several commenters held the opinion
that the Congress envisioned that
defining stage IV CKD would not be a
precise process by requiring that CMS
rely upon accepted clinical guidelines.
Commenters were also of the opinion
that the Congress recognized that some
beneficiaries should qualify for the
benefit because they were at a stage
where RRT was imminent, but had not
commenced. Commenters believed that
the Congress added a limiting clause
that precludes beneficiaries who are on
dialysis or have received a transplant,
which would prevent more than the
targeted population from obtaining
these services. Several commenters
pointed out that the KDOQI guidelines
acknowledge that the GFR ranges/
1 Levey, A.S., Greene, T., Kusek, J, and Beck, G.A.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000. 11: p. 155A.; Levey, A.S.,
Bosch, J.P., Lewis, J.B., Greene, T., Rogers, N., and
Roth, D. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16; 130(6):461–
70.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
measurements established in the
guidelines should not be used as
definitive cut-offs between stages
because using such cut-offs is inherently
arbitrary. Commenters requested that
CMS not adopt a ridged approach, but
rather recognize that beneficiaries with
stage IV and those beneficiaries with
stage V that have not yet started renal
replacement therapy should be treated
similarly for purposes of qualifying for
the KDE services.
Response: We understand and
appreciate that the staging criteria is a
classification system and understand
the commenters’ desire for beneficiaries
to have access to this important benefit.
However, there is no statutory authority
to expand eligibility for individuals
beyond those noted in the proposed
rule.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we consider the needs of adolescent/
young adult renal transplant patients
between 18 and 24 years old that are
transitioning from pediatric to adult
nephrology care.
Response: We appreciate that
adolescents and young adults with CKD
have unique needs that need to be
addressed as part of their overall plan of
care. The standards for content allow for
the KDE services to be tailored to the
needs of the beneficiary involved. We
note that an adolescent/young adult
described by the commenter would
need to be a Medicare beneficiary and
meet the eligibility provisions of this
rule in order to obtain services under
this benefit.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we use a standardized method to
screen qualifying beneficiaries to
participate in the KDE services.
Response: We are defining stage IV
CKD as ‘‘kidney damage with a severe
decrease in glomerular filtration rate
(GFR) quantitatively defined by a GFR
value of 15–29 ml/min/1.73m2, using
the MDRD Study formula,’’ and required
that the beneficiary obtain a referral
from the physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition. These
provisions provide a standardized
method for determining if a beneficiary
is eligible for KDE services.
Comment: Some commenters
indicated that referrals for KDE services
should not be limited to just those
obtained from the physician managing
the beneficiary’s kidney condition.
Commenters suggested that we allow
referrals from those that meet the
definition of a qualified person since
many CKD patients are not under the
care of a single physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition.
Commenters were concerned that a
physician who diagnoses the beneficiary
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with CKD but has not been managing
the kidney condition for a period of
time, would be precluded from making
a referral for KDE services. Commenters
stated that beneficiaries may be
diagnosed late in the progression of
their CKD and may not have been
managed by a physician up to that
point. Commenters recommended that
we clarify the language in this provision
so that physicians or other healthcare
professionals that diagnose the
beneficiary’s kidney condition be able to
refer the beneficiary for KDE services.
Response: Beneficiary access to these
new services is important and we
recognize the commenters’ concerns
about whether a beneficiary’s kidney
disease is being managed by a
physician. Section 1861(ggg)(1)(B) of the
Act expressly requires that KDE services
are ‘‘(B) furnished, upon the referral of
the physician managing the individual’s
kidney condition, by a qualified
person[…]’’ We interpret the statute to
mean that referrals are made by
physicians and KDE services are
furnished by qualified persons.
Appropriate referral of a patient is left
to the discretion of the physician as
described above. If a physician
diagnoses and discusses KDE services,
we consider this to be sufficient to be
considered the physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition.
Therefore, the physician, within his or
her discretion, can make a referral for
KDE services.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition, as part
of the KDE program, should initiate a
referral for Medical Nutrition Therapy
(MNT). Commenters also recommended
that referrals for MNT be added to the
KDE standards for content.
Response: We recognize that MNT can
be an important benefit available to
beneficiaries with chronic kidney
disease. The MNT benefit (42 CFR 410
Subpart G) has distinct eligibility
criteria, though it does overlap
somewhat with the eligibility criteria for
KDE services. A qualified person that
provides KDE services and a physician
managing a beneficiary’s kidney
condition may want to consider making
patients aware that MNT is a Medicare
covered benefit that provides
beneficiaries with chronic kidney
disease information about proper
nutrition. We encourage physicians,
healthcare professionals, and
beneficiaries to discuss whether a
referral for MNT services would be
appropriate. Referral of a patient for
MNT services is left to the discretion of
the physician. Therefore, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
include a requirement for referral to
MNT services as part of the referral
process or the standards for content for
KDE services.
Therefore, in this final rule, we are
retaining our proposed provisions for
covered beneficiaries.
(3) Standards for Qualified Persons and
Exclusions (§ 410.48(c))
We proposed requiring that a
qualified person be able to properly
receive Medicare payment under 42
CFR part 424 (Conditions for Medicare
Payment). Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(2)(B) of the Act, we proposed
to specifically exclude a hospital, CAH,
SNF, CORF, HHA, or hospice that is
physically located outside of a rural area
under § 412.64(b)(ii)(C), except for a
hospital or CAH that is treated as being
located in a rural area under § 412.103.
In addition, consistent with section
1861(ggg)(2)(B) of the Act, a renal
dialysis facility is not a qualified
person.
While we did not propose specific
education, experience, training, and/or
certification requirements in the
proposed rule, we solicited public
comments on the appropriate level of
education, experience, training, and/or
certification appropriate for a qualified
person to effectively provide KDE
services. Factors to consider included
specific education and expertise
regarding the topic and the ability to
explain these areas for the purpose of
patient education.
Comment: Many commenters
recommended that qualified persons
either be board certified in nephrology
or have at least 2 years experience
working primarily with kidney disease
patients. Commenters believed that the
suggested qualifications supported our
objective that the qualified person be
able to explain the subjects enumerated
in the proposed rule.
Response: The recommended
qualifications were popular among
commenters, but to our knowledge, the
recommendations are not universally
agreed upon standards for educators in
existing education programs. Therefore,
we are not adding specific education/
experience qualifications for qualified
persons to this final rule with comment
period.
In this final rule with comment
period, we are retaining the proposed
standards for the ‘‘Qualified Persons
and Exclusions’’ provisions.
(4) Standards for Content of Kidney
Disease Patient Education Services
(§ 410.48(d))
We believe that patient education
needs vary by severity of the disease,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the age of the patient, the patient’s
comorbid conditions and disabilities,
the patient’s primary language and
culture, and desire to learn more about
the disease and treatment options.
Education services are more effective if
the services are tailored to meet an
individual beneficiary’s needs. We
proposed that KDE services include the
content as specified in proposed new
§ 410.48(d).
Commenters were overwhelmingly
supportive of the proposed standards for
content and provided suggestions for
improvement.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we provide more detailed
regulatory guidance regarding the
minimum core curriculum to maintain
consistency and a balanced/
comprehensive nature of the education
sessions. Specifically, the commenters
requested:
• Nature and treatment for comorbidities that accompany CKD such
as anemia, mineral and bone disorders,
diabetes, and high blood pressure;
• Separate vascular access into its
own topic heading and specify the
benefits and risks of each option, the
need to preserve vasculature for creation
of fistulas, and care of vascular access
to avoid infection and stenosis;
• Transplantation including
preparation for transplantation, preemptive transplantation and differences
between living donor and deceased
donor transplantation,
immunosuppression, allocation
policies, and lifestyle post-transplant;
• Smoking cessation;
• Use of non-steroidal antiinflammatory agents;
• Impact of blood transfusions on
transplant candidacy;
• Nutrition, risk of malnutrition,
impact of dietary interventions on the
progression to kidney failure, and predialysis and dialysis patient dietary
prescriptions;
• Conservative management without
renal replacement therapy and palliative
care as a therapeutic option; and
• Advanced directives education.
Response: We appreciate the
suggestions provided. The intent of the
standards for content is that qualified
persons provide a comprehensive set of
information, but allow qualified persons
flexibility in specific session design to
meet the needs of the individual
beneficiary(s) involved. Anemia,
mineral and bone disorders, diabetes,
and high blood pressure are addressed
under § 410.48(d)(1), management of
comorbidities including for the purpose
of delaying the need for dialysis.
Vascular access options, impact of blood
transfusions on transplant candidacy,
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61897
preparation for transplantation, preemptive transplantation, differences
between living donor and deceased
donor transplantation,
immunosuppression, allocation
policies, and lifestyle post-transplant
are addressed under § 410.48(d)(3),
therapeutic options, where we specify
that qualified persons discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of each
therapeutic option. Regarding smoking
cessation, conservative management
without renal replacement therapy,
palliative care as a therapeutic option,
and advanced directives are addressed
in § 410.48(d)(4), opportunities for
beneficiaries to actively participate in
the choice of therapy and be tailored to
meet the needs of the individual
beneficiary involved. Nutrition, risk of
malnutrition, impact of dietary
interventions on the progression to
kidney failure, and pre-dialysis and
dialysis patient dietary prescriptions are
addressed in § 410.48(d)(2), prevention
of uremic complications, under diet and
fluid restrictions; and medication
review, including how each medication
works, possible side effects and
minimization of side effects, the
importance of compliance, and
informed decision-making if the patient
decides not to take a specific drug. The
topics we list in § 410.48(d) do not
constitute an all inclusive list.
Specifically, we are stating with this
final rule that the education provided to
beneficiaries includes, but is not limited
to the content standards topics listed in
new § 410.48(d). We leave it to the
discretion of the qualified person to
tailor the services to individual needs.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS include language stating that
KDE services include, but are not
limited to, the content as specified in
§ 410.48(d) and permit qualified
providers to include additional
reasonable and necessary content at
their discretion.
Response: Under the standards for
content, each content heading specifies
that education sessions include, but are
not limited to, the topics listed. We note
that in the proposed rule § 410.48(d)(3),
Therapeutic options, the ‘‘not limited
to’’ language was inadvertently omitted.
In this final rule, we are correcting this
omission and clarifying that qualified
persons discuss, but are not limited to,
the topics listed under this content
heading.
Comment: Some commenters
requested standardized content. One
commenter recommended the KDOQI
guidelines as a source for
standardization criteria.
Response: We understand and
appreciate the suggestion that the KDE
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61898
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
services content should be standardized.
The intent of the standards for content
is consistent with the statutory
provisions at section 1861(ggg)(1)(C)(iii)
of the Act, which state that KDE services
‘‘be tailored to meet the needs of the
individual involved.’’ The intent of the
standards for content was to strike a
balance between ensuring that
beneficiaries are provided
comprehensive information, but also
that the services are tailored to
individual needs. We outlined the major
topics in the content standards that
need to be addressed during KDE
sessions, but also believe it is important
to allow flexibility for qualified persons
to tailor the education sessions to meet
the needs of the beneficiaries involved,
per the statutory requirements.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
terminology ‘‘vascular access’’ does not
encompass peritoneal dialysis access
and recommended that we change the
terminology to ‘‘dialysis access for both
hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.’’
Response: We agree with the
comments provided regarding vascular
access and we are changing ‘‘all
vascular access options’’ to ‘‘all dialysis
access options for hemodialysis and
peritoneal dialysis.’’
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(5) Session Specifications (§ 410.48(e))
(a) Limitations on the number of
sessions: Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(4) of the Act, we limit the
number of KDE sessions to six (6). We
did not receive any comments on the
session limitations. Therefore, we are
adopting the limits, as proposed, in this
final rule.
(b) Session Length: In the proposed
rule we defined the session length as 60
minutes.
Comment: One commenter concurred
that 6 hours was sufficient to provide
comprehensive KDE services, but
recommended that we recognize a
partial/fraction of a session. For
example, one session could be billed in
four 15-minute increments, to allow for
variation in session length based on
beneficiary needs.
Response: Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(4) of the Act, we limit the
number of KDE sessions to six (6). As
we discussed in the proposed rule,
stakeholders provided a variety of
recommendations regarding appropriate
session length. In the absence of
supporting evidence for session length,
we are defining the session length in
this final rule as one (1) hour, which
coincides with the session length of
some programs in existence and is the
approximate average of stakeholder
suggested session lengths.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(c) Individual and Group Session
Format: Consistent with section
1861(ggg)(C)(iii) of the Act, we specify
that the qualified person tailor the
design of the education services to meet
the needs of the beneficiary based on
whether the beneficiary needs more
individualized education, would benefit
more from a group environment, or a
combination; and consider any
communication accessibility needs
based on disability, language and health
literacy.
Generally speaking, medical services
are provided to beneficiaries on an
individual basis. Beneficiaries can also
benefit from the interaction in a group
setting. We believe that the beneficiary,
in consultation with the referring
physician, will be able to best determine
the education services modality that
most effectively meets his or her needs.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we needed to build
in flexibility of group versus the
individual setting since some patients
are more comfortable in the group
setting. Other patients may be
traumatized by the prospect of dialysis
and need more individualized attention.
One commenter suggested that the
initial KDE education should be
standardized and then later sessions be
customized to meet patient specific
needs. Another commenter requested
that we mandate that at least 2 or more
of each of the beneficiary’s 6 KDE
sessions be provided in a one-on-one
format.
Response: We recognize that each
individual, in consultation with the
physician managing their kidney
condition, are best able to determine the
education services modality that most
effectively meets his or her needs,
whether that be group sessions,
individual sessions, or a combination.
The provisions of this rule allow for
such flexibility.
Comment: One commenter requested
an equal level of intensity for all
sessions.
Response: In the final rule, we state
that each KDE session is one (1) hour
long, which addresses the commenter’s
concerns regarding session intensity.
Comment: One commenter requested
that qualified persons should provide
material that is specific to the patient,
taking into account the patient’s
primary language, reading level, and
comprehension level.
Response: We recognize the
importance of providing beneficiaries
with information in a format that is easy
to comprehend. The provisions of the
final rule allow that the KDE services be
tailored to meet the needs of the
individual beneficiary involved. We
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
also address the commenter’s concerns
as part of the outcomes assessment
process. This final rule with comment
period states that the outcomes
assessments will serve to assess KDE
program effectiveness in meeting the
communication needs of underserved
populations, persons with limited
English proficiency, and persons with
health literacy.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we define a group
session as consisting of between 2 and
20 participants.
Response: In § 410.48(e)(2) of this
final rule, we specify that a session is
one (1) hour long and may be provided
individually or in group settings of 2 to
20 individuals who need not all be
Medicare beneficiaries. We believe that
this provision addresses the
commenter’s concerns about group size.
(6) Outcomes Assessment
The intent of the education services is
for the beneficiary to take the
information he or she has learned
during the educational sessions in order
to facilitate active participation by the
beneficiary in the healthcare decisionmaking process with the physician
managing his or her kidney condition.
We believe that it is important that
beneficiaries be assessed at the
conclusion of the education sessions
and that program assessments be used
by the educators and CMS to assess the
effectiveness of the education services,
to help improve the programs for future
participants, and better facilitate patient
understanding of the material.
Based on stakeholder feedback and
our general rulemaking authority, we
proposed that qualified persons develop
outcomes assessments and that each
beneficiary be assessed during one of
the education sessions. Section
410.48(d)(5) specifies that the outcomes
assessment measures beneficiary
knowledge about CKD and its treatment
for the purpose of, and as a contributor
to, the beneficiary’s ability to make
informed decisions regarding their
healthcare and treatment options.
After completing the KDE services,
the beneficiary should be able to take
the information learned and use it to
make informed choices about their
healthcare during future consultations
with the physician managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition. It is
important that the assessments be
tailored to the beneficiary’s reading
level and language if the assessment is
not administered by the qualified
person that provided the education
services, and be made available to CMS
in a summarized format upon request.
In the proposed rule, we specifically
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
solicited public comments regarding the
development and administration of the
outcomes assessments.
Comment: Commenters recommended
both pre- and post-assessments and
comparison studies of those
beneficiaries that participated in KDE
versus individuals that did not obtain
the KDE services. Commenters
recommended that the assessments
cover topics specific to the content
discussed during the KDE sessions,
suggested that we work with
stakeholders to develop standardized
assessment tools, and provide a flexible
implementation schedule that accounts
for the time necessary for providers to
adopt the new assessment instruments.
Some commenters stressed the
importance of long term postassessment and follow-up by the
physician managing the beneficiary’s
kidney condition, along with adoption
of incentives to encourage providers to
undertake such assessments. One
commenter recommended that we reevaluate the assessments over time to
ensure that they address the most
relevant topics and are administered
effectively. One commenter requested
standardized curriculum, evaluation,
and monitoring tools.
Response: We are encouraged by the
support from commenters about the
development of outcomes assessments.
After reviewing the feedback received
during the stakeholders meetings and
from commenters, there does not appear
to be a standardized or agreed upon
outcomes assessment mechanism. While
we are not making any changes in this
final rule from the proposed outcomes
assessment provisions, we are
considering working with organizations
that are developing outcomes
assessments as they work to develop a
standardized assessment tool.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we develop an outcomes measure
for ‘‘physician referral for medical
nutrition therapy’’ as one of the
monitoring tools.
Response: We appreciate the
importance of proper nutritional
counseling services. Since the outcomes
assessment is part of the KDE services,
it will not be paid separately and there
is no need for a separate reporting
tracking code.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification about whether pre- and/or
post-assessments are included as part of
the 6 sessions or in addition to the 6
sessions and whether there would be a
separate reporting code and payment for
the assessments.
Response: Outcomes assessments
must be administered during a KDE
session, meaning that the assessments
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
are included as part of the sessions.
Requests for separate reporting codes
and payment for assessments would
require a benefit category determination
to determine if separate payment would
fall within a Medicare benefit category.
Additional Issues
Comment: One commenter requested
that we amend the ‘‘Welcome to
Medicare’’ physical exam regulations to
incorporate KDE as part of the
preventive services checklist. Another
commenter encouraged us to coordinate
with Medicaid to examine whether stage
IV education should be part of Medicaid
case management services.
Response: We appreciate the attention
being drawn to the importance of
coordination with other benefits and
programs such as the ‘‘Welcome to
Medicare’’ physical exam and the
Medicaid program. The commenter’s
requests do not fall within the scope of
this rule. However, we plan to convey
the commenter’s suggestions to the
appropriate components.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we promote the KDE
program and the MNT benefit to
beneficiaries and physicians.
Response: Medicare will release
appropriate manual and transmittal
instructions and information from our
educational components for the medical
community, including an MLN Matters
article (Medicare Learning Network).
The medical community can join this
effort in educating physicians and
beneficiaries by distributing their own
communications, bulletins, or other
publications. In addition, we have
included information on the KDE
benefit in the 2010 version of the
Medicare and You Handbook. While we
understand the importance of the MNT
benefit, the commenter’s request for
promotion of the MNT benefit does not
fall within the scope of this rule.
As a result of the comments received,
we are making the following changes in
this final rule with comment period:
• In the Standards for Content
section, we are changing ‘‘all vascular
access options’’ to ‘‘all dialysis access
options for hemodialysis and peritoneal
dialysis.’’
• In the standards for content section,
we are clarifying that qualified persons
discuss, but not be limited to, the topics
listed under the ‘therapeutic options’
content standard heading.
• In the Limitations for Coverage of
Kidney Disease Education Services
section, we are changing the description
of session length from ‘‘60 minutes’’ to
‘‘one (1) hour.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61899
d. Payment for KDE Services
Section 152(b) of the MIPPA creates a
new benefit category for KDE services.
The MIPPA amends section 1848(j)(3) of
the Act, which allows for payment of
KDE services under the PFS. As we
stated in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule
(74 FR 33619), KDE services are covered
when they are furnished by a qualified
person as defined in § 410.48(a) that
meets the requirements of § 410.48(c)
which means a physician, PA, NP, CNS,
or a provider of services located in a
rural area including a CAH, SNF, HHA,
CORF, and hospice. We note that there
is a possibility that a beneficiary may
receive services from more than one
‘‘qualified person’’; however, payment
should be made to only one qualified
person on the same day for the same
beneficiary.
In the proposed rule, we noted that
the ‘‘incident to’’ requirements for
physician services at section
1861(s)(2)(A) of the Act do not apply to
KDE services. The MIPPA requirements
are explicit, that the education services
must be provided by a qualified person.
We noted that rural health clinics
(RHCs) do not meet the statutory
definition of a provider of services (as
defined in 1861(u) of the Act) and
cannot be separately paid for furnishing
KDE services.
In the proposed rule, we noted that
the ‘‘incident to’’ provision does not
apply to the implementation of a new
service with a distinct benefit category
under the PFS. We stated that the
‘‘incident to’’ requirements would not
apply to KDE services.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that CMS has the discretion and
flexibility to allow KDE services to be
provided ‘‘incident to’’ unless the
statute explicitly precludes it. They also
stated that section 152(b) of the MIPPA
requires that KDE be furnished by a
‘‘qualified person’’, which includes
physicians and specified nonphysician
practitioners (NPPs) and that the statute
does not prohibit KDE from being
performed ‘‘incident to’’ the services of
a ‘‘qualified person’’. Commenters also
stated that CMS should allow a
qualified person, as defined in section
152(b) of the MIPPA, to bill an E/M code
on the same day as a KDE service.
Response: We do not agree that CMS
has discretion to allow KDE services to
be furnished incident to because the
MIPPA specifically provides a benefit
policy for KDE and that policy is
different from incident to policy. In the
December 31, 2002 final rule (67 FR
79994), we stated that ‘‘Congress
specifically provided for the many
separate benefit categories of medical
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61900
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and health services in the Act. We
believe that the Congress intended for
incident to services to be a catch-all
category to allow payment for certain
services and supplies commonly
furnished in a physician’s office and not
having their own separate benefit
category. The billing of services with
their own separate and independent
coverage benefit categories as incident
to may circumvent the coverage and
payment rules applicable to those other
categories. Therefore, only services that
do not have their own benefit category
are appropriately billed as incident to a
physician service.’’ KDE has a benefit
category with its own policies. For
example, section 152(b) of the MIPPA
requirements is explicit, that the
education services must be provided by
a qualified person, which is defined as
a physician, NP, CNS or PA. A qualified
person may include a provider of
services located in a rural area.
Therefore, the ‘‘incident to’’
requirements will not apply to KDE
services. A qualified person can bill an
E/M service on the same day they bill
for a KDE service if the services being
provided are not the same services
which are included in KDE under our
regulations at § 410.48.
Comment: A commenter stated that
CMS has allowed separately and
independently listed services to be
provided under the ‘‘incident to’’
benefit. They also stated that CMS
clarified in the CY 2002 PFS final rule
that many services, even those that are
separately and independently listed, can
be furnished as ‘‘incident to’’ and need
not meet the requirements of an
‘‘incident to’’ service.
Response: The commenter may be
referring to policies prior to 2001. We
have previously stated, ‘‘In the
November 2001 final rule (66 FR 5238),
we revised regulations on services and
supplies furnished incident to a
physician’s professional services. In the
revised regulations at § 410.26(a)(7) we
defined such services and supplies that
may be provided as incident to as
‘* * * any services and supplies * * *
that are included in section
1861(s)(2)(A) of the Act and are not
specifically listed in the Act as a
separate benefit included in the
Medicare program.‘ ’’ (67 FR 79993) The
commenter refers to one response to a
comment in that rule that caused
confusion. We repeated that comment at
67 FR 79994, column 1, and we clarified
the intent of the response in column 2
of the same page. (See the previous
response for the quotation that clarifies
the intention of that response.) KDE has
a benefit category with its own policies
and, those policies are not the same as
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
policies for services incident to
physician services.
It is our policy that only services
without a benefit category may be
provided ‘‘incident to’’ the services of
physicians or NPPs.
Comment: One commenter stated that
while the patient’s physician may know
him or her, other members of the
patient’s multidisciplinary team may
know them as well. The commenter also
stated that the patient might receive
better care if KDE services were
provided by a team of persons such as
nurses, dieticians, social workers and
physicians, which could be done if we
allow KDE to be provided incident to.
Response: The section 152(b) of the
MIPPA requirements are explicit, in that
the education services must be
delivered by a qualified person, which
is defined as a physician, NP, CNS, or
PA, and also includes a provider of
services located in a rural area.
Comment: A commenter stated that
CMS has established subregulatory
policy by which services furnished
under the Medical Nutrition Therapy
(MNT) and Diabetes Self Management
Training (DSMT) benefits may not be
provided ‘‘incident to’’. However, the
commenter stated that there is no
statutory or regulatory provision
preventing those services from being
performed ‘‘incident to’’ and that the
services furnished under those benefits
are not performed by physicians or
NPPs. The commenter stated that the
distinction is that the MNT and the
DSMT benefits are furnished by
practitioners who were previously not
able to bill the Medicare program and
who do not have an ‘‘incident to’’
benefit for their service. In contrast, the
KDE benefit will be provided by
practitioners who bill the Medicare
program independently and who have
an ‘‘incident to’’ benefit attached to
their services.
Response: For separately and
independently listed services, a
physician and a NPP can bill using the
‘‘incident to’’ benefit. However, KDE is
not defined as a separately and
independently listed service, but as a
separate and distinct benefit category
and so the ‘‘incident to’’ benefit does
not apply.
In summary we are finalizing our
determination that the ‘‘incident to’’
benefit does not apply to KDE.
Section 1861(ggg)(4) of the Act limits
the number of KDE services that a
beneficiary may receive to up to six
sessions in the NPRM. We proposed to
create two HCPCS codes GXX26 now
assigned as G0420 (individual) and
GXX27 now assigned as G0421 (group),
to describe and to bill for KDE services.
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The two G-codes consist of 1-hour faceto-face KDE sessions for an individual
or group. We proposed to pay both
G0420 and G0421 at the nonfacility rate.
We also proposed that G0420
educational services related to the care
of chronic kidney disease; individual
per session will be crossed-walked to
CPT code 97802; and that G0421,
educational services related to the care
of chronic kidney disease; group, per
session will be crosswalked to CPT code
97804. We stated that the rationale for
the proposed pricing of the G-codes is
based on the similarity of this service to
MNT in the individual (97802) and
group (97804) setting.
In the CY 2010 OPPS/ASC proposed
rule (74 FR 35358), we discussed our
proposed payment for KDE to qualified
persons located in rural areas who are
hospitals, CAHs, SNFs, CORFs, HHAs,
or hospices (74 FR 35358).
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding our
proposals related to the MPFS payment
for kidney disease education under
section 152(b) of the MIPPA.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS add the phrase ‘‘furnished by
a rural provider’’ or similar language to
the proposed Level II HCPCS G-code
descriptors for KDE, to clarify that these
services are intended for patients who
solely meet the qualifications for
coverage under the KDE benefit.
Response: We do not agree that the
HCPCS G-code descriptors for KDE
services should contain language that
would limit their use to KDE services
furnished by rural providers of services.
The purpose of a HCPCS code is to
describe a service furnished to a
beneficiary. Generally code descriptors
do not describe the provider who is
furnishing these services. Adding a
phrase to the G-code descriptors
indicating that these services are
furnished by a rural provider would
exclude other qualified persons
delineated in the Act from being able to
bill and be paid for the KDE services
they furnish. These qualified persons
include a physician, PA, NP, or clinical
nurse specialist, in addition to providers
of services located in a rural area.
Moreover, adding the language the
commenter requests would not ensure
that the service would be provided to
patients who meet the criteria for
coverage.
Comment: We received several
comments stating that CMS accurately
matched individual KDE to individual
MNT and group KDE to group MNT.
However, commenters stated that CMS
did not take into account the relative
time of the KDE and MNT sessions. The
new KDE codes were cross-walked to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the MNT codes which are paid only for
15-minute individual sessions and 30minute group sessions. We also received
a comment concerning the inputs for
supplies and equipment. In addition,
commenters stating the proposed
payment rates were too low to enable
rural providers of services to furnish
KDE.
Response: As a result of the comments
we received and our own further
analysis, we have adjusted the payment
rates for G0420 and G0421 to reflect the
1-hour time limit for a session. We have
multiplied the work RVUs for G0420 by
four and the work RVUs for G0421 by
two to account for the fact that we are
crosswalking a 15 minute code to a 60
minute code (CPT code 97802 to G0420)
and a 30 minute code to a 60 minute
code (CPT code 97804 to G0421). We
also adjusted the inputs for supplies.
However, we did not do a straight
multiplication of the actual inputs
because we do not believe the required
equipment and supplies would increase
in direct proportion to the time for the
codes. We did not increase the inputs
for the body analysis machine and the
printer and scale for use during the
session. However, we did increase the
inputs for equipment and supplies for
the use of the table, computer, paper
and other printed materials because
regardless of how long the session is, it
takes only 5 minutes to use the body/
mass index item, 2 minutes to weigh the
individual, and 2 minutes to use the
printer (this time equals the number of
pieces of paper).
Comment: A commenter stated that a
significant portion of kidney education
is about nutrition and diet and that the
MNT benefit includes provisions of
MNT to patients with kidney disease.
Therefore, some kidney education is
already being provided to Stage IV
kidney patients through the MNT
benefit and it would be inappropriate to
pay four times more for nutrition
education when it is provided under the
MNT benefit than when the exact same
education is provided under the kidney
education benefit. The commenter also
stated that MNT is provided by
dieticians and KDE is provided by
physicians and midlevel practitioners
and the new G-codes should be crosswalked to the ‘‘all physicians’’ PE and
not to the registered dieticians PE.
Response: As stated, we did adjust the
inputs for supplies and equipment to
eliminate any duplication. We also
cross-walked the ‘‘all physicians’’ PE to
HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421 at the
mid-level office visit.
In summary, we are finalizing the
proposed HCPCS codes G0420, Face-toface educational services related to the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
care of chronic kidney disease;
individual, per session, per one hour,
and G0421, Face-to-face educational
services related to the care of chronic
kidney disease; group, per session, per
one hour, for KDE with the adjustments
noted above. Refer to the Addendum B
for the specific RVUs for G0420 and
G0421.
12. Section 153: Renal Dialysis
Provisions
Section 153 of the MIPPA requires
changes to ESRD facilities for ESRD
services effective January 1, 2010. The
following is a summary of these
changes.
Section 153(a)(1) of the MIPPA
increases the current ESRD composite
rate by 1.0 percent for services
furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
This also requires us to update the
adjusted drug add-on. Since we
compute the drug add-on adjustment as
a percentage of the composite rate, the
drug add-on percentage is decreased to
account for the higher CY 2010
composite payment rate and results in a
15.0 percent drug add-on adjustment for
CY 2010. As a result, the drug add-on
amount of $20.33 per treatment remains
the same for CY 2010, which results in
a 15.0 percent increase to the base
composite payment rate of $135.15 (see
section II.I of this final rule with
comment).
The composite rate paid to hospitalbased facilities will be the same as the
composite rate paid to independent
renal dialysis facilities for services
furnished on or after January 1, 2010, as
required by section 153(a)(2) of the
MIPPA. In addition, section 153(a)(2) of
the MIPPA requires that in applying the
geographic index to hospital-based
facilities, the labor share shall be based
on the labor share otherwise applied for
renal dialysis facilities.
These MIPPA provisions are selfimplementing and require no
substantive exercise of discretion on the
part of the Secretary. A detailed
discussion of the MIPPA provisions can
be found in section III. of the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period (73
FR 69881).
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding section
153 of the MIPPA.
Comment: One commenter supports
the composite payment rates for both
independent and hospital-based
facilities be site neutral, and urges CMS
to ensure that pediatric facilities are not
adversely impacted by this adjustment.
Response: Section 153(a)(2) of the
MIPPA requires the composite payment
rate for both independent and hospitalbased facilities to be site neutral and
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61901
does not negatively impact pediatric
facilities because, in addition to the
composite payment rate, all pediatric
facilities including hospital-based
facilities are paid the basic case-mix
adjustment of 1.62 for pediatric patients.
13. Section 182(b): Revision of
Definition of Medically-Accepted
Indication for Drugs; Compendia for
Determination of Medically-Accepted
Indications for Off-Label Uses of Drugs
and Biologicals in an Anti-cancer
Chemotherapeutic Regimen
a. Background
(1) Process for Revising the List of
Statutorily Named Compendia
Generally, compendia are
‘‘pharmacopeia providing information
on drugs, their effectiveness, safety,
toxicity, and dosing and are frequently
used to determine whether a medication
has a role in the treatment of a
particular disease; these roles include
both therapeutic uses approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and off-label indications’’
(Agency of Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), Potential Conflict of
Interest in the Production of Drug
Compendia White Paper).2 Compendia
are published by various institutions
and by traditional reference book
publishing houses.
Compendia publishers, including
internal editorial staff and external
experts, review requests received for the
inclusion of recommendations regarding
off-label uses of drugs or biologicals in
anticancer regimens. These requests
may be internally generated by the
publisher or may be received as requests
from external parties. The publisher
reviews evidence related to the request
and reaches a disposition of the request.
Section 1861(t)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act
lists the following compendia as
authoritative sources for use in the
determination of a ‘‘medically-accepted
indication’’ of drugs and biologicals
used off-label in an anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic regimen: American
Medical Association Drug Evaluations
(AMA–DE); United States
Pharmacopoeia-Drug Information (USP–
DI) or its successor publication;
American Hospital Formulary ServiceDrug Information (AHFS–DI); and other
authoritative compendia as identified by
the Secretary. Due to changes in the
pharmaceutical reference industry,
AHFS–DI was the only statutorily
2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
White Paper: Potential Conflict of Interest in the
Production of Drug Compendia. (2009, April 27).
Available online at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/
viewtechassess.asp?from2=viewtechassess.
asp&where=index&tid=64&.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61902
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
named compendium in current
publication in CY 2008.
Section 1861(t)(2)(B) of the Act
provides the Secretary the authority to
revise the list of compendia in section
1861(t)(2)(B)(ii)(I) for determining
medically-accepted indications for offlabel use of drugs and biologicals in an
anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimen.
Consequently, in § 414.930, we
established an annual process to revise
the list and a definition of
‘‘compendium’’ in the CY 2008 PFS
final rule with comment period (72 FR
66222, 66303 through 66306, and
66404).
Currently, four compendia are
recognized for purposes of section
1861(t)(2) of the Act: National
Comprehensive Cancer Network
Compendium, Gold Standard Clinical
Pharmacology, Thompson Micromedex
DrugDex, and AHFS–DI.
In addition to these compendia, the
statute provides an alternative method
for identifying medically-accepted offlabel uses of drugs and biologicals in an
anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimen.
Section 1861(t)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
provides that local contractors may use
‘‘supportive clinical evidence in
peerreviewed medical literature’’ to
make such determinations. Thus these
medically-accepted uses could be
identified even if there were no
compendia recognized for this purpose.
We discussed this in our response to
comments in the CY 2008 PFS final rule
with comment period (72 FR 66305).
(2) Statutory Amendment
Section 182(b) of the MIPPA amended
section 1861(t)(2)(B) of the Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(t)(2)(B)) by adding the
sentence, ‘‘On and after January 1, 2010,
no compendia may be included on the
list of compendia under this
subparagraph unless the compendia has
a publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies and for identifying
potential conflicts of interests.’’
As discussed in the proposed rule, we
proposed revisions to the compendia
standards to implement the MIPPA
amendments. We note that the
publishers of the four compendia that
are currently recognized for purposes of
section 1861(t)(2) of the Act have
already adopted conflict of interest
disclosure policies that are similar to
our proposal. Though there are
individual differences among the
publishers, we note that these policies
commonly include publication on the
compendia publisher’s Web site of the
name of the individuals that participate
in the compendia recommendation and
the entity with which there is a
significant relationship, the nature of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the relationship (for example, salary,
ownership, grant support), and the
value of the relationship.
Additional information with respect
to the conflict of interest policies of
those compendia can be found on their
Web sites.
In addition, there is a growing body
of literature, including that from the
Institute of Medicine (IOM),3 that
discusses the conflict of interest
between research funding and research
results. We believe that section 182(b) of
the MIPPA is designed, in part, to
address this issue in the compendia
review process. For a detailed
discussion of our proposals concerning
conflict of interest, see the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33620 through
33623).
b. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
As discussed in the proposed rule, we
believe that the implementation of this
statutory provision that compendia have
a ‘‘publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies and for identifying
potential conflicts of interests’’ is best
accomplished by amending the current
definition of a compendium at
§ 414.930(a) to include the MIPPA
requirements and by defining the key
components of publicly transparent
processes for evaluating therapies and
for identifying potential conflicts of
interests.
In order to implement the MIPPA
requirements concerning a publicly
transparent process for evaluating
therapies, we proposed that a
compendium could meet this standard
by publishing materials used in its
evaluation process on its Web site. This
mode of publication provides broad
contemporaneous public access to
relevant materials. We believe that
public access to such materials will
increase transparency of the process
used by compendia publishers for
evaluating therapies and facilitate
independent review of
recommendations by interested parties.
In addition, as discussed in the CY 2008
PFS final rule with comment period (72
FR 66305 through 66306), such
disclosure may assist beneficiaries and
their physicians in choosing among
treatment options.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33620 through 33623), we proposed
the following amendments to
§ 414.930(a):
• To revise the definition of
‘‘compendium’’ by adding an additional
3 Institute of Medicine. Conflict of Interest in
Medical Research, Education, and Practice.
Available online at
https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12598.
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirement that a compendium have a
publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies and for identifying
potential conflicts of interests.
• To add a definition of a ‘‘publicly
transparent process’’ for evaluating
therapies whereby a compendium
publisher would publish on its Web site
the complete application for inclusion
of a therapy including criteria used to
evaluate the request; disclosure of the
evidence considered; the names of the
individuals who have substantively
participated in the development of the
compendia recommendations; and
transcripts of meetings and records of
votes for disposition of the request. We
requested comments on the requirement
for publication of the transcript and the
suitability of other alternatives such as
minutes or other documents.
• To add a definition of a ‘‘publicly
transparent process for identifying
potential conflicts of interests’’ whereby
a compendium publisher would
disclose by publication on its Web site
information regarding potential conflicts
of interests associated with individuals
who are responsible for the
compendium’s recommendations, as
well as their immediate family
members. We requested comments on
the suitability of this process or whether
the compendia should prescribe their
own process. The specific details of the
proposed process were outlined in the
proposed rule (74 FR 33621 through
33623). We received the following
comments on our proposed revisions.
c. Public Comment and Response
Comment: Commenters generally
agreed with the principle that conflicts
of interest pose a risk to the integrity of
compendia and should be minimized.
Response: We appreciate the general
support for the principle.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned with the technological
burden of maintaining disclosable
information publicly on the compendia
Web sites for a 5-year period.
Response: Public interest in the
review and disposition of a request
pertaining to a drug or biological may in
some cases arise only after a drug or
biological has been in widespread use
for several years, during which its risks
or adverse effects become apparent. In
order to balance the burden on the
compendia publishers with the public’s
interest in timely access to this
information, we are revising our
proposal to require that the publicly
transparent process provide for
disclosures to remain available on the
compendium’s Web site for not less
than 3 years. However, for the reasons
discussed in the proposed rule (see 74
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
FR 33622 through 33623), the
compendia should retain custody of the
relevant information, enabling public
access to the material upon request for
not less than 5 years.
Comment: Commenters suggested that
the burden of disclosing conflict of
interest information regarding
individuals who participate
substantively in the review and
disposition of multiple requests could
be lessened if there were no requirement
to separately disclose this information
for each and every request.
Response: We recognize that some
individuals may participate
substantively in the review and
disposition of more than one request.
However, we also recognize that a single
relationship may present a significant
conflict of interest in some cases but not
others. Therefore, we are requiring
compendia in establishing a publicly
transparent process for identification of
potential conflicts of interest, to list the
names of those individuals who
substantively participated in the review
or disposition of each request.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned that the immediate removal
of a compendium that fails to meet the
statutorily-mandated January 1, 2010
implementation date as specified by
section 182(b) of the MIPPA would
adversely impact a patient being treated
with an off-label anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic regimen based on a
recommendation from that
compendium. One commenter
suggested grandfathering patients that
began an off-label anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic regimen based the
recommendation of a compendium that
is removed from the list of statutorily
recognized compendia based on
noncompliance with section 182(b) of
the MIPPA.
Response: The statute provides an
alternative method for identifying
medically-accepted off-label uses of
drugs and biologicals in an anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic regimen. In
accordance with section
1861(t)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, local
contractors have additional authority to
make determinations regarding
medically-accepted indications. We
discussed this in our response to
comments in the CY 2008 PFS final rule
with comment period (72 FR 66305).
Comment: A few commenters were
concerned that the proposed publicly
transparent process for evaluating
therapies might be interpreted to apply
only to externally generated requests
received by compendia.
Response: We appreciate this
comment and have clarified this
provision, because in some instances, a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
compendium’s determination is
internally generated. Therefore, we have
added text to clarify that the
requirements pertain to an internally or
externally generated request.
Comment: Some of the commenters
were concerned that requiring
transcripts would inhibit discussion
amongst compendia recommendation
decision makers and would be too
burdensome to compendia publishers
because of the number or length of
meetings, which may include
discussion of topics beyond the request.
The commenters suggested requiring
minutes and voting records rather than
transcripts. One commenter suggested
that we delay the implementation of this
requirement for up to 1 year.
Response: We agree that publication
of minutes and voting records would be
sufficient because it would provide
public transparency regarding the
evaluation of the therapy at issue. We
also believe that this requirement can be
implemented much more readily than
the proposed requirement for
transcripts.
Comment: A few commenters were
concerned about the requirement for
compendia to publicly transcribe all
meetings pertaining to compendium
recommendations. Specifically, some
compendia publishers convene
telephone conferences rather than
meetings or have processes that isolate
advisors from each others’
recommendations.
Response: We have replaced the
transcript requirement as noted above.
However, this comment remains
relevant as we have been made aware
that some compendia publishers do not
conduct actual meetings of individuals
substantively involved in reviewing and
reaching dispositions of requests and
thus could not provide minutes of
meetings. We believe that minutes of
telephone conferences, to the extent that
such conferences are used in the
evaluation of the request, could also be
used to demonstrate the evaluation
process used by the compendia.
Comment: One commenter questioned
the use of § 411.354 to define direct and
indirect financial conflicts of interests.
Response: In the proposed rule, we
stated that the process for identifying
potential conflicts of interest should
include disclosure of direct and indirect
‘‘similar to those relationships
identified in 42 CFR part 411.’’
Compendia maintain discretion to
develop their own definitions for direct
and indirect financial conflicts of
interests, however, the definitions
included in 42 CFR part 411 are
provided as a resource for compendia to
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61903
use in the development of these
definitions.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we establish a specific dollar value
that would trigger disclosure of
financial conflicts of interests that
exceed some minimum amount.
Response: We are not requiring
compendia to disclose a specific dollar
amount. We have left it to the discretion
of the compendia publisher as to
whether a specific dollar value would
be publicly disclosed.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for the disclosure of
the conflicts of interests of individuals
who are responsible for the
compendium’s recommendations, as
well as their immediate family
members. There was concern from some
commenters that the definition of
immediate family member in § 411.351
(which includes, in part, relationships
with a spouse, children, and
grandparents) was too extensive.
Response: We agree with this
comment and are amending the
provision concerning the process for
public disclosure of immediate family
members to be less extensive and more
consistent with the current FDA
Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory
Committee Members, and FDA Staff on
Procedures for Determining Conflict of
Interest and Eligibility for Participation
in FDA Advisory Committees released in
August of 2008.
We have also amended the publicly
transparent process for identifying
potential conflicts to include a
provision that requires compendia to
have a process for collecting and
maintaining conflict of interest
information and disclosure, if requested
by the public in lieu of publishing this
information on their Web sites. We
believe this strikes a reasonable balance
between the individual’s personal
privacy and the public interest in
transparency.
Comment: Some requestors asked if
the regulatory requirements would
apply to past requests that were
received or under review by compendia
publishers before January 1, 2010 that
may have led to treatment
recommendations that are published
after that date.
Response: These provisions would
not apply retroactively. However, the
MIPPA provisions are effective on or
after January 1, 2010. Thus, compendia
are responsible for complying with
these provisions with respect to requests
received after the date.
d. Provisions of the Final Regulation
This final regulation amends
§ 414.930(a) to revise the definition of
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61904
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
compendium to add a requirement that
a compendium have a publicly
transparent process for evaluating
therapies and for identifying conflicts of
interests. We also define a publicly
transparent process for evaluating
therapies and for identifying conflicts of
interests. The revised definitions read as
follows:
• Publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies means that the
process provides that the following
information from an internal or external
request for inclusion of a therapy in a
compendium are available to the public
for a period of not less than 5 years,
which includes availability on the
compendium’s Web site for a period of
not less than 3 years, coincident with
the compendium’s publication of the
related recommendation:
(i) The internal or external request for
listing of a therapy recommendation
including criteria used to evaluate the
request.
(ii) A listing of all the evidentiary
materials reviewed or considered by the
compendium pursuant to the request.
(iii) A listing of all individuals who
have substantively participated in the
review or disposition of the request.
(iv) Minutes and voting records of
meetings for the review and disposition
of the request.
• Publicly transparent process for
identifying potential conflicts of
interests means that the process
provides that the following information
is identified and made timely available
in response to a public request for a
period of not less than 5 years,
coincident with the compendium’s
publication of the related
recommendation:
(i) Direct or indirect financial
relationships that exist between
individuals or the spouse or minor child
of individuals who have substantively
participated in the development or
disposition of compendia
recommendations and the manufacturer
or seller of the drug or biological being
reviewed by the compendium. This
publicly transparent process may
include disclosure of, for example,
compensation arrangements such as
salary, grant, contract, or collaboration
agreements between individuals or the
spouse or minor child of individuals
who have substantively participated in
the review and disposition of the
request and the manufacturer or seller of
the drug or biological being reviewed by
the compendium.
(ii) Ownership or investment interests
between individuals or the spouse or
minor child of individuals who have
substantively participated in the
development or disposition of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
compendia recommendations and the
manufacturer or seller of the drug or
biological being reviewed by the
compendium.
H. Part B Drug Payment
1. Average Sales Price (ASP) Issues
a. Immunosuppressive Drugs Period of
Eligibility
Before enactment of section 9335(c) of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–509) (OBRA ’86),
there was no specific Medicare benefit
that provided for Medicare Part B
coverage of prescription drugs used in
immunosuppressive therapy. OBRA ’86
added subparagraph (J) to section
1861(s)(2) of the Act to provide
Medicare coverage for
immunosuppressive drugs, furnished to
an individual who receives an organ
transplant for which Medicare payment
is made, for a period not to exceed 1
year after the transplant procedure.
Coverage of these drugs under Medicare
Part B began January 1, 1987.
Section 13565 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–
66) amended section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the
Act to allow eligible beneficiaries to
receive additional Part B coverage
within 18 months after the discharge
date for immunosuppressive drugs
furnished in 1995; within 24 months for
immunosuppressive drugs furnished in
1996; within 30 months for
immunosuppressive drugs furnished in
1997; and within 36 months for
immunosuppressive drugs furnished
after 1997. Beginning January 1, 2000,
section 227 of the Medicare, Medicaid
and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–113) (BBRA)
extended coverage to eligible
beneficiaries whose coverage for drugs
used in immunosuppressive therapy
expires during the calendar year, an
additional 8 months beyond the 36month period.
Section 113 of the Medicare,
Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of
2000 (Pub. L. 106–554) (BIPA 2000)
revised section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Act to
eliminate the time limits for coverage of
prescription drugs used in
immunosuppressive therapy under the
Medicare program. Effective with
immunosuppressive drugs furnished on
or after December 21, 2000, there is no
longer any time limit for Medicare
benefits. This policy applies to all
Medicare entitled beneficiaries who
meet all of the other program
requirements for coverage under this
benefit. Therefore, for example, entitled
beneficiaries who had been receiving
benefits for immunosuppressive drugs
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Act,
but whose immunosuppressive drug
benefit was terminated solely because of
the time limit described above, resumed
receiving that benefit for
immunosuppressive drugs furnished on
or after December 21, 2000.
According to section 226A(b)(2) of the
Act, ‘‘ESRD only’’ beneficiaries continue
to lose their general Medicare coverage
and, by extension, Part B coverage for
immunosuppressive drug therapy 36
months after discharge from a hospital
following a covered transplant.
Beneficiaries will have Part B coverage
for immunosuppressive drug therapy for
as long as they remain eligible for
Medicare.
Our proposal to codify the
immunosuppressive drug coverage does
not cause a substantive programmatic
change since the provisions in section
113 of the BIPA 2000 eliminating the
time limit from section 1861(s)(2)(J) of
the Act are self implementing for
services on or after December 21, 2000.
We included this topic in the proposed
rule in order to make conforming
changes to the regulatory text at
§ 410.30. We proposed to amend
paragraph (b) to codify the changes to
the immunosuppressive drug coverage
time limit as required by section 113 of
the BIPA 2000.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses:
Comment: We received a few
comments which supported our
proposal. Commenters noted that this
technical change will reduce the
potential for confusion in the future
about the scope of Medicare coverage of
and payment for immunosuppressive
drug therapy.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comments and agree that any
steps which reduce confusion benefit
Medicare and its stakeholders.
After reviewing the public comments,
we are finalizing our proposed revisions
to § 410.30.
b. WAMP/AMP Threshold
Section 1847A(d)(1) of the Act states
that ‘‘the Inspector General of HHS shall
conduct studies, which may include
surveys to determine the widely
available market prices (WAMP) of
drugs and biologicals to which this
section applies, as the Inspector
General, in consultation with the
Secretary, determines to be
appropriate.’’ Section 1847A(d)(2) of the
Act states that, ‘‘Based upon such
studies and other data for drugs and
biologicals, the Inspector General shall
compare the ASP under this section for
drugs and biologicals with—
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
• The widely available market price
(WAMP) for these drugs and biologicals
(if any); and
• The average manufacturer price
(AMP) (as determined under section
1927(k)(1) of the Act for such drugs and
biologicals).’’
Section 1847A(d)(3)(A) of the Act
states that, ‘‘The Secretary may
disregard the ASP for a drug or
biological that exceeds the WAMP or
the AMP for such drug or biological by
the applicable threshold percentage (as
defined in subparagraph (B)).’’ The
applicable threshold is specified as 5
percent for CY 2005. For CY 2006 and
subsequent years, section
1847A(d)(3)(B) of the Act establishes
that the applicable threshold is ‘‘the
percentage applied under this
subparagraph subject to such
adjustment as the Secretary may specify
for the WAMP or the AMP, or both.’’ In
CY 2006 through CY 2009, we specified
an applicable threshold percentage of 5
percent for both the WAMP and AMP.
We based this decision on the limited
data available to support a change in the
current threshold percentage.
For CY 2010, we proposed to specify
an applicable threshold percentage of 5
percent for the WAMP and the AMP. At
present, the OIG is continuing its
comparisons of both the WAMP and the
AMP. In April 2008, we implemented a
change in the weighting methodology
for calculating ASP. Information on how
recent changes to the calculation of the
ASP may affect the comparison of ASP
to WAMP or AMP is limited at this
time. In addition, due to the ongoing
legal issues surrounding the availability
of AMP, we believe it is prudent not to
change the threshold at this time. Since
we do not have sufficient data that
suggest another level is more
appropriate, we believe that continuing
the 5 percent applicable threshold
percentage for both the WAMP and
AMP is appropriate for CY 2010.
As we noted in the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR
69752), we understand that there are
complicated operational issues
associated with potential payment
substitutions. We will continue to
proceed cautiously in this area and
provide stakeholders, including
providers and manufacturers of drugs
impacted by potential price
substitutions with adequate notice of
our intentions regarding such, including
the opportunity to provide input with
regard to the processes for substituting
the WAMP or the AMP for the ASP.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Comment: Most commenters
supported maintaining the threshold at
5 percent. Other comments suggested
that we exercise caution in the
determination of price substitutions and
that we develop a formal process and
criteria to determine when substitutions
are necessary. Comments also
recommended that we provide adequate
notice prior to making a price
substitution. One commenter objected to
the continuation of the 5 percent
threshold but did not provide an
alternative solution.
Response: We appreciate the
comments supporting the continuation
of the 5 percent threshold. As we noted
in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69753), we
understand there are complex
operational issues associated with
potential payment substitutions. As we
continue to proceed in this area, we will
provide stakeholders, including
providers and manufacturers of drugs
impacted by potential price
substitutions an opportunity to provide
input with regard to the processes for
substituting the WAMP or the AMP for
the ASP. As part of our approach we
intend to develop a better
understanding of the issues that may be
related to certain drugs for which the
WAMP and AMP may be lower than the
ASP over time.
After reviewing the public comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to
continue the 5 percent WAMP/AMP
threshold for CY 2010.
2. Competitive Acquisition Program
(CAP) Issues
Section 303(d) of the MMA requires
the implementation of a competitive
acquisition program (CAP) for certain
Medicare Part B drugs not paid on a cost
or PPS basis. The provisions for
acquiring and billing drugs under the
CAP were described in the Competitive
Acquisition of Outpatient Drugs and
Biologicals Under Part B proposed rule
(March 4, 2005, 70 FR 10746) and the
interim final rule (July 6, 2005, 70 FR
39022), and certain provisions were
finalized in the CY 2006 PFS final rule
with comment period (70 FR 70236).
The CY 2007 PFS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 66260) then
finalized portions of the July 6, 2005 IFC
that had not already been finalized.
The CAP is an alternative to the ASP
(buy and bill) methodology of obtaining
certain Part B drugs used incident to
physicians’ services. Physicians who
choose to participate in the CAP obtain
drugs from vendors selected through a
competitive bidding process and
approved by CMS. Under the CAP,
participating physicians agree to obtain
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61905
all of the drugs on the CAP drug list
from an approved CAP vendor. The
approved CAP vendor retains title to the
drug until it is administered, bills
Medicare for the drug, and bills the
beneficiary for cost sharing amounts
once the drug has been administered.
The participating CAP physician bills
Medicare only for administering the
drug to the beneficiary. The initial
implementation of the CAP operated
with a single CAP drug category from
July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.
After the CAP was implemented,
section 108 of the MIEA–TRHCA made
changes to the CAP payment
methodology. Section 108(a)(2) of the
MIEA–TRHCA requires the Secretary to
establish (by program instruction or
otherwise) a post payment review
process (which may include the use of
statistical sampling) to assure that
payment is made for a drug or biological
only if the drug or biological has been
administered to a beneficiary. The
Secretary is required to recoup, offset, or
collect any overpayments. This statutory
change took effect on April 1, 2007.
Conforming changes were proposed in
the CY 2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR
38153) and finalized in the CY 2008 PFS
final rule with comment period (72 FR
66260).
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed several refinements to the
CAP regarding the annual CAP payment
amount update mechanism, the
definition of a CAP physician, the
restriction on physician transportation
of CAP drugs, and the dispute
resolution process (73 FR 38522).
However, after the publication of the CY
2009 proposed rule, we announced the
postponement of the CAP for 2009 due
to contractual issues with the successful
bidders. As a result, CAP physician
election for participation in the CAP in
2009 was put on hold, and CAP drugs
have not been available from an
approved CAP vendor for dates of
service after December 31, 2008.
Physicians who participated in the CAP
have transitioned back into the Average
Sales Price (ASP) method of acquiring
part B drugs for dates of service after
December 31, 2008.
After the postponement was
announced, we solicited public
feedback on the CAP from participating
physicians, potential vendors, and other
interested parties. We solicited public
comments on several issues, including,
but not limited to the following: the
categories of drugs provided under the
CAP; the distribution of areas that are
served by the CAP; and procedural
changes that may increase the program’s
flexibility and appeal to potential
vendors and participating physicians.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61906
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
We also hosted a CAP Open Door Forum
(ODF) on December 3, 2008, where
participants had an opportunity to
discuss the postponement and suggest
changes to the program.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period, we stated that we
would review the public comments and
consider implementing changes to the
CAP before proceeding with another bid
solicitation for approved CAP vendor
contracts. Based on this information, we
addressed items that were not finalized
in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period, and made additional
proposals for the CAP. Our approach
seeks to better define certain aspects of
the program based on our experience.
We also seek to continue to increase
participation by minimizing the
administrative burden for physicians
and vendors who choose to participate.
We appreciate the additional comments
that we have received during the
comment period.
a. Frequency of Drug Payment Amount
Updates
As described in the July 6, 2005 IFC
(70 FR 39070 through 39071) and
§ 414.906(c), payment amounts for drugs
furnished under the CAP are set through
a competitive bidding process, and as
described in § 414.908(b), bids that
exceed a composite bid threshold of 106
percent of the weighted ASP for the
drugs in the CAP category are not
accepted. The CAP payment amounts
that are calculated from successful bids
are updated from the time of the bidding
period to the payment year. During the
2006 through 2008 CAP contract period,
the initial update calculation used the
change in the Producer Price Index (PPI)
for prescription preparations to account
for the time period between the bidding
and the period in which the payment
amounts were to be in effect, which was
the middle of the first year of the three
year CAP contract period (70 FR 39074).
Finally, as specified in § 414.906(c),
CAP payment amounts were updated
again during the second and third year
of the contract period based on the
approved CAP vendor’s reported
reasonable net acquisition costs (RNAC).
The annual updates are limited by
payment amounts described in section
1847A of the Act and codified in
§ 414.906(c).
Section 1847B(c)(7) of the Act gives
the Secretary the discretion to establish
an appropriate schedule for the
approved CAP vendor’s disclosure of
RNAC information to us, provided that
disclosure is not required more
frequently than quarterly. In the July 6,
2005 IFC (70 FR 39075 through 39076),
we specified that each approved CAP
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
vendor will disclose its RNAC for the
drugs covered under the contract
annually during the period of its
contract and that we would calculate an
annual payment adjustment based on
this information. We specified an
annual disclosure of RNAC because it
imposes the minimal burden on
approved CAP vendors. In 2005, some
commenters suggested that more
frequent updates would be desirable.
Additional feedback about the CAP that
was obtained after the program’s
postponement in 2008, as well as
comments on previous rules, indicated
that potential vendors would like the
frequency of price adjustments to
increase. In the past, various
commenters have suggested a quarterly
price adjustment in order to parallel the
ASP process, to better match payment
amounts with increases or decreases in
drug costs, and to attract vendor
interest. We believe that quarterly
adjustments also would lower approved
CAP vendors’ financial risks because
CAP payment amounts will be better
able to keep up with unanticipated drug
cost increases and would benefit the
Medicare program by reacting to
significant cost decreases more
promptly.
Quarterly price updates also will
eliminate the PPI-based increase that
currently occurs between the time bids
are submitted and the first day of CAP
claims processing. The application of
the PPI-based payment adjustment
described in the July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR
39074) has resulted in situations where
the ASP+6 percent payment amount
was exceeded during the first year of the
3-year approved CAP vendor contract.
We do not believe that CAP payment
amounts should exceed ASP+6 percent.
In our discussion of bid ceilings in the
July 6, 2005 IFC, we stated that the bid
ceiling ‘‘ensures that the CAP will be no
more costly to the Medicare program
than the alternative method of paying
for drugs at 106 percent of ASP. This
ceiling is thus consistent with the
possibility of realizing savings to the
Medicare program. It would also serve
to maintain a level of parity between the
two systems, preventing a situation in
which significant payment differentials
might skew incentives and choices (70
FR 39070).’’ For this reason, and to
remain consistent with current
regulation text at § 414.906, we believe
that all payment amounts calculated
under the update process should be
limited by the weighted payment
amount established under section
1847A of the Act. We also believe that
this approach will continue to provide
for an ‘‘appropriate price adjustment’’ as
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
required under section 1847B(c)(7) of
the Act by improving responsiveness to
unexpected price changes, and
continuing a prudent limitation on the
magnitude of payment amount
adjustments.
Our approach for implementing
quarterly updates is consistent with the
ASP+6 percent limit on payment
amounts and is based on composite bid
price calculations, as described in the
July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39072 through
39073). Briefly stated, the ASP+6
percent limit would be applied by
comparing the (weighted) composite
update payment amount, calculated
from participating approved CAP
vendors’ reasonable net acquisition cost
data, to the most recent available
weighted ASP prices for the same drugs.
If the composite drug update payment
amount exceeds the weighted ASP+6
percent payment limit, the composite
payment amount for that group of drugs
would be reduced to equal the ASP+6
percent limit by applying an equal
percent reduction to each drug in the
group. By way of example only, if a
quarter’s composite update payment
was calculated as +2.3 percent, based on
the median of all participating approved
CAP vendors’ data, but the calculated
weighted ASP+6 percent limit for that
group of drugs was +2.1 percent, the
payment amounts for all HCPCS codes
in the composite group would be
increased by 2.1 percent in order to
account for reported increases to the
vendor’s acquisition cost, but not to
exceed the ASP+6 percent limit. This
means that a 2.1 percent increase would
be applied to CAP payment amounts for
all HCPCS codes that are in the
composite drug list and are being
supplied under the CAP by one or more
approved CAP vendors. For HCPCS
codes that are priced separately, each
code available through the CAP will be
compared to the most recent ASP+6
percent limit for that code. CAP
payment amounts for codes that exceed
the ASP+6 percent limit will be reduced
to ASP+6 percent. Each ‘‘Not Otherwise
Classified’’ (NOC) drug described in
§ 414.906(f)(2)(iv), would also be
updated on an individual (rather than
composite) basis.
We proposed to discontinue annual
CAP payment amount updates and to
implement quarterly CAP payment
amount updates at § 414.906(c). We also
proposed to discontinue the special
quarterly adjustments described at
§ 414.906(c)(2) (for the introduction of
new drugs, expiration of drug patents or
availability of generic drugs, material
shortages, or withdrawal of a drug from
the market) and instead to add details
about the payment amount update
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
process described in section II.J.2.f. of
this final rule with comment period
(Annual CAP Payment Amount Update
Mechanism). A quarterly RNAC
reporting and payment adjustment
process would begin as soon as we enter
into contracts with the approved CAP
vendor(s); that is, beginning with the
first quarter during which CAP claims
are submitted under the contract. Thus,
we also proposed to eliminate the PPIbased adjustment for the time period
between the time bids are submitted and
the time claims processing begins under
the contract, because that adjustment
would no longer be necessary. We
believe that using one payment update
process will be easier to administer and
will minimize the potential for CAP
payment amounts to exceed ASP+6
percent for the first contract year. In
order to provide sufficient time for the
calculation of payment amount updates,
we proposed that approved CAP
vendors report quarterly RNAC data for
drug purchased for use under the CAP
during the previous quarter within 30
days of the close of that quarter. We
made corresponding changes to
regulation text at § 414.906(c) and asked
for comments on these proposed
changes.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed revisions to the frequency of
drug payment amount updates under
the CAP.
Comment: All commenters agreed
with the proposal to implement
quarterly updates; however, some
commenters were concerned that even
quarterly updates would not cover
losses that began prior to an update. The
response to the ASP+6 percent limit was
mixed. Several commenters supported
the limit, but several commenters were
concerned that payment at ASP+6
percent or less was a financial risk to
vendors. Commenters suggested several
approaches to further minimize vendors
financial risks due to price increases,
including a transaction fee to offset the
financial risk associated with certain
drugs, especially low cost items, the use
of varying update percentages,
including amounts greater that 6
percent, and product specific (NDC
level) adjustments.
Response: We agree with comments
that support the quarterly update
process and agree that changing to a
quarterly payment amount update
frequency will benefit approved CAP
vendors by reducing financial risk, even
though the process is more burdensome
than an annual process. The quarterly
process will eliminate the need for a PPI
based payment amount adjustment at
the beginning of a contract period. We
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
appreciate the discussion of risk
presented by commenters, but we also
believe that it is appropriate to maintain
an ASP+6 percent limit for price
increases for the reasons stated in our
proposal and we note that the lag period
between quarterly adjustments will
apply to both price increases and price
decreases, including situations where
generic versions of a drug are
introduced. As mentioned in the
proposed rule and in previous rules, we
continue to believe that the ASP+6
percent ceiling is consistent with our
previous policies because it preserves
the potential for savings to the program,
while providing parity between the CAP
and ASP payment systems.
We also believe that the elimination
of many low cost items from the drug
list, as discussed in the next section,
will decrease financial risk and
administrative burden for approved
CAP vendors, and therefore, we do not
believe that transaction fees are
necessary or are consistent with the
policy to maintain an ASP+6 percent
ceiling. Finally, we remind readers that
although payment amount updates for
the core group of CAP drugs will be
done as a group, payment amount
updates for drugs added by approved
CAP vendor request will continue to be
calculated by individual HCPCS code,
thereby further minimizing the financial
risk associated with the addition of new
drugs to the approved CAP vendor’s
CAP drug list.
Therefore, we are finalizing all of our
proposals for this section without
change. This includes the
discontinuation of the annual payment
amount adjustments, the
discontinuation of PPI-based increases
and the discontinuation of special
quarterly payment amount increases
described in § 414.906(c). We are also
finalizing the implementation of
quarterly payment amount increases
that begin in the first quarter of the CAP
claims contract period, the ASP+6
percent limit on payment amount
increases, and all corresponding
regulation text changes.
b. Changes to the CAP Drug List
(1) CAP Drug List
In the July 6, 2005 IFC, we responded
to comments on our proposed approach
for determining the CAP drug categories
and how we select the specific drugs in
the CAP drug list (70 FR 39026 through
39034). As stated in the CY 2006 PFS
final rule with comment period (70 FR
70237), the CAP is intended to provide
beneficiaries with access to Medicare
Part B drugs and maintain physician
flexibility when prescribing
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61907
medications. Our approach incorporated
drugs commonly administered by the
range of physician specialties that bill
for Part B drugs (70 FR 39030) and
resulted in a list of about 180 drugs that
were available through the CAP during
the CY 2006 through CY 2008 contract
period. We also developed a number of
methods by which an approved CAP
vendor’s CAP drug list could be
changed (see Table 26 at 70 FR 70242).
We believe that our general approach,
to provide a wide variety of drugs to a
variety of physicians over a large
portion of the United States, is on target.
Although we believe that the CAP is a
means for physicians to minimize their
drug inventory costs, we acknowledge
that participation in the CAP cannot
completely eliminate the need for
participating CAP physicians to
maintain at least a minimal drug
inventory at the office. Many physicians
who participate in Medicare also
provide services to non-Medicare
patients, and even physicians with a
predominantly Medicare patient
population may find it useful to keep a
small stock of drugs on hand for
unforeseen situations, such as
emergencies and breakage.
During the CAP postponement, we
became aware that both participating
CAP physicians and potential vendors
supported narrowing the CAP drug list.
Both agreed that low cost drugs should
be removed from the CAP. Although
these items were initially included in
the CAP so that an approved CAP
vendor would be in a position to supply
many of the Part B drugs that an office
might administer, CAP physicians and
the vendor community have stated that
the inclusion of these items in the CAP
creates an accounting, tracking, and
claims submission burden for some
participants. Based on these comments,
we believe that low-cost, frequently
utilized items, such as corticosteroid
injections, could be removed from the
list without significant impact on the
CAP’s utility to participating CAP
physicians. Furthermore, it appears that
physicians would be more interested in
obtaining expensive products, such as
biologicals, through the CAP. However,
we are also mindful that narrowing the
CAP drug list significantly also would
decrease an approved CAP vendor’s
overall purchase volume, and we
believe that this could limit the
approved CAP vendor’s ability to obtain
volume-based discounts from the
manufacturers or distributors from
which it obtains drugs for use in the
CAP. Creating a more tailored CAP drug
category also could limit physician
participation to one or several
specialties, and may create a situation
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61908
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
where sudden supply interruptions and
unexpected changes to distribution
channels could affect a greater
proportion of drugs in the program than
would be the case with a broader CAP
drug category.
We proposed to create a new CAP
drug category for the next round of CAP
contracting. Our approach is intended to
address comments about the
administrative burden of tracking and
billing low cost/high volume items
while maintaining access to a variety of
high cost items. We proposed to identify
the new CAP drug category using the
existing CAP drug category as a starting
point. The 2008 CAP drug list was
compiled based on Part B drug claims
data, the identification of specialties
that frequently administer drugs under
Part B, and public comment during
rulemaking in 2005 (70 FR 39026
through 39033). We believe that using
the 2008 CAP drug list as a starting
point would maintain prescribing
flexibility for a wide range of specialties
and would also maintain access to a
wide spectrum of drugs that have been
utilized under the program previously.
Furthermore, we do not believe it is
necessary to develop a new approach
because the 2008 CAP drug list was
based on heavily utilized drugs in
Medicare Part B physician practices; we
believe that this approach is on target.
We proposed to amend our list based
on CAP physician participation, claims
data, and comments indicating that the
list should be narrowed to higher cost
items. First, we ‘‘filtered’’ the original
CAP drug category (drugs furnished in
2006 through 2009) by the specialties
that most frequently prescribe drugs
under the CAP, and the highest dollar
volume CAP drugs (top 20 percent of
allowed charges) compiled from 2008
claims data. This filtered list is the
starting point for the updated CAP drug
category. However, we acknowledged
that a filtering process based on
frequency of claims from a subset of
physicians who might participate in the
CAP cannot fully capture all drugs that
may be used by certain specialties. In
other words, the filtering steps
described above narrow the CAP drug
list based on physician specialties and
dollar volume and do not necessarily
preserve groups of drugs that certain
prescribers may utilize, especially the
less frequently utilized items in such
groups. Therefore, we also proposed to
‘‘fill in’’ groups of drugs with related
items that do not appear on our list. We
stated that we will consider ‘‘filling in’’
any drug or biological product that is
physician-administered, has a
reasonably high utilization in the
Medicare population, is related to drugs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
already in the CAP (for example,
because of similar clinical uses), and is
otherwise appropriate for inclusion in
the program. The concept of ‘‘filling in’’
drug groups is supported by feedback
from former participating CAP
physicians who suggested that certain
categories of drugs, such as antibiotics,
be more fully represented.
We solicited comments on specific
drugs that should be added to the 29
item draft list presented in the proposed
rule (Table 35 in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33627)), and we
also sought comments on the method to
assess whether a particular drug should
be ‘‘filled in’’ so that it is included in
the new, narrowed CAP drug category,
especially drugs that did not pass the
‘‘filtering’’ step described above. We
proposed an approach using the 180
item 2009 through 2011 CAP vendor
bidding list (See the Downloads section
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
CompetitiveAcquisforBios/
03a_vendorbackground.asp#
TopOfPage) that was used during the
approved CAP vendor bidding for the
2009–11 contract. This list includes
CMS approved items added to the
original contract’s bid list, as well as
items approved for addition during the
2006–2008 contract period. This list’s
weighting is based on claims volume
data by HCPCS code units rather than
dollar volume and provides a different
perspective than a dollar volume
sorting. We proposed adding drugs from
the 2009–2011 CAP Vendor bid list to
the CAP drug category if the drug’s
weight is in the top 25 percent of the
2009–11 CAP vendor bidding list,
indicating frequent claims submission,
and if the drug’s clinical uses are similar
to a drug on the 29 item proposed list.
This method results in the addition of
12 items, including several commonly
used antibiotics, two antiemetics and
several chemotherapeutic agents.
Although this method helps ‘‘fill in’’ the
proposed CAP drug list, we stated that
this method still does not fully capture
less frequently used drugs, or newly
approved drugs, and we asked for
comments on this method and
alternative methods of filling this
proposed list.
In order to provide additional
flexibility for participating CAP
physicians and approved CAP vendors,
and to allow for participants to further
tailor the program to meet their needs,
we also proposed to add
§ 414.906(f)(2)(v) to allow approved
CAP vendors to submit a request to CMS
to add drugs (or biologicals) to the list
of drugs furnished by the requesting
vendor if there is sufficient demand and
if the drug has therapeutic uses that are
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
similar to other drugs already available
through the CAP. The request and
approval process would follow the
existing regulations at § 414.906(f), and
HCPCS code additions that are
requested under this process would still
be subject to CMS approval. This
process adds to the process for adding
newly issued HCPCS codes under
§ 414.906(f)(2)(iii) and newly approved
drugs without HCPCS codes (NOC
drugs) under § 414.906(f)(2)(iv). It is
intended to facilitate more complete
access to groups of drugs that may be
used by certain specialties, and drugs
used to treat certain disease states
without having to rely on rigid
definitions of classes of drugs that may
not apply well to actual clinical practice
across a large and diverse geographic
area. We believe that this addition to the
methods for changing an approved CAP
vendor’s drug list (see Table 26 in the
CY 2007 PFS final rule with comment
period (70 FR 70242)) will add to the
flexibility of the program.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed revisions the CAP drug list.
Comment: Narrowing the CAP drug
list as proposed, particularly removing
lower-cost items that are burdensome to
track, was supported by numerous
commenters, although one commenter
pointed out that our revisions could
affect participation by infectious disease
physicians because of the limited
number of antimicrobials. One comment
specifically recommended using volume
data to create the updated list. Also,
commenters supported the concept of
filling in drugs based on similar clinical
uses. Several commenters requested that
the following specific drugs or groups of
drugs be added to the final list:
Vectibix® (panitumumab); Nplate®
(romiplostim); LHRH analoguesspecifically leuprolide depot; orphan
drugs; and more antibiotics. Several
commenters recommended that plasma
protein derived drugs and biologicals
not be included in the CAP drug list.
One commenter recommended that
stakeholders other than vendors be
allowed to request changes to the drug
list.
Response: Based on overall support
for a narrowed CAP drug list, we are
specifying a 41 item bid list that appears
in Table 29. This list includes both the
list of drugs that we proposed to include
as well as all of the potential additions
that we discussed in the proposed rule
and this list is the single drug category
for the next bidding period. No plasma
protein therapies described in
comments appear on this list. Plasma
protein therapies, including IVIG,
clotting factors, and alpha-1 proteinase
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
inhibitors, have not been furnished
under the CAP in the past and therefore
would not have been included in the list
from which we applied the ‘‘filtering
steps’’ to develop this drug list. Also in
the July 2005 interim final rule with
comment (70 FR 39029) we stated that
before adding clotting factors or IVIG to
the CAP drug list, we would publish a
proposed rule and seek public
comment. At this time, we are not
adding these items to the CAP drug list
because we did not specifically propose
to do so in the proposed rule.
Although we did not receive any
comments that presented a specific and
detailed method to further expand or fill
in the drug list, the use of volume based
filtering and the concept of filling in the
drug list was supported by commenters.
Thus, as noted above, we are including
the potential additions specified in the
proposed rule. Further, we are finalizing
the proposed approach for approved
CAP vendor-requested additions of
drugs that have similar uses to drugs on
the bid list.
We believe that selecting the larger
base drug list and providing a process
for approved CAP vendors to request to
add drugs that can further ‘‘fill in’’ this
list strikes a balance between specifying
a minimum scope of drugs and
biologicals that will be available under
the CAP and providing flexibility for the
approved CAP vendor to manage the
risk associated with providing a broader
array of drugs and biologicals. For this
reason, we are not adding any other
drugs or biologicals to the bid list or
creating an addendum to the bid list at
this time. We believe that vendors will
be interested in expanding groups of
drugs and biologicals available under
the CAP in order to maximize physician
participation and order volume, and
that this will tend to increase the
number of therapeutically similar items
within the drug list.
We disagree with the commenter who
requested that parties other than the
approved CAP vendor, for example
manufacturers, be permitted to request
that CMS add drugs to the CAP
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
category. First, we believe this
rulemaking has provided an opportunity
for the public to provide input on the
CAP drug category, so an additional
process is unnecessary. Second, we
believe it would be imprudent to permit
such a process during the CAP
contracting period, because we believe
it would be inappropriate to force an
approved CAP vendor, mid-contract, to
supply drugs that it did not initially
consider in its bid and that may be
financially risky, may require highly
specialized handling, or may necessitate
participation in specialized purchasing
arrangements.
We believe that requiring approved
CAP vendors to add products that they
did not choose to bid on or
subsequently provide may also limit
bidders’ interest and could limit the
number of approved CAP vendors for
physicians to choose from, thereby
restricting all access to CAP drugs. We
will continue with our policy that
allows only approved CAP vendors to
request changes to the CAP drug list;
however, external stakeholders may
approach approved CAP vendors to
discuss the potential addition of
products to an approved CAP vendor’s
drug list. As noted above, we believe
approved CAP vendors would have an
incentive to be responsive to such
requests. The new mechanism for
deleting drugs from the CAP drug list is
discussed in the following section.
With respect to the specific drug and
biological products mentioned in the
comments, we believe that the addition
of specific items mentioned in the
comments appears to be best suited for
addition to the CAP drug list through
vendor requests. We have discussed
issues pertaining to orphan drugs,
leuprolide and drugs similar to
leuprolide and in a previous rule (70 FR
70241 and 70 FR 70243, respectively).
While we appreciate these suggestions,
we are not compelled to add these drugs
to the CAP drug list as required items
based on these comments. For the
reasons stated in our previous rules, we
continue to believe it is prudent to
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61909
continue to omit these drugs from the
CAP. Further, because we are not
certain of the potential market volume
for these drugs in the CAP, we will not
add them to the drug list at this time.
We are aware that leuprolide and other
gonadotropin releasing hormone
agonists are commonly used to treat
prostate cancer and are highly utilized
items in Medicare; however CAP
participation by providers that prescribe
these drugs has been low. However, we
note that triptorelin (J3315), a
gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist
used in the treatment of prostate cancer
is on the CAP drug list, and therefore,
the addition of other gonadotropin
releasing hormone analogues though the
approved CAP vendor process for
adding drugs described above and in
new regulation text at § 414.908 would
be feasible.
Similarly, new drugs such as Vetibix®
and some antibiotics, which were on the
CAP drug list during the last contract
period, but were filtered out during the
development of the new drug list,
appear to be good candidates for
approved CAP vendor-requested
additions because agents with similar
therapeutic uses are on the drug list. We
will not add these drugs to the drug list
at this time because we are not certain
that these drugs will have sufficient
market volume in the CAP. We also note
that one item, Nplate®, an orphan drug
only available through a single specialty
vendor, and with limited use potential
in the Medicare population, also
appears to be a candidate for addition
upon approved CAP vendor request. As
discussed above, we are seeking to
balance physician access and approved
CAP vendor risk related to the drug list.
In light of the lack of widespread
demand for such drugs to be included
in the CAP drug list (and thus available
from all approved CAP vendors), we
believe that permitting approved CAP
vendors to request to supply those
drugs, but not requiring them to do so,
strikes the appropriate balance.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.197
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61910
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
2. Removing Drugs From the CAP List
Although there are several methods
under the CAP to add drugs to an
approved CAP vendor’s drug list, the
current regulations do not specify a
process for removing drugs from an
approved CAP vendor’s list. Our
experience has shown that interruptions
in availability can affect an approved
CAP vendor’s ability to supply CAP
drugs during the course of a 3-year
contract. For example, during the first
contract period, we became aware of
long-term and permanent drug
unavailability, sometimes at the HCPCS
level, due to removal of drugs from the
market, or interruption of supply to an
approved CAP vendor for reasons
beyond the approved CAP vendor’s
control, such as changes to drug
distribution methods, changes in
agreements between manufacturers and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
distributors and/or pharmacies
regarding who may purchase certain
drugs, and direct distribution
arrangements.
In order to better respond to sudden,
long-term changes in drug supply that
are beyond the control of the approved
CAP vendor, we proposed to allow an
approved CAP vendor to request the
permanent removal from its CAP drug
list of a HCPCS code for which no NDCs
are available. Our proposal is intended
to better manage situations where all
NDCs from an entire HCPCS code
unexpectedly become unavailable to an
approved CAP vendor, and we would
require the approved CAP vendor: (1) to
document the situation in writing,
including the unavailability of all NDC
codes in a HCPCS code that is supplied
under the CAP; (2) to describe the
reason for the unavailability and its
anticipated duration; and (3) to attest
that the unavailability is beyond the
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61911
approved CAP vendor’s control.
Approval of the deletion would apply
only to the approved CAP vendor or
vendors that requested the deletion. Our
proposal was not intended to be used
frequently, or to permit an approved
CAP vendor to remove a HCPCS code
from its CAP drug list simply because it
has become unprofitable to provide it—
we believe the payment amount
adjustment proposals discussed in
sections II.J.2.a. and f. of this final rule
addresses that concern. Furthermore,
our proposal was also not intended to be
used for managing short-term
unavailability, or unavailability of a
finite duration—we believe the existing
drug substitution policy described in
§ 414.906(f) already addresses those
concerns. We proposed to add this
process as § 414.906(g) because those
regulations currently provide for
additions and substitutions to the CAP
drug list, and would therefore require a
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.198
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61912
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
written request to CMS, as well as CMS’
approval.
Participating CAP physicians who are
affected by the deletion of a HCPCS
code from an approved CAP vendor’s
drug list would have the option of
remaining with their selected approved
CAP vendor and using the ASP (buy and
bill) methodology for obtaining the drug
that has been deleted, or selecting
another approved CAP vendor under the
exigent circumstances provision at
§ 414.908(a)(2). We believe that the
deletion of an expensive and highly
utilized CAP drug by one approved CAP
vendor in the middle of a physician
election period could cause hardship for
a practice if it had to revert to the ASP
methodology of acquiring and billing for
that drug. Such a situation would
constitute an exigent circumstance.
Given CAP’s goal of improving access to
drugs, allowing the participating CAP
physician to switch approved CAP
vendors outside of a regular election
period in this instance would be
prudent.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed method to remove items from
an approved CAP vendor’s drug list.
Comment: Comments supported a
mechanism to delete unavailable drugs
from vendors’ lists and also supported
allowing physicians affected by the
deletion of a HCPCS to have an
opportunity to obtain the drug through
the ASP process or to select another
vendor. One commenter asked for welldefined standards for removing a drug
from the list.
Response: Based on support for our
proposal in the comments, we are
finalizing the proposed process where
an approved CAP vendor may request
the permanent removal from its CAP
drug list of a HCPCS code for which no
NDCs are available. Participating CAP
physicians affected by such a deletion
will be able to obtain the deleted drug
under the ASP methodology, or will be
able to switch approved CAP vendors
outside of the regular physician election
process under the exigent circumstance
provision.
We believe that the preamble text
provides sufficiently detailed guidance
about the process. Specifically, we
require the approved CAP vendor: (1) to
document the situation in writing,
including the unavailability of all NDC
codes in a HCPCS code that is supplied
under the CAP; (2) to describe the
reason for the unavailability and its
anticipated duration; and (3) to attest
that the unavailability is beyond the
approved CAP vendor’s control. By way
of example only, situations that create
unavailability beyond the vendor’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
control could include: FDA action to
remove a drug from the market, longterm unavailability of specialized raw
materials or long-term manufacturing
delays, and changes in distribution
arrangements that prevent the approved
CAP vendor from buying or supplying
the drug within CAP requirements. CMS
will assess the information provided by
the vendor and approve such requests as
described in regulation text at
§ 414.908(f)(3) and (4).
This process is intended to provide
the approved CAP vendor with
flexibility to respond to long-term drug
supply issues, however, this process is
not intended to be used frequently, or to
permit an approved CAP vendor to
remove a HCPCS code from its CAP
drug list simply because it has become
unprofitable to provide it, and this
process is not intended to be used for
managing short-term unavailability, or
unavailability of a finite duration.
c. Geographic Area Served by the CAP
In the July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39034
through 39036), we established a single,
national competitive acquisition area for
the initial stage of the CAP. This
national distribution area included the
50 States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories. We
recognized that designating a single
national area might limit participation
to those vendors that could compete to
bid and supply drugs nationally, but we
indicated this approach was a part of
the phase-in plan for the CAP. We also
discussed potential phase-in options for
the future, stating that smaller areas
might become a solution as the program
expanded.
According to the vendor community,
certain areas of the United States
(especially Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Territories) currently present logistical
challenges and are associated with high
drug shipping costs. Moreover,
physician participation in these areas
has been low; in 2008, physicians from
Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories
represented less than 2 percent of total
participating CAP physicians.
Temporarily limiting the geographic
areas served by the CAP could help
limit costs and risks for approved CAP
vendors associated with shipping drugs
to distant parts of the country. However,
we believe that the CAP is intended to
provide services to all Medicare
physicians (including those in distant
parts of the country), and therefore, we
do not believe that a limitation on the
geographic area in which the CAP is
available should be permanent.
Section 1847B(a)(1)(B) of the Act
specifically requires the Secretary to
phase-in the CAP with respect to the
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
categories of drugs and biologicals in
the program, in such a manner as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.
We believe that this provision,
particularly in conjunction with the
statutory definition of a competitive
acquisition area as ‘‘an appropriate
geographic region established by the
Secretary’’ provides broad authority for
the Secretary to phase in the CAP with
respect to the geographical areas in
which the program would be
implemented. As stated in the July 6,
2005 IFC, we considered several factors
when defining geographic areas for the
CAP, including aspects of vendors and
their distribution systems, such as
current geographic service areas, the
density of distribution centers, the
distances drugs and biologicals are
typically shipped, and costs associated
with shipping and handling (70 FR
39035). Taking these factors into
consideration again, and considering
entities who have bid on, or expressed
interest in bidding on approved CAP
vendor contracts, we believe that it is
appropriate to use the authority granted
under the Statute to temporarily narrow
the area served by the CAP during the
program’s re-implementation. We
appreciate the logistical issues
associated with shipping drugs to
remote areas and the uncertainties
associated with transportation costs that
have been described by the potential
vendor community; however, we are
reluctant to significantly reduce the area
served by the CAP because at some
point, the approved CAP vendor’s
volume would be affected and the
likelihood of obtaining volume based
discounts would decrease.
In the current proposed rule, we
proposed to designate the CAP
competitive acquisition area as the 48
contiguous States and the District of
Columbia for the next round of CAP
contracting. This change in the
geographic area that is served by the
CAP is meant as an interim measure
under our phase-in authority and the
statutory definition of a competitive
acquisition area. We believe that
omitting Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Territories from the CAP competitive
acquisition area at this time will balance
the need to revise the CAP to attract
more vendors with the need to offer the
maximum number of physicians a
meaningful opportunity to participate.
We believe that the proposal will
encourage potential vendors to
participate in the CAP because it would
temporarily omit areas associated with
low physician participation, long
shipping times, and high shipping costs.
Furthermore, this measure is unlikely to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
significantly decrease CAP drug order
volume relative to historical physician
participation in the CAP. However, we
are aware that our proposal temporarily
eliminates the CAP option for
physicians in the areas not included in
this CAP competitive acquisition area.
Therefore, we did not propose this
definition of the CAP geographical area
as a permanent solution.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed to revisions the geographic
area serviced by the CAP.
Comment: Commenters supported the
proposal; one commenter recommended
a more limited approach using smaller
areas and selected physician specialties.
Response: Based on comments
supporting our proposal, we are
finalizing the proposal to temporarily
limit the CAP geographic area to the 48
contiguous States and the District of
Columbia for the next bidding period.
We do not believe that a smaller
geographic area is desirable or
necessary. Overnight shipping is
available over much of the proposed
area and we are concerned about further
limiting access to the CAP.
As suggested in comments and
discussed in the proposed rule, we will
continue to assess the CAP and update
plans for phase in activity in future
rulemaking efforts, including
determining the circumstances under
which CAP participation will be offered
to physicians in Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Territories. We will also continue to
consider modifying the definition of
competitive acquisition area on the
basis of regions, States, or some smaller
geographic area, which might expand
the number of vendors that could bid to
participate in the program.
d. CAP Drug Stock at the Physician’s
Office
Our discussion about the CAP
emergency restocking option in the July
6, 2005 IFC indicated that a
participating CAP physician could not
maintain a stock of an approved CAP
vendor’s drug in his or her inventory.
This was done because we had
reservations about potential program
integrity and drug diversion issues (70
FR 39047).
Since that time, we have gained
operational experience with the CAP
and a better understanding of the
ordering and drug delivery process. We
have also received additional public
feedback about the different ways that
the program could be refined, and we
have not received any negative feedback
from the vendor community indicating
a concern about storing CAP drugs in
physicians’ offices. Therefore, we
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
believe at this time it is appropriate to
consider allowing additional flexibility
to encourage CAP participation.
Our experience with the CAP, and our
increased understanding about the
options approved CAP vendors might
have for furnishing drugs to a
participating CAP physician’s office also
support considering additional
flexibility in this area. For example, we
are aware of electronic inventory control
and charge capture devices that could
be utilized in ways that conform to CAP
regulations and are compliant with
applicable State and Federal laws. Such
devices utilize an electronic transaction
based on a physician’s order to track the
administration of drugs from inventory
to a specific patient and to document
appropriate charges for the drug. We
believe that such systems could fit into
the current CAP framework when
transactions in such systems are based
on a physician’s order, because such
systems can track inventory, and can be
used to capture patient charge data.
For these reasons, we proposed to
allow approved CAP vendors to utilize
electronic transactions to furnish CAP
drugs from nominal quantities of
approved CAP vendor-owned stock
located at the physician’s office in
response to specific prescription orders
and to capture charges related to such
transactions. The proposal was also
intended to clarify that entities with
alternative approaches to supplying
drugs that utilize an electronic
transaction are welcome to participate
in the CAP bidding process. We believe
that this will allow for additional
flexibility and efficiency in the ordering
and delivery of drugs within the
program because it allows for more
efficient shipping of approved CAP
vendor-owned stock and provides the
option of CAP participation for
physicians who use or may choose to
use such drug inventory management
platforms. The proposal did not change
our position that a participating CAP
physician shall not take title to or pay
for CAP drugs, nor does it alter the
requirements for information that must
be submitted with a prescription order
under § 414.908(a) or the application of
HIPAA to such data.
Furthermore, the proposal does not
affect the applicability of State licensing
requirements for an approved CAP
vendor. As stated in the July 6, 2005 IFC
(70 FR 39066), either the approved CAP
vendor, its subcontractor under the
CAP, or both, must be licensed
appropriately by each State to conduct
its operations under the CAP. Therefore,
if a State requires it, an approved CAP
vendor would be required to be licensed
as a pharmacy, as well as a distributor.
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61913
We did not propose to revise the
requirements at § 414.908(c) and
§ 414.914(f)(9), and we noted that
sections 1847B(b)(6) and 1847B(b)(2)(B)
of the Act continue to apply. In order to
participate in the CAP successful
bidders must continue to submit proof
of pharmacy licensure, consistent with
applicable State requirements.
Also, we stated that the proposal
would not modify our definition of
‘‘emergency delivery’’ or its
corresponding requirements at
§ 414.902. As we stated in our July 6,
2005 IFC, the intent of the 1-businessday timeframe for emergency deliveries
is to address the participating CAP
physician’s need for more rapid delivery
of drugs in certain clinical situations
with the approved CAP vendor’s ability
to ship the drug and have it delivered
promptly in a nationwide delivery area
(70 FR 39045). The emergency delivery
timeframe still applies in situations
when CAP drugs are not available in the
office for electronic delivery.
Moreover, the proposal did not seek
to change the CAP inventory
requirements. CAP drugs belong to the
approved CAP vendor, and as indicated
in the July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39048),
participating CAP physicians are
required to maintain a separate
electronic or paper inventory for each
CAP drug obtained. CAP drugs must be
tracked separately in some way (for
example, an electronic spreadsheet).
CAP drugs do not have to be stored
separately from a physician’s own stock;
that is, co-mingling of CAP drug with
drug from a participating CAP
physician’s own private stock is
acceptable as long as a record of
approved CAP vendor-owned drug is
kept in a manner that is consistent with
§ 414.908(a)(3)(x) and the approved CAP
vendor-owned drug can be accounted
for, as needed.
Also, the proposal did not affect the
CAP emergency restocking
requirements. Section 1847B(b)(5) of the
Act and § 414.906(e) provide criteria for
the replacement of drugs taken from a
participating CAP physician’s inventory
in the event of an emergency situation.
When the emergency resupply criteria
are met, a participating CAP physician
can replace the drugs that were used
from his or her own inventory by
submitting a prescription order to the
approved CAP vendor.
The proposal sought to clarify the
potential approaches that a bidder may
use (separately or in combination) to
supply drugs under the CAP and did not
seek to specify a particular approach
that bidders must use in future
responses to CAP bid solicitations or to
strictly define the types of entities that
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61914
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
could bid on CAP vendor contracts; for
example, whether bidders must be
pharmacies, drug distributors, or a
hybrid of the two; whether bidders must
utilize just in time shipping, or
electronic inventory transactions to
supply CAP drugs. We stated that we
will consider approving bidders’
approaches that are consistent with the
statutory framework, applicable laws,
and regulations.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding CAP
drug stock at the participating CAP
physician’s office.
Comment: Most commenters
supported the concept of electronic
transactions in the CAP drug supply
process. However, a few commenters
appear to have misunderstood our
proposal as authorizing a CAP vendor to
store unlimited amounts of stock in a
physician’s office. Some commenters
also requested details about the types of
systems we will accept, how these
systems could work in smaller offices,
and some commenters were concerned
about how appropriate or ‘‘nominal’’
stock levels would be defined.
Response: The comments lead us to
believe that we need to clarify our
proposal. We proposed to allow
approved CAP vendors to utilize
electronic transactions to furnish CAP
drugs from nominal quantities of
approved CAP vendor-owned stock
located at the physician’s office in
response to specific prescription orders
and to capture charges related to such
transactions. This proposal is primarily
intended to work with automated
cabinets that provide controlled access
to drugs and was intended to make clear
that entities using electronic inventory
devices were welcome to participate in
the CAP. However, we are not requiring
that these specific devices be used in
conjunction with nominal amounts of
vendor owned office stock or requiring
any specific types of devices, hardware,
or software.
Instead, we are providing a framework
under which certain quantities of
vendor-owned CAP drug stock may be
located in a participating CAP
physician’s office and delivered in
conjunction with electronic transactions
and charge capture. An electronic
transaction may be used to
communicate the fact that participating
CAP physician is submitting a
prescription order for a CAP drug and,
on the basis of that prescription order,
the drug is being delivered to the
participating CAP physician from the
nominal amount of vendor-owned stock
at the office for administration to a
beneficiary. Once the approved CAP
vendor receives the prescription order it
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
may bill for the drug in accordance with
existing rules. Corresponding
documentation of drug administration
in the medical record is still required for
meeting post-payment review
requirements to establish that the drug
has been administered to a beneficiary
and is thus eligible for payment under
section 1847B(a)(3)(D) of the Act.
This process is intended to work with
CAP inventory requirements in
§ 414.906(e) and § 414.908(a), and can
also work with office stock models that
utilize periodic shipment of stock to
maintain predetermined levels. In such
systems, periodic shipments of regularly
used amounts of items are made, for
example, weekly. The shipped amounts
are based on average amounts used over
the time period between shipments, but
may be modified as necessary to
accommodate for actual use.
We agree with commenters that we
should provide further information
about what we would consider to be a
‘‘nominal’’ level of vendor-owned stock.
Therefore, we are clarifying that that
‘‘nominal quantities of stock’’ means
quantities that do not exceed what is
typically used by the participating CAP
physician’s office between the approved
CAP vendor shipment periods. We are
not specifying what the shipment
periods must be, however, we would
like to point out that we do not intend
this process to mean that large
quantities of CAP drug would be kept at
a physician’s office.
We also remind readers that CAP drug
stock remains the property of the
approved CAP vendor, and that
participating CAP physicians do not
take title to CAP drug stock or make any
payment for drugs that furnished and
administered under the CAP. CAP drugs
must be stored in a manner that is
consistent with applicable law and
regulations, as well as product integrity
and handling requirements.
Comment: One commenter
understood the proposal to mean that
physician-owned stock supplied by
entities other than the approved CAP
vendor may be used for the CAP.
Another commenter encouraged a
mechanism to reassign physician-owned
stock for the CAP.
Response: CAP drugs remain the
property of the approved CAP vendor
until they are administered to a
beneficiary, at which time billing for the
drug by the approved CAP vendor may
take place. Under our emergency
restocking provisions (described in
further detail below), drugs purchased
by the participating CAP physician’s
office for its own drug inventory may be
used instead of approved CAP vendor
inventory in certain situations, and then
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the approved CAP vendor may supply a
replacement.
However, we do not believe that the
physician’s office stock, that is, drugs
bought by the physician’s office, should
be used as a primary source of drugs for
the CAP because such a structure is
inconsistent with the CAP program as
set forth in section 1847B of the Act,
which clearly contemplates that the
approved CAP vendor supply CAP
drugs to the participating CAP
physician rather than merely just bill for
drugs that the participating CAP
physician already owns. Furthermore,
the CAP is an alternative to the ASP or
buy and bill process of obtaining drugs
administered incident to a physicians’
services, and under the CAP as we have
implemented it, participating CAP
physicians do not take title to or make
any payment for drugs furnished under
the CAP.
In situations where an approved CAP
vendor maintains a certain nominal
amount of drugs in a participating CAP
physician’s office, as discussed above,
we anticipate that at certain times a
prescription order for an unusual drug
or an unexpectedly great demand may
result in a situation where the approved
CAP vendor’s stock is not immediately
available in the participating CAP
physician’s office. In such situations,
the approved CAP vendor must ship the
drug under the timeframe definitions at
§ 414.902.
In cases where the drug cannot be
delivered in time to meet a clinical
need, a participating CAP physician is
permitted to use the practice’s own
inventory and obtain replacement
inventory from the approved CAP
vendor under § 414.906(e) if all of the
following requirements are met: (1) The
drugs are required immediately; (2) The
participating CAP physician could not
have anticipated the need for the drugs;
and (3) The approved CAP vendor could
not have delivered the drugs in a timely
manner, as defined in § 414.902.
This provision is intended for clinical
emergencies if a CAP drug is not
available from the approved CAP
vendor in time. Additional information
about the emergency restocking
provision appears in the July 6, 2005
interim final rule with comment (70 FR
39047). The physician will be expected
to maintain documentation in the
patient’s medical record to verify that he
or she complied with the criteria
governing the resupply provision.
Comment: Commenters also suggested
periodic inventory reconciliation
between approved CAP vendors and
participating CAP physicians to
accurately track the actual amount of
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
vendor-owned drug in a physician’s
inventory.
Response: We believe that the method
and the frequency with which an
approved CAP vendor may want to
account for nominal CAP drug stock at
the physician’s office will vary based on
the cost and handling requirements of
the drugs, quantities of drug at the
offices, and the approved CAP vendor’s
experience with the practice. The role of
special agreements between approved
CAP vendors and participating CAP
physicians was discussed in the July
2005 IFC (70 FR 39050).
We believe that details associated
with inventory reconciliation, such as
the frequency that the process is carried
out, whether a vendor’s representative
would visit the location, etc., could be
arranged under such an agreement.
However, parties to such arrangements
must ensure that the arrangements do
not violate the physician self-referral
(‘‘Stark’’) prohibition (section 1877 of
the Act), the Federal anti-kickback
statute (section 1128B(b) of the Act), or
any other Federal or State law or
regulation governing billing or claims
submission.
Comment: Commenters also requested
clarification about whether CAP is a
pharmacy- or distribution-based
program and recommended that CMS
specify one model in order to decrease
vendor risk. One commenter
recommended that the CAP be a
distribution model in order to capture
efficiencies.
Response: We appreciate the
comments that suggested we consider
our overall approach to the CAP. We
have not specified whether the CAP
must follow a distribution or a
pharmacy model, or a combination, in
previous rules. We believe that leaving
the option open will maximize the
number of bidders and will encourage a
variety of approaches for supplying CAP
drugs. Given the wide geographic area
that the program covers and the diverse
Medicare physician population, we also
do not want to discourage bidders from
developing novel or combined
approaches to supplying CAP drugs.
Although we acknowledge that vendor
interest in the program has been limited,
we believe that leaving these options
open will benefit the program in the
long run by allowing a variety of
approaches to supplying drugs under
the CAP. Choices between approved
CAP vendors with different models will
encourage physician interest and are
more likely to serve a varied physician
population, including large and small
offices. We also do not want to unduly
limit the types of subcontracting
relationships that a bidding entity may
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
develop to supply CAP drugs across a
geographic area, particularly in light of
the diversity of State laws and
regulations, which may change over
time.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether the bidding documents would
contain more detail about licensing
requirements.
Response: We acknowledge the
comment that suggested the licensing
expectations be more clearly described
at the time bids are announced. At this
time, we will continue to require that an
approved CAP vendor must be
appropriately licensed in all States.
Comment: One commenter asked
about a limited bid involving
automation.
Response: This rule did not propose
changes to the bidding process, and
therefore, we are not making any
changes to the bidding process at this
time.
e. Exclusion of CAP Sales From ASP
Calculations
In response to the March 4, 2005
proposed rule, many commenters
requested clarification about whether
the prices determined under the CAP
will be taken into account in computing
the ASP under section 1847A of the Act.
In the July 6, 2005 IFC, we responded
that prices offered under the CAP must
be included in ASP calculations (70 FR
39077). This was done because we
initially believed that we did not have
the statutory authority to exclude prices
determined under the CAP from the
computation of ASP under section
1847A of the Act. Section 1847A(c)(2) of
the Act contains a specific list of sales
that are exempt from the ASP
calculation, and sales to approved CAP
vendors operating under CAP are not
included on that list (70 FR 39077).
Comments received in response to the
July 6, 2005 IFC opposed this policy (70
FR 70479).
Ultimately, as stated in the November
21, 2005 IFC, we recognized
commenters’ concerns about the effect
of including CAP prices in the
calculation of ASP and agreed that the
best outcome for both the ASP
methodology and the CAP programs
would be one in which prices under
CAP did not affect payment amounts
under the ASP methodology. In
particular, we found compelling
arguments from commenters about the
separation of the ASP and CAP
programs and that the two programs are
intended to be alternatives to each
other. Therefore, we excluded units of
CAP drugs that are administered to
beneficiaries by participating CAP
physicians from the ASP calculation for
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61915
the initial 3-year approved CAP vendor
contract period (70 FR 70479).
Accordingly, the definition of ‘‘Unit’’ at
§ 414.802 was also revised to reflect this
exclusion.
In our August 18, 2006 interim final
rule, we further addressed concerns
pertaining to our definition of Unit. We
published a PRA notice regarding a
proposed modification of the OMBapproved ASP information collection
requirements (CMS Form 10110 (OMB
#0938–0921)) about the collection of the
number of CAP units excluded from the
ASP calculation. In response, a
commenter expressed concern over
manufacturers’ reliance on approved
CAP vendors for information about the
number of units of CAP drugs that are
administered to beneficiaries by
participating CAP physicians (71 FR
48132). Since approved CAP vendors
are the only entities with direct
information on CAP units administered,
the commenter believed that the
requirement to exclude units of CAP
drugs administered to beneficiaries by
participating CAP physicians placed the
manufacturer in the untenable position
of reporting ASP and certifying reports
of ASP based on second-hand
information from approved CAP
vendors. Further, the commenter noted
that manufacturers may not have timely
access to this information and that they
could not independently confirm its
accuracy (71 FR 48132). Additional
feedback received as part of our ongoing
work with manufacturers also indicated
that they were concerned that they
would have difficulty obtaining
information from approved CAP
vendors that would be necessary to
accurately exclude administered CAP
units from the ASP calculation (71 FR
48132).
Therefore, we further revised the
definition of unit to clarify that for the
initial 3-year contract period under the
CAP units of CAP drugs sold to an
approved CAP vendor for use under the
CAP would be excluded from the
calculation of ASP (70 FR 48132).
In the July 6, 2005 and August 18,
2006 IFCs, we stated that we would
examine the effect of this exclusion and,
if necessary, revisit our decision at the
end of the initial 3-year period of the
CAP (70 FR 70480 and 71 FR 48132,
respectively).
Since then, operational experience
has not indicated a reason for changing
our policy of excluding CAP units sold
to approved CAP vendors for use under
the CAP from ASP calculations.
Therefore, in the current proposed rule,
we proposed to permanently exclude
drugs supplied under the CAP from ASP
calculations and make conforming
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61916
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
changes to the definition of unit at
§ 414.802. We stated that we believe that
the proposal will continue to promote
the separation and independence of the
two drug payment models.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed revisions to the exclusion of
CAP sales from ASP calculations.
Comment: All comments supported
permanent exclusion of CAP Sales from
ASP calculations.
Response: As a result of the
comments, we are finalizing the
proposal to permanently exclude CAP
Sales from ASP calculations.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
f. Annual CAP Payment Amount Update
Mechanism
In the July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39076),
we described a two-step process to
calculate RNAC-based price adjustment
if there is a change in the RNAC
reported by a particular approved CAP
vendor. We stated that ‘‘we would
adjust the bid price that the vendor
originally submitted by the percentage
change indicated in the cost information
that the vendor disclosed. Next, we
would recompute the single price for
the drug as the median of all of these
adjusted bid prices.’’ The two-step
process contemplated that there would
be more than one approved CAP vendor
at the time prices were to be adjusted
and that all successful bidders would
participate in the CAP.
However, during the first round of
CAP contracting, after offering more
than one contract, we entered into a
contract with only one successful
bidder. Thus, during the 2008 price
update calculation process, we
developed an approach to account for
the lack of RNAC data for bidders who
chose not to participate in the CAP. In
the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule, we
stated that the approach we used to
adjust prices for the 2008 contract year
is consistent with § 414.906(c) and with
the July 6, 2005 IFC because it retains
a two-step calculation based on the
approved CAP vendor’s RNAC, as well
as the calculation of a median of
adjusted bid prices.
We also posted our approach on the
Approved CAP Vendor page of the CMS
CAP Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
CompetitiveAcquisforBios/
15_Approved_Vendor.asp. The percent
change in RNAC for 2008 was
calculated based on data supplied by
the approved CAP vendor. This percent
change in RNAC was used as a proxy for
the percent change in RNAC for
successful bidders that chose not to
become approved CAP vendors.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Then, in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
rule (73 FR 38522 through 38523), we
proposed to continue using this
approach for future CAP payment
amount updates where the number of
approved CAP vendors is less than the
number of successful bidders. We
proposed that the average of the
approved CAP vendor-supplied RNAC
data would be used as a proxy for data
from vendors who bid successfully but
are not participating in the CAP. For
example, if the payment amounts for the
first year of a CAP contract are based on
five successful bidders, but only four
have signed contracts to supply drugs
under the CAP (that is, there are four
approved CAP vendors), only RNAC
data collected from the four approved
CAP vendors would be used to calculate
the percent change in the RNAC. The
average of the four approved CAP
vendors’ adjusted payment amounts
would be used as a proxy for the RNAC
of the successful bidder that is not
participating in the CAP. The updated
CAP payment amount would then be
calculated as the median of the five data
points (one data point for each approved
CAP vendor’s updated payment amount,
and one data point calculated using the
average of the approved CAP vendors’
RNAC). Similarly, if there were five
successful bidders but only three chose
to become approved CAP vendors, the
average of the three approved CAP
vendors’ RNAC would be the proxy for
the RNAC of the two bidders who did
not participate. The median of those five
data points would become the updated
CAP payment amount.
Our approach in the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule was intended to provide
us with a flexible method for updating
CAP prices, to be consistent with our
original policy as stated in the July 6,
2005 IFC, and to account for bidders or
approved CAP vendors who are not
participating in the program at the time
the price updates are calculated.
However, our approach was limited in
scope because it was made during a
contract period and during bidding for
an upcoming contract and we did not
want to make any significant changes to
the CAP program which could affect
contractual obligations. Furthermore,
we received a comment in response to
the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule that
suggested the elimination of the proxy
procedure so that payments would be
based on actual data from participating
vendors and would better reflect
experience within the program.
After additional consideration, we
believe that it would be prudent to
simplify and update our 2009 proposal
in order to account for successful
bidders who choose not to participate in
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the CAP, possible changes in the
number of approved CAP vendors over
the life of a 3-year CAP contract, and to
allow for flexibility in setting the
frequency of payment amount
adjustments as described in section
II.J.2.a. above. We believe that our
updated proposal is easier for the
vendor community to understand and
for us to implement. Furthermore, our
revised proposal is not constrained by
concerns about the impact of changes on
an active contract.
We proposed to clarify that the
RNAC-based adjustment calculations
are intended to apply only to approved
CAP vendors (not all bidders), and that
the most recent previous CAP payment
amount (for example, the previous
year’s or the previous quarter’s payment
amount) will be the starting point for
making the subsequent period’s
adjustment. Simply put, we proposed to
eliminate the use of proxy data for
bidders that are no longer participating
in the program. Instead, we proposed to
use RNAC data only from approved CAP
vendors that are participating in the
CAP at the time that an RNAC-based
price update is being calculated. We
also proposed to clarify that the starting
point for the payment amount
adjustment is the most recent payment
amount. The percent change calculated
from each participating approved CAP
vendor’s RNAC data will be applied to
the most recent payment amount by
recomputing the single price using the
median of all participating vendors’
adjusted prices.
For example, if quarterly adjustments
beginning at the start of claims
processing approved CAP vendor’s
contract as described in section a. above
are implemented, and the post bid
period’s CAP payment amounts are
calculated based on five successful bids,
but only four approved CAP vendors are
participating when CAP claims
processing begins, the RNAC-based
payment amount adjustment for the first
quarter of CAP claims would be based
on RNAC data provided by the four
approved CAP vendors that will be
furnishing drugs under the CAP. The
four approved CAP vendors would be
required to submit a quarter of RNAC
data within thirty days of the close of
the quarter to which the data applied,
prior to the beginning of CAP claims
processing for the new contract. We
would apply the percentage change in
RNAC reported by each of the four
approved CAP vendors to the CAP
payment amounts calculated from
successful bids, and the adjusted
payment amount would be the median
of those four adjusted amounts.
Assuming that these four vendors are
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
still furnishing drugs during the second
quarter, calculations for the second
quarter would apply the RNAC-based
adjustment calculated from the four
vendors’ data to the first quarter’s
payment amount. That is, the payment
amounts for the second quarter would
be calculated from the first quarter’s
payment amounts, adjusted by RNAC
data.
This process would apply to the
composite bid drug list as amended by
rulemaking, meaning that a single
weighted percent change in RNAC is
calculated for all drugs in the composite
bid list (also referred to as the single
drug category) and that single percent
change is applied to all drugs in the list.
For drugs that are bid as separate line
items, such as drugs that were included
in addendum B of the 2006 bidding
period (see 70 FR 39072 and updated as
addendum G in 70 FR 70238), or for
drugs that are added during a contract
period, each HCPCS code will be
adjusted as a separate line item. Such
codes will not be included in the
composite, weighted drug list. Our
process will continue to assign a single
payment amount to all approved CAP
vendors that supply a given HCPCS
code; we do not intend to have more
than one payment amount for any
HCPCS code under the CAP or for
individual ‘‘NOC’’ drugs described in
§ 414.906(f)(2)(iv).
This updated approach is flexible,
and we believe it can accommodate a
variety of scenarios, including a
changing number of approved CAP
vendors and changes to the frequency
with which payment amount updates
are made. It provides a straightforward
and accurate clarification of the price
adjustment mechanism described in
regulation text. We believe that this
proposal remains consistent with our
original preamble language and with our
CY 2009 PFS proposal, because it
retains the two-step calculation using
the percent change in RNAC. Finally,
we believe that our approach will
eliminate any perception that
nonparticipating vendors can
significantly affect CAP payment
amount adjustments.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed to revisions to the annual CAP
payment amount update mechanism.
Comment: Comments about CAP price
updates focused on the quarterly update
frequency. We did not receive any
comments that specifically discussed
the proposed refinements to our
approach, although one commenter
recommended caution when using a
single update percentage across a large
group of drugs because this may
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
increase vendors’ financial risk, and
suggested product level updates.
Response: We are finalizing the
proposal to simplify the update
calculation process. Although no
comments directly mentioned this
proposal, we believe that the updated
approach will simplify the calculation
process.
We appreciate the comment that
suggested that price updates be done at
the product or NDC level. However,
bidding and payment for drugs
furnished under the CAP is made at the
HCPCS level. We believe that the
smaller single drug category list
finalized in section II.J.2.b will decrease
the risk associated with applying a
single percentage update over a group of
drugs, and we also note that drugs
added during the CAP contract period
through a CMS approved vendor request
and drugs that are separately bid will
continue to be updated at the individual
HCPCS level.
g. 2009 PFS Proposals
(1) Definition of a CAP Physician
In the July 6, 2005 IFC, we stated that
section 1847B of the Act most closely
describes a system for the provision of
and the payment for drugs provided
incident to a physician’s service (70 FR
39026). In the November 21, 2005 IFC
(70 FR 70258), we stated that for the
purposes of the CAP, a physician
includes all practitioners that meet the
definition of a ‘‘physician’’ in section
1861(r) of the Act. This definition
includes doctors of medicine,
osteopathy, dental surgery, dental
medicine, podiatry, and optometry, as
well as chiropractors. However, this
definition does not include other health
care professionals, such as nurse
practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse
specialists (CNSs), and other professions
such as physician assistants (PAs) who
may be able to legally prescribe
medications and enroll in Medicare.
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (73
FR 38523), we proposed to further
clarify that, for the purposes of the CAP,
the definition of a physician included
all practitioners that meet the definition
of a ‘‘physician’’ in section 1861(r) of
the Act, as well as practitioners (such as
NPs, CNSs and PAs) described in
section 1861(s)(2)(K) of the Act and
other practitioners who legally prescribe
drugs associated with services under
section 1861(s) of the Act if those
services and the associated drugs are
covered when furnished incident to a
physician’s service. While we believed
that most practitioners described in
section 1861(s)(2)(K) of the Act would
bill under specific physician provider
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61917
numbers, it was not our intent to
exclude practitioners who are able to
bill independently for drugs associated
with services that are covered when
provided by a physician and legally
authorized to be performed.
In response to our CY 2009 proposed
rule, only a few commenters were
concerned about the inclusion of
inadequately trained practitioners and
risks to patient safety under this
expanded definition. Another
commenter stated that this definition
goes beyond the scope of the provisions
in the MMA and the strict definition of
‘‘physician’’ in the statute. However, the
majority of comments supported this
proposal.
We did not receive any feedback
during the CAP postponement that
would lead for us to reconsider this
proposal. Therefore, we again proposed
to further clarify that, for the purposes
of the CAP, the definition of a physician
included all practitioners that meet the
definition of a ‘‘physician’’ in section
1861(r) of the Act, as well as
practitioners (such as NPs, CNSs and
PAs) described in section 1861(s)(2)(K)
of the Act and other practitioners who
legally prescribe drugs associated with
services under section 1861(s) of the Act
if those services and the associated
drugs are covered when furnished
incident to a physician’s services.
Our proposal was specific to the Part
B Drug CAP and was not intended to
affect the definition of physician in
section 1861(r) of the Act, or the
definition of ‘‘Medical and Other Health
Services’’ described in section 1861(s) of
the Act. The proposal also did not seek
to expand the scope of the CAP beyond
what has been described in previous
rules, other than to clarify that a small
number of providers who are enrolled in
Medicare, and who legally prescribe
drugs associated with services under
section 1861(s) of the Act and can be
paid by Medicare may elect to
participate in the CAP if billing
independently. In short, the CAP
remains a program that provides Part B
drugs furnished incident to a
physician’s services.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
updated definition of a CAP physician.
Comment: The majority of
commenters supported our proposal to
expand the definition of a physician for
the purposes of the CAP. Commenters
indicated that this proposal could
increase patient access to drugs and
treatment options, particularly in rural
and underserved areas. It could also
increase physician participation in the
CAP and allow for greater program
flexibility. However, some comments
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61918
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
expressed concerns about our approach.
One commenter was concerned about
the inclusion of inadequately trained
health professionals and risks to patient
safety under this expanded definition.
This commenter also urged us to limit
what types of CAP drugs could be
handled by these additional health
professionals included under our
proposal. Another comment indicated
that CMS more thoroughly refine its
definition of ‘‘physician’’ through
regulation since our proposed rule
language seemingly implied that health
practitioners included in this expanded
definition who participate in the CAP
could administer drugs regardless of any
state-level prescription and
administration laws. Another
commenter indicated that we had
exceeded our regulatory authority by
expanding the definition of physician to
include health professionals beyond
those listed in section 1861(r) of the Act.
Response: We appreciate the
comments that supported our proposal;
however, we have further considered
the comments on the 2009 PFS rule and
the 2010 PFS proposed rule that
cautioned us about potentially
exceeding the statutory definition of a
physician under section 1861(r) of the
Act. Our proposal’s intent was not to
affect the definition of physician as
specified in section 1861(r) of the Act.
Upon further consideration in light of
the comments, we agree that our
proposal to expand the definition of a
CAP physician is problematic, because
it can be interpreted to be in conflict
with section 1861(r) of the Act. Section
1847B of the Act specifically uses the
term ‘‘physician’’ rather than a more
general term, like provider, to describe
who may select a CAP contractor to
supply CAP drugs. Section 1861(r) of
the Act specifies that the term physician
includes, in some cases subject to
certain limitations, the following types
of practitioners: a doctor of medicine or
osteopathy, a doctor of dental surgery or
of dental medicine, a doctor of podiatric
medicine, a doctor of optometry, or a
chiropractor.
Therefore, at this time, we will not be
revising the definition of a CAP
physician beyond what was previously
stated in the November 21, 2005 IFC (70
FR 70258), that is for the purposes of the
CAP, a physician includes all
practitioners that meet the definition of
a ‘‘physician’’ in section 1861(r) of the
Act. Based on CAP physician election
data, we believe that the impact of not
updating our definition at this time will
have minimal impact on access to CAP
drugs.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(2) Easing the Restriction on Physicians
Transporting CAP Drugs
Although section 1847B(b)(4)(E) of the
Act provides for the shipment of CAP
drugs to settings other than a
participating CAP physician’s office
under certain conditions, in initially
implementing the CAP, we did not
propose to implement the CAP in
alternative settings. We implemented
the CAP with a restriction that CAP
drugs be shipped directly to the
participating CAP physician, as stated
in § 414.906(a)(4), and that participating
CAP physicians may not transport CAP
drugs from one location to another, as
stated in § 414.908(a)(3)(xii). However,
we were aware that physicians may
desire to administer drugs in alternative
settings. Therefore, in the July 6, 2005
IFC, we sought comment on how this
could be accommodated under the CAP
in a way that addresses the potential
vendors’ concerns about product
integrity and damage to the approved
CAP vendors’ property (70 FR 39048).
We discussed comments submitted in
response to the July 6, 2005 IFC in the
CY 2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR
38158). We also requested comments in
the CY 2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR
38157) on the potential feasibility of
easing the restriction on transporting
CAP drugs where this is permitted by
State law and other applicable laws and
regulations. We responded to submitted
comments in the CY 2008 PFS final rule
with comment period (72 FR 66268).
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (70
FR 38523), we proposed to permit the
transportation of CAP drug between a
participating CAP physician’s practice
locations subject to voluntary
agreements between the approved CAP
vendor and the participating CAP
physician. Because of the 2009 CAP
postponement, we did not address this
issue in the CY 2009 PFS final rule.
However, we did receive the following
comments in response to our proposed
rule on easing transportation restrictions
in the CAP:
• Many commenters indicated that
this change would increase program
flexibility and facilitate patient
treatment.
• Some commenters were supportive,
but also raised concerns about drug
integrity and liability, and requested
that appropriate safeguards be in place
before transportation restrictions were
eased.
• Generally, commenters wanted
CMS to explicitly delineate standards
about voluntary agreements that address
concerns about product integrity,
liability, transportation procedures, and
documentation. One commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
indicated that such standards should be
developed through a separate
rulemaking period to allow for public
comment.
• Several commenters cited State
pedigree laws as possible impediments
to physician transport of drugs.
We also requested and received
feedback about the program during the
2009 postponement period. One
member of the potential vendor
community urged us to be mindful of
increased legal liability for an approved
CAP vendor if this policy were to be
implemented, but also acknowledged
that the proposal might substantially
increase physician interest in the
program.
We continue to be mindful of the
concerns expressed by the commenters,
and have evaluated both the advantages
and disadvantages of easing the
restriction on transportation of CAP
drugs. Thus, we again proposed to
permit transport of CAP drug between a
participating CAP physician’s practice
locations subject to voluntary
agreements between the approved CAP
vendor and the participating CAP
physician. As indicated in our CY 2009
PFS proposed rule, we continued to
propose that such agreements must
comply with all applicable State and
Federal laws and regulations and
product liability requirements, and be
documented in writing.
We would again like to reiterate the
voluntary nature of these proposed
agreements. Approved CAP vendors
would not be required to offer and
participating CAP physicians would not
be required to accept such agreements
when selecting an approved CAP
vendor. An approved CAP vendor may
not refuse to do business with a
participating CAP physician because the
participating CAP physician has
declined to enter into such an
agreement with the approved CAP
vendor. Furthermore, we are not seeking
to define which CAP drugs may be
subject to the proposed voluntary
agreements. In other words, each
approved CAP vendor could specify
which CAP drug(s) could be
transported.
However, our proposal continues to
contain certain limitations. In previous
rulemaking, we have described
requirements for voluntary agreements
between approved CAP vendors and
participating CAP physicians. In the
July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39050) and the
CY 2006 PFS final rule (70 FR 70251
through 70252), we stated that we will
not dictate the breadth of use or the
specific obligations contained in
voluntary arrangements between
approved CAP vendors and
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
participating CAP physicians, other
than to note that they must comply with
applicable law and to prohibit approved
CAP vendors from coercing
participating CAP physicians into
entering any of these arrangements.
Parties to such arrangements must also
ensure that the arrangements do not
violate the physician self-referral
(‘‘Stark’’) prohibition (section 1877 of
the Act), the Federal anti-kickback
statute (section 1128B(b) of the Act), or
any other Federal or State law or
regulation governing billing or claims
submission. We proposed to apply these
standards to any agreement for the
transport of CAP drugs.
We remain concerned about
opportunities for disruption in the
drug’s chain of custody and appropriate
storage and handling conditions that
may ultimately affect patient care or
increase the risk of drug theft or
diversion. Therefore, in order to
maintain safety and drug integrity in the
CAP and to protect against the
fraudulent diversion of CAP drugs, we
reproposed that any voluntary
agreements between an approved CAP
vendor and a participating CAP
physician regarding the transportation
of CAP drug must include requirements
that drugs are not subjected to
conditions that will jeopardize their
integrity, stability, and/or sterility while
being transported. We solicited
comments on these issues, including the
identification of who may transport the
drugs, how documentation of
transportation activities could be
accomplished, and how the oversight of
such agreements will be carried out.
In conclusion, we believe that the
proposal to ease the restriction on
transporting CAP drugs between a
participating CAP physician’s practice
locations—when agreed upon by the
participating CAP physician and the
approved CAP vendor—will make the
CAP more flexible and ultimately more
appealing to participating CAP
physicians. Additionally, we believe
that this proposal will facilitate the
participation of CAP physicians who
have office locations in rural areas and/
or have satellite offices with limited
hours. Moreover, we believe that this
proposal will promote beneficiary care,
particularly for beneficiaries who live in
rural locations. Since participating CAP
physicians would be able to transport
CAP drugs to another office location in
accordance with a voluntary agreement
with their approved CAP vendor,
beneficiaries would have more
flexibility in scheduling the location of
their appointments. We solicited
comments about this proposal.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposal to ease transport restrictions
between participating CAP physicians’
offices.
Comment: The comments represented
a variety of perspectives and were very
similar to the comments discussed in
our previous proposal and outlined in
the bullet points above. Many comments
were supportive, but some also raised
reservations pertaining to drug integrity
and liability. The commenters requested
that appropriate safeguards be in place
before transportation restrictions were
eased and that liability should be clearly
defined in these voluntary agreements.
One commenter supported our proposal,
but indicated that concerns about drug
integrity and liability would prevent
approved CAP vendors from offering
such voluntary agreements for
transporting CAP drug. Another
commenter indicated that the approved
CAP vendor must be responsible for
notifying physicians of handling or
storage requirements for any drug. Two
commenters indicated that licensed
practitioners are able to take
responsibility for transporting drugs
because of their training and knowledge.
A commenter requested that we develop
specific transportation standards
through a separate rulemaking period.
Another comment indicated that the
approved CAP vendor should develop
and submit explicit drug transportation
standards to CMS. One commenter
suggested that CMS require physicians
to document drug transfers via a
standardized transport sheet.
A number of comments were
supportive of our proposal and
indicated that this change would
increase program flexibility, make the
program more desirable to physicians,
and facilitate patient treatment. One
commenter understood our proposal to
mean that we would ‘‘ship’’ CAP drug
directly to the site of service. Another
commenter suggested that approved
CAP vendors should be required to offer
such agreements. Several commenters
cited State pedigree laws as possible
impediments to physician transport of
drugs.
Response: Overall, there was support
for our proposal and we agree that these
agreements would provide flexibility for
CAP providers. We agree with
commenters who expressed concerns
about product integrity and liability.
However, we do not agree that
additional CMS involvement such as
developing detailed and specific
agreements now, or through other
means such as separate rulemaking, will
contribute to the quality or
appropriateness of these agreements. We
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61919
believe that the details of these
agreements can best be determined by
the parties that participate in the
agreement rather than CMS. Detailed
knowledge about applicable State laws
(including ‘‘pedigree laws’’), practice
requirements and specialized
knowledge about drug handling are
beyond CMS’ expertise. However, we
believe that our proposal outlines a
sufficient framework of safeguards and
provisions to mitigate risks associated
with damage to the product, drug
diversion, and financial loss. We have
stated that agreements must be made in
writing and must comply with all
applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations and product liability
requirements and must include
requirements that drugs are not
subjected to conditions that will
jeopardize their integrity, stability, and/
or sterility while being transported.
We are not seeking to define specific
items in these agreements, such as
which CAP drugs may be subject to the
proposed voluntary agreements
regarding drug transport because the
parties involved in the agreement will
have the greatest insight regarding such
details and will better understand the
variables and practical applications
associated with these decisions. Drugs
that may be furnished under the CAP
are subject to a broad range of storage
requirements—some drugs are
especially temperature sensitive and
some may be light sensitive.
Also, some CAP drugs are very
expensive, and the loss of even a single
dose could create significant financial
impact for an approved CAP vendor. We
believe that assessments and decisions
about which drugs may be transported
must be made by the approved CAP
vendor at the drug level in order to
allow the approved CAP vendor to
better control the risk associated with
transporting vendor-owned product and
to apply its knowledge and expertise in
product handling in order to either
facilitate, or to choose not to allow the
transportation of certain drugs that may
require special handling, such as strict
temperature control or limits to light
exposure. So long as they are consistent
with the standards we have set forth for
these voluntary agreements, we also
believe such agreements can address
issues of financial liability for the drug,
and we believe that the approved CAP
vendor is in the best position to assess
the financial risk associated with the
transportation of specific drugs, and to
make corresponding changes as new
drugs are added to the CAP, or
information about drugs already
supplied under the CAP changes.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61920
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
We are also concerned that additional
CMS involvement regarding the details
of these agreements could cause
negative consequences by further
delaying the implementation of this
provision, or delays in responding to
changes as new drugs become available
under the CAP. Because the parties to
the agreement have a better
understanding of the specific
information that must be used to assess
each drug, CMS involvement could also
result in the addition of requirements
that may not be necessary, or the
exclusion of requirements that may be
beneficial. Providing a framework rather
than specific requirements also provides
an adaptable and scalable solution that
can accommodate different drugs with
different handling requirements,
different participating CAP physician
populations, and individual approved
CAP vendors’ financial risk assessments
at the drug level.
We also note that shipment of drugs
and biologicals often across significant
distances is being done routinely by
pharmacies, drug distributors, and home
infusion providers. Therefore, we
believe that significant practical
experience associated with safely
transporting drugs between various
locations outside of standard shipping
arrangements exists, and this experience
could be applied to the transportation
agreements. We encourage approved
CAP vendors who enter into agreements
with participating CAP physicians to
permit transport of one or more CAP
drugs between offices to assist with the
dissemination of details and practical
applications of specialized knowledge
about drug handling and to either
specify, or provide mechanisms to track,
drugs that are being transported
between offices.
We also agree with the comments that
stated that participating CAP physicians
and other CAP practitioners are able to
follow the handling requirements
associated with the drugs that they
administer and we agree that they may
be held responsible for adherence to
those requirements. We believe that the
participating CAP physicians will want
to adhere to these requirements not only
for the safety of the beneficiary who will
receive the drug, but also for the
financial well being of the approved
CAP vendor—the entity that still owns
the drug.
Based on the comments that we
received, we are finalizing our proposal
to ease the transportation restriction
between a participating CAP physicians’
offices as listed on the CAP physician
election agreement using voluntary
agreements between the approved CAP
vendors and participating CAP
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
physicians. The finalized proposal does
not affect the current requirement that
drugs be shipped from the approved
CAP vendor only to a participating CAP
physician.
We also remind readers that the
change applies only to transportation of
CAP drugs between the offices of a
group to which the drug was shipped
and does not include shipment to office
locations not listed on the physician’s
election agreement, or transportation to
sites other than the participating CAP
physician’s offices; these issues are
outside the scope of what we had
proposed.
We also remind readers that at a
minimum, voluntary agreements that
allow the transportation of CAP drugs
between office locations must comply
with all applicable State and Federal
laws and regulations and product
liability requirements, and be
documented in writing and must
include requirements that drugs are not
subjected to conditions that will
jeopardize their integrity, stability, and/
or sterility while being transported.
While we are not dictating the breadth
of use or the specific obligations
contained in voluntary arrangements
between approved CAP vendors and
participating CAP physicians, including
the drugs covered by an agreement, the
agreements must comply with
applicable law and prohibit approved
CAP vendors from coercing
participating CAP physicians into
entering any of these arrangements.
Parties to such arrangements must also
ensure that the arrangements do not
violate the physician self-referral
(‘‘Stark’’) prohibition (section 1877 of
the Act), the Federal anti-kickback
statute (section 1128B(b) of the Act), or
any other Federal or State law or
regulation governing billing or claims
submission.
By way of example only, we believe
that a voluntary agreement between the
participating CAP physician and
approved CAP vendor could also be
used to address the following issues:
assignment of financial liability
associated with product loss or damage,
tracking and stock reconciliation
mechanisms, oversight and compliance
mechanisms, who may transport the
drug, and specific handling
requirements for the each of the drugs
that may be transported.
(3) Dispute Resolution Process
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (73
FR 38524 through 38525), we discussed
two changes to the CAP dispute
resolution process. Section
1847B(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act requires
an approved CAP vendor to have a
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
grievance and appeals process for the
resolution of disputes. In the July 6,
2005 IFC (70 FR 39054 through 39058),
we described the process for the
resolution of participating CAP
physicians’ drug quality and service
complaints and approved CAP vendors’
complaints regarding noncompliant
participating CAP physicians. We
encouraged participating CAP
physicians, beneficiaries, and vendors
to use informal communication as a first
step to resolve service-related
administration issues. However, we
recognized that certain disputes would
require a more structured approach, and
therefore, we established processes
under § 414.916 and § 414.917.
(i) Approved CAP Vendor’s Status
During the Reconsideration Process
Section 414.917 outlines the dispute
resolution process for participating CAP
physicians. As discussed in the July 6,
2005 IFC (70 FR 39057 through 39058),
if a participating CAP physician finds
an approved CAP vendor’s service or
the quality of a CAP drug supplied by
the approved CAP vendor to be
unsatisfactory, then the physician may
address the issues first through the
approved CAP vendor’s grievance
process, and second through an
alternative dispute resolution process
administered by the designated carrier
and CMS. In turn, the designated carrier
would gather information about the
issue as outlined in § 414.917(b)(2) and
make a recommendation to CMS on
whether the approved CAP vendor has
been meeting the service and quality
obligations of its CAP contract. We
would then review and act on that
recommendation after gathering any
necessary, additional information from
the participating CAP physician and
approved CAP vendor. If we suspend an
approved CAP vendor’s CAP contract
for noncompliance or terminate the CAP
contract in accordance with
§ 414.914(a), the approved CAP vendor
may request a reconsideration in
accordance with § 414.917(c).
In the July 6, 2005 IFC (70 FR 39058),
we indicated that the approved CAP
vendor’s participation in the CAP would
be suspended while the approved CAP
vendor’s appeal of our decision is
pending. This suspended status is also
implied in § 414.917(c)(9), which states
that the ‘‘approved CAP vendor may
resume participation in CAP’’ if the
final reconsideration determination is
favorable to the approved CAP vendor.
In order to improve the clarity of our
regulations, we proposed in the CY 2009
PFS proposed rule that the approved
CAP vendor’s contract will remain
suspended during the reconsideration
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
period in § 414.917 (73 FR 38525). We
believed that this proposed technical
change is consistent with basic
contracting concepts and with our
current practices for the CAP. This
proposal was not finalized due to the
2009 CAP postponement.
Comments submitted in response to
our CY 2009 PFS proposed rule
supported this proposed clarification
and we did not receive additional
feedback about this issue after the CAP
was postponed. Based on this and our
continued need to improve the clarity of
our regulations, we reproposed that the
approved CAP vendor’s contract will
remain suspended during the
reconsideration period in § 414.917. We
solicited additional comments on our
proposal.
Comment: One commenter supported
our proposal regarding the CAP’s
dispute resolution process.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal that the approved CAP
vendor’s contract will remain
suspended during the reconsideration
period in § 414.917. We believe that this
technical change is consistent with
basic contracting concepts and with our
current practices for the CAP.
(ii) Termination of CAP Drug Shipments
to Suspended CAP Physicians
Section 414.916 provides a
mechanism for approved CAP vendors
to address noncompliance problems
with participating CAP physicians. As
stated at § 414.916(a), ‘‘Cases of an
approved CAP vendor’s dissatisfaction
with denied drug claims are resolved
through a voluntary alternative dispute
resolution process delivered by the
designated carrier, and a
reconsideration process provided by
CMS.’’ Once the decision is made to
suspend a participating CAP physician’s
CAP election agreement, the
participating CAP physician will be
suspended from the CAP as described in
§ 414.916(b)(3).
Physicians whose participation in the
CAP has been suspended are not eligible
to receive CAP drugs. This is implied in
§ 414.906(a)(4), which speaks of
approved CAP vendors providing CAP
drugs directly to ‘‘[a] participating CAP
physician.’’ However, we believe that
the clarity of our dispute resolution
regulations would be improved if this
drug delivery issue were stated
explicitly. Therefore, in the CY 2009
PFS proposed rule, we proposed to
revise § 414.916 to specify that
approved CAP vendors shall not deliver
CAP drugs to participating CAP
physicians whose participation in the
CAP has been suspended after an initial
determination by CMS. The proposal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
also applied to physicians engaged in
the reconsideration process outlined in
§ 414.916(c) and included a conforming
change at § 414.914(f)(12). We believed
that these changes were in accord with
the underlying intent of § 414.916,
namely to provide a mechanism for
approved CAP vendors to address
noncompliance problems with
participating CAP physicians, and we
believe that these changes will increase
the clarity of our regulations. We also
noted that the participating CAP
physicians who are suspended from
participation in the CAP will be able to
obtain drugs and bill for them under the
ASP payment system provided they
have not been excluded from
participation in Medicare and/or their
billing privileges have not been revoked.
Comments submitted in response to
the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule agreed
with our proposal. Though we did not
finalize this proposal due to the 2009
CAP postponement, we received no
comments from the public in response
to our request for feedback during the
CAP 2009 postponement. Based on
positive public feedback and our
continued belief that the clarity of our
dispute resolution regulations would be
improved by being explicit about this
issue, we reproposed to revise § 414.916
to specify that approved CAP vendors
shall not deliver CAP drugs to
participating CAP physicians whose
participation in the CAP has been
suspended after an initial determination
by CMS. This suspension in drug
shipment would also apply to
physicians engaged in the
reconsideration process outlined in
§ 414.916(c). We have also proposed a
conforming change to § 414.914(f)(12).
Physicians who are suspended from
participation in the CAP will be able to
obtain drugs and bill for them under the
ASP payment system provided they
have not been excluded from
participation in Medicare and/or their
billing privileges have not been revoked.
Comment: We received comments
that both supported and opposed this
proposal. One commenter supported
this approach. Another commenter
questioned the sufficiency of our
procedures and indicated that the
suspension of CAP drug shipments to a
physician should not be implemented
after an initial determination by CMS,
but rather only after a final decision on
reconsideration has been made.
Response: We disagree with the
comment about the sufficiency of our
dispute resolution procedures. We
believe that in light of the very limited
grounds for which a participating CAP
physician may be suspended, the
protections afforded under
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61921
§ 414.916(b)(3) prior to CMS’s initial
decision to suspend the physician from
the CAP are sufficient. Indeed, a
participating CAP physician may be
suspended from the CAP only upon
CMS approval after: information is
collected and analyzed by the carrier on
the issue of whether the participating
CAP physician has been filing his or her
CAP drug administration claims in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 414.908(a)(3), the designated carrier
provides numbered findings of fact to
CMS, and CMS reviews the carrier’s
information and gathers relevant
additional information from the
participating CAP physician. These
procedures allow a participating CAP
physician to be actively involved in the
dispute resolution process prior to
CMS’s decision to suspend the CAP
election agreement. For these reasons,
we believe that appropriate initial
mechanisms are in place to protect the
physician’s access to drugs under the
CAP.
Furthermore, physicians who are
suspended from participation in the
CAP and to whom the approved CAP
vendor has ceased shipments of CAP
drugs are able to obtain drugs and bill
for them under the ASP payment
system. Thus, these physicians will
have continuous access to Part B drugs.
Finally, because a participating CAP
physician’s failure to comply with
regulations at § 414.908(a)(2) can
negatively affect the approved CAP
vendor’s ability to receive payment for
CAP drugs that it shipped to the
physician, we believe that suspending
shipment of CAP drugs upon CMS’s
initial determination of suspension of
the CAP physician election agreement
appropriately balances the needs of the
participating CAP physician and those
of the approved CAP vendor. For the
foregoing reasons, at this time, we are
finalizing our proposal that approved
CAP vendors shall not ship CAP drugs
to physicians whose participation in the
CAP has been suspended after an initial
determination by CMS.
I. Provisions Related to Payment for
Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
Facilities
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33634 through 33639), we outlined
the proposed updates to the case-mix
adjusted composite rate payment system
established under section 1881(b)(12) of
the Act, as added by section 623 of the
Medicare Modernization Act (MMA),
which included updates to the drug
add-on component of the composite rate
system, as well as the wage index values
used to adjust the labor component of
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61922
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the composite rate. Specifically, as
described in more detail below in this
section, we proposed the following:
• A zero growth update to the
proposed 15.0 add-on adjustment to the
composite rates for 2010 required by
section 1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act
(resulting in a $20.33 per treatment drug
add-on amount).
• An update to the wage index
adjustment to reflect the latest available
wage data, including a revised BN
adjustment factor of 1.057888.
• A reduction to the ESRD wage
index floor from 0.7000 to 0.6500.
We received few public comments on
our proposals. The ESRD payment
related comments are discussed in
detail below in this section. In addition,
as discussed in section II.G.12. of this
rule, section 1881(b)(12)(G)(iv) of the
Act, as added by section 153(a)(1) of the
MIPPA, increases the composite rate by
1.0 percent for ESRD services furnished
on or after January 1, 2010. Therefore,
the 1.0 percent increases the current
composite rate of $133.81 to $135.15 for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2010.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Update to the Drug Add-on
Adjustment to the Composite Rate
Section 1881(b)(12)(B)(ii) of the Act,
as added by section 623(d) of the MMA,
requires an add-on to the composite rate
to account for changes in the drug
payment methodology. Section
1881(b)(12)(C) of the Act provides that
the drug add-on must reflect the
difference in aggregate payments
between the revised drug payment
methodology for separately billable
ESRD drugs and the Average Wholesale
Price (AWP) payment methodology. In
2005, we generally paid for ESRD drugs
based on average acquisition costs. Thus
the difference from AWP pricing was
calculated using acquisition costs.
However, in 2006 when we moved to
Average Sales Price (ASP) pricing for
ESRD drugs, we recalculated the
difference from AWP pricing using ASP
prices.
In addition, section 1881(b)(12)(F) of
the Act requires that, beginning in CY
2006, we establish an annual increase to
the drug add-on to reflect estimated
growth in expenditures for separately
billable drugs and biologicals furnished
by ESRD facilities. This growth update
applies only to the drug add-on portion
of the case-mix adjusted payment
system. The CY 2009 drug add-on
adjustment to the composite rate was
15.2 percent. The drug add-on
adjustment for CY 2009 reflected a zero
increase. This computation is explained
in detail below and in the CY 2009 PFS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
final rule with comment period (73 FR
69755 through 69757).
a. Estimating Growth in Expenditures
for Drugs and Biologicals for CY 2010
Section 1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act
specifies that the drug add-on increase
must reflect ‘‘the estimated growth in
expenditures for drugs and biologicals
(including erythropoietin) that are
separately billable * * *’’ By referring
to ‘‘expenditures’’, we believe the
statute contemplates that the update
would account for both increases in
drug prices, as well as increases in
utilization of those drugs.
In the CY 2007 PFS final rule with
comment period (71 FR 69682), we
established an interim methodology for
annually estimating the growth in ESRD
drugs and biological expenditures that
used the Producer Price Index (PPI) for
pharmaceuticals as a proxy for pricing
growth in conjunction with 2 years of
ESRD drug data to estimate per patient
utilization growth. We indicated that
this interim methodology would be used
to update the drug add-on to the
composite rate until such time that we
had sufficient ASP drug expenditure
data to project the growth in ESRD drug
expenditures.
However, for CY 2008, due to
declining ASP prices, we no longer
believed that using the PPI as a proxy
for pricing growth was appropriate.
Accordingly, for CY 2009, we revised
the interim methodology for estimating
the growth in ESRD drug expenditures
by using ASP pricing to estimate the
price component of the update
calculation. Due to the declining trend
in ASP pricing and utilization, we
calculated a decrease in the drug addon adjustment, and applied a zero
update to the drug add-on adjustment
(73 FR 69755 through 69757).
b. Estimating Growth in Expenditures
for Drugs and Biologicals in CY 2010
Since we now have 3 years of drug
expenditure data based on ASP pricing,
we have reevaluated our methodology
for estimating growth in drug
expenditures. We believe that 3 years of
drug expenditure data based on ASP
pricing is sufficient to project drug
expenditure growth based on trend
analysis. Therefore, for CY 2010, we
proposed to use trend analysis from
ASP drug expenditure data to update
the per treatment drug add-on
adjustment (74 FR 33636).
In addition, we proposed to estimate
per patient growth in drug expenditures
by removing growth in ESRD enrollment
from growth in total drug expenditures.
To estimate drug expenditure growth
using trend analysis, we looked at the
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
average annual growth in total drug
expenditures between 2006 and 2008.
First we had to estimate the total drug
expenditures for all ESRD facilities in
CY 2008. For the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule, we used the final CY 2006, the
final CY 2007 ESRD claims data, and the
latest available CY 2008 ESRD facility
claims, updated through December 31,
2008 (that is, claims with dates of
service from January 1 through
December 31, 2008, that were received,
processed, paid, and passed to the
National Claims History File as of
December 31, 2008). For the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule, we adjusted the
December 2008 file to reflect our
estimate of what total drug expenditures
would be using the final June 30, 2009
bill file for CY 2008 (74 FR 33636). The
net adjustment we applied to the CY
2008 claims data was an increase of 11.1
percent to the December 2008 claims
file. In this final rule with comment
period, we are using additional updated
CY 2008 claims with dates of service for
the same timeframe. This updated CY
2008 data file will include claims
received, processed, paid, and passed to
the National Claims History File as of
June 30, 2009.
Using the full-year 2008 drug
expenditure figure, we calculated the
average annual change in drug
expenditures from 2006 through 2008.
This average annual change showed a
decrease of 1.7 percent for this
timeframe. We are using this 1.7 percent
decrease to project drug expenditures
for both 2009 and 2010.
c. Estimating per Patient Growth
Once we determined the projected
growth in drug expenditures from 2009
to 2010, we then removed growth in
enrollment for the same time period
from the expenditure growth, so that the
residual reflects per patient expenditure
growth (which includes price and
utilization combined). We believe that
this approach is consistent with section
1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act, which
requires us to annually update the drug
add-on adjustment. To calculate the per
patient growth in drug expenditures
between CYs 2009 and 2010, we
removed the enrollment component
which represents the estimated growth
in enrollment between CY 2009 and CY
2010. This was approximately 1.9
percent. To determine the growth in per
patient expenditures, we divided the
total drug expenditure decrease between
2009 and 2010 of 1.7 percent
(1.000¥0.017 = 0.983) by enrollment
growth of 1.9 percent (1.019) for the
same timeframe. The result is a per
patient expenditure growth factor equal
to 0.965 (0.983/1.019 = 0.965). Thus, we
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
are projecting a 3.5 percent decrease in
per patient growth in drug expenditures
between 2009 and 2010 (0.965 = 1.000–
0.035).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
d. Applying the Growth Update to the
Drug Add-On Adjustment
In the CY 2006 PFS final rule (71 FR
69683), we applied the projected growth
update percentage to the total amount of
drug add-on dollars established for CY
2005 to establish a dollar amount for the
CY 2006 growth update. In addition, we
projected the growth in dialysis
treatments for CY 2006 based on the
projected growth in ESRD enrollment.
We divided the projected total dollar
amount of the CY 2006 growth by the
projected growth in total dialysis
treatments to develop the per treatment
growth update amount. This growth
update amount, combined with the CY
2005 per treatment drug add-on amount,
resulted in an average drug add-on
amount per treatment of $18.88 (or a
14.5 percent adjustment to the
composite rate) for CY 2006.
In the CY 2007 PFS final rule with
comment period (71 FR 69684), we
revised our update methodology by
applying the growth update to the per
treatment drug add-on amount. That is,
for CY 2007, we applied the growth
update factor of 4.03 percent to the
$18.88 per treatment drug add-on
amount for an updated amount of
$19.64 per treatment.
In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 66282), we
revised our update methodology by
applying the growth update to the per
treatment drug add-on amount. That is,
for CY 2008, we applied the growth
update factor of 3.5 percent to the
$19.64 per treatment drug add-on
amount for an updated amount of
$20.33 per treatment.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69755 through
69757), we applied a zero update to the
per treatment drug add-on amount
which left it at $20.33. As discussed in
detail below, for CY 2010, we again will
apply a zero update to the per treatment
drug add-on amount of $20.33
established in CY 2008.
e. Update to the Drug Add-on
Adjustment
As discussed previously in this
section, we estimate a 1.7 percent
decrease in total drug expenditures
between CY 2009 and CY 2010. Growth
in per patient drug expenditures is
computed by dividing growth in total
drug expenditures by growth in
enrollment for the same time period.
Therefore, to calculate growth in per
patient drug expenditures, we remove
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the enrollment component, which is an
estimated increase of 1.9 percent (1.019)
from growth in total drug expenditures,
which is an estimated decrease of 1.7
percent (1.000¥1.017 = 0.983). As
described above, the removal of the
enrollment component from total drug
expenditures is computed as follows:
0.983/1.019 = 0.965. Therefore, we are
projecting a 3.5 percent decrease in per
patient growth of drug expenditures
between CY 2009 and CY 2010.
However, similar to last year and as
indicated above, we are finalizing a zero
update to the drug add-on adjustment.
We believe this approach is consistent
with the language under section
1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act which states in
part that ‘‘the Secretary shall annually
increase’’ the basic case-mix adjusted
payment amounts by an amount
determined by applying the estimated
growth in expenditures for separately
billed ESRD drugs for the drug add-on
amount. Our understanding of the
statute contemplates ‘‘annually
increase’’ to mean a positive or zero
update to the drug add-on. Therefore,
we will apply a zero update to maintain
the $20.33 per treatment drug add-on
amount for CY 2010. The current $20.33
per treatment drug add-on reflected a
15.2 percent drug add-on adjustment to
the composite rate in effect for CY 2009.
However, given that the MIPPA
mandates a 1 percent increase to the
composite rate (effective January 1,
2010), this 1 percent increase results in
a decrease in the CY 2009 drug add-on
adjustment from 15.2 percent to 15.0
percent to keep the drug add-on amount
at $20.33 per treatment.
Comment: Many commenters agreed
with our decision to continue to use the
ASP+6 percent methodology for
separately billable drugs. The
commenters indicated that the ASP+6
percent methodology is appropriate
since the drugs will be reimbursed at
the same amount as they would when
furnished in a physician office.
Response: Although we did not
propose any changes to reimbursement
for separately billiable ESRD drugs and
biologicals, we appreciate the
commenters’ support of our use of the
ASP+6 percent methodology.
Comment: The commenters also
agreed with our decision to continue
with a zero update to the drug add-on
adjustment. MedPAC stated that
although it recognizes the elimination of
the drug add-on payment will occur
beginning January 1, 2011, MedPAC
believes that the composite payment
rate and the drug add-on should be
combined because the add-on payment
is complex and may not be the most
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61923
appropriate way to pay for dialysis
services
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support that we continue
with a zero update to the drug add-on
adjustment. As we explained above, we
are finalizing our proposal to provide a
zero update to the drug add-on
adjustment for CY 2010. With regard to
MedPAC’s suggestions, under the
proposed bundled ESRD prospective
payment system (PPS) effective in CY
2011, the drug add-on adjustment will
be eliminated for ESRD providers and
facilities that opt to be paid under the
proposed ESRD PPS system beginning
in CY 2011 (and not go through the 4year transition). However, we note that
under the proposed ESRD PPS, we will
continue to update the drug add-on
adjustment during the transition period.
For further details regarding the
proposed ESRD PPS, please refer to the
Medicare End-State Renal Disease
Prospective Payment System Proposed
Rule (74 FR 50003 to 50005).
f. Update to the Geographic
Adjustments to the Composite Rate
Section 1881(b)(12)(D) of the Act, as
amended by section 623(d) of the MMA,
gives the Secretary the authority to
revise the wage indexes previously
applied to the ESRD composite rate. The
purpose of the wage index is to adjust
the composite rates for differing wage
levels covering the areas in which ESRD
facilities are located. The wage indexes
are calculated for each urban and rural
area. In the CY 2006 PFS final rule with
comment period (70 FR 70167), we
announced our adoption of the OMB
CBSA-based geographic area
designations to develop revised urban/
rural definitions and corresponding
wage index values for purposes of
calculating ESRD composite rates. In
addition, we generally have followed
wage index policies related to these
definitions used under the inpatient
hospital prospective payment system
(IPPS), but without regard to any
approved geographic reclassification
authorized under sections 1886(d)(8)
and (d)(10) of the Act or other
provisions that only apply to hospitals
paid under the IPPS (70 FR 70167). For
purposes of the ESRD wage index
methodology, the hospital wage data we
use is pre-classified, pre-floor hospital
data and unadjusted for occupational
mix.
g. Updates to Core-Based Statistical
Area (CBSA) Definitions
In the CY 2006 PFS final rule with
comment period (70 FR 70167), we
announced our adoption of the OMB’s
CBSA-based geographic area
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61924
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
designations to develop revised urban/
rural definitions and corresponding
wage index values for purposes of
calculating ESRD composite rates. The
CBSA-based geographic area
designations are described in OMB
Bulletin 03–04, originally issued June 6,
2003, and is available online at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/
b03-04.html. In addition, OMB has
published subsequent bulletins
regarding CBSA changes, including
changes in CBSA numbers and titles.
We wish to point out that this and all
subsequent ESRD rules and notices are
considered to incorporate the CBSA
changes published in the most recent
OMB bulletin that applies to the
hospital wage index used to determine
the current ESRD wage index. The OMB
bulletins may be accessed online at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
bulletins/.
h. Updated Wage Index Values
In the CY 2007 PFS final rule with
comment period (71 FR 69685), we
stated that we intended to update the
ESRD wage index values annually. The
ESRD final wage index values for CY
2010 were developed from FY 2006
wage and employment data obtained
from the Medicare hospital cost reports.
As we indicated above, the ESRD wage
index values are calculated without
regard to geographic classifications
authorized under sections 1886(d)(8)
and (d)(10) of the Act and utilize prefloor hospital data that is unadjusted for
occupational mix. We proposed to use
the same methodology for CY 2010,
using FY 2006 hospital data to develop
the CY 2010 ESRD wage index values.
For a detailed description of the
development of the CY 2010 wage index
values based on FY 2006 hospital data,
see the FY 2010 IPPS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 43834). Section
III.G. of the preamble to the FY 2010
IPPS final rule with comment period,
‘‘Method for Computing the Proposed
FY 2010 Unadjusted Wage Index’’,
describes the cost report schedules, line
items, data elements, adjustments, and
wage index computations. The wage
index data affecting the ESRD composite
rate for each urban and rural locale may
also be accessed on the CMS Web site
at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
AcuteInpatientPPS/WIFN/list.asp. The
wage data are located in the section
entitled, ‘‘FY 2010 Final Rule
Occupational Mix Adjusted and
Unadjusted Average Hourly Wage and
Pre-reclassified Wage Index by CBSA.’’
In the CY 2009 final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69758 and
69759), we indicated that CY 2009 was
the final year of the transition period
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
and each ESRD facility’s composite
payment rate would be based entirely
on its applicable CBSA-based wage
index value.
i. Reduction to the ESRD Wage Index
Floor
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period, we stated our
intention to continue to reassess the
need for a wage index floor (73 FR
63758). We also stated that a gradual
reduction in the floor is needed to
support continuing patient access to
dialysis in areas that have low wage
index values, especially in Puerto Rico
where the wage index values are below
the current wage index floor. For CY
2010, we proposed to reduce the wage
index floor from 0.70 to 0.65. We also
anticipate that we may reduce the floor
gradually until full implementation of
the ESRD PPS required by section
1881(b)(14) of the Act.
Comment: We received comments
from commenters in both Puerto Rico
and Wheeling, WV–OH CBSA
expressing concern about the reduction
to the wage index floor.
Response: The majority of facilities
located in Puerto Rico have wage
indices significantly below the 0.65
floor. The steady reduction in the
proposed ESRD wage index floor of 0.65
still remains higher than the actual wage
index values which range from 0.3348
to 0.4740 for facilities located in Puerto
Rico. Although a reduction in the wage
index floor may negatively impact these
providers, these facilities still benefit
from a 0.65 floor rather than their actual
wage index value.
There are 2 facilities located in
Wheeling, WV–OH CBSA, which have
an actual wage index value of 0.6869
and is above the proposed 0.65 floor,
but not significantly below the CY 2009
0.70 floor. We note that the CY 2010
wage index value of 0.6869 for the
Wheeling, WV–OH CBSA is prior to
application of the wage index BN factor.
After application of the wage index BN
factor of 1.057735, the wage index value
for Wheeling, WV–OH CBSA is 0.7266.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the ESRD facilities in the Wheeling
WV–OH CBSA have a wage index value
that is less than the wage index value
for rural WV. The commenter requested
that CMS apply the rural floor policy
that is applicable under the Hospital
IPPS.
Response: Under the ESRD basic casemix adjusted composite payment
system, currently there is no mechanism
for allowing providers to seek
geographic reclassification. We
reviewed the MedPAC’s wage index
recommendations as discussed in
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
MedPAC’s June 2007 report entitled
‘‘Report to Congress: Promoting Greater
Efficiency in Medicare.’’ We note that
MedPAC’s June 2007 Report to Congress
recommends that the Congress ‘‘repeal
the existing hospital wage index statute,
including reclassification and
exceptions, and give the Secretary
authority to establish new wage index
systems.’’ We believe that adopting the
IPPS wage index policies (such as the
rural floor) for the ESRD wage index
would not be prudent at this time,
because MedPAC suggests that the
reclassification and exception policies
in the IPPS wage index alters the wage
index values for one-third of IPPS
hospitals. In addition, MedPAC found
that the exceptions may lead to
anomalies in the wage index. By
adopting the IPPS rural floor at this
time, the ESRD basic case-mix adjusted
composite payment system wage index
could become vulnerable to problems
similar to those that MedPAC identified
in their June 2007 Report to Congress.
We will continue to review and
consider MedPAC’s recommendations
on a refined or alternative wage index
methodology for the IPPS and how it
could potentially apply to the ESRD
basic case-mix adjusted composite rate
system in future years.
We also note that section 106(b)(2) of
the Medicare Improvements and
Extension Act (MIEA) of 2006 (which is
Division B of the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act (TRCHA) of 2006, Pub. L. 109–
432, collectively referred to as ‘‘MIEA–
TRHCA’’) required the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, taking into
account MedPAC’s recommendations on
the Medicare wage index classification
system, to include in the FY 2009 IPPS
proposed rule one or more proposals to
revise the wage index adjustment
applied under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of
the Act for purposes of the IPPS. To
assist CMS in meeting the requirements
of section 106(b)(2) of MIEA–TRHCA, in
February 2008, we awarded a Task
Order under its Expedited Research and
Demonstration Contract, to Acumen,
LLC. Acumen, LLC conducted a study of
both the current methodology used to
construct the Medicare wage index and
the recommendations reported to the
Congress by MedPAC. Part One of
Acumen’s final report, which analyzes
the strengths and weaknesses of the data
sources used to construct the CMS and
MedPAC indexes, is available online at
https://www.acumenllc.com/reports/cms.
MedPAC’s recommendations are
presented in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule
(73 FR 48745). We plan to continue
monitoring IPPS wage index research
efforts and the impact or influence these
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
efforts may have for the ESRD basic
case-mix adjusted composite payment
rate system wage index.
Moreover, in light of all of the
pending research and review of wage
index issues in general, we believe that
it would be premature at this time to
adopt the IPPS rural floor policy to the
ESRD wage index.
j. Wage Index Values for Areas With No
Hospital Data
In CY 2006, while adopting the CBSA
designations, we identified a small
number of ESRD facilities in both urban
and rural geographic areas where there
are no hospital wage data from which to
calculate ESRD wage index values. The
affected areas were rural Puerto Rico,
and the urban area of Hinesville, GA
(CBSA 25980), and rural Massachusetts.
For CY 2006, CY 2007, CY 2008, and CY
2009, we calculated the ESRD wage
index values for those areas as follows:
• For the urban area of Hinesville,
GA, we calculated the CY 2006 through
CY 2009 wage index value based on the
average wage index value for all urban
areas within the State of Georgia.
• For rural Massachusetts, because
we had not determined a reasonable
wage proxy, we used the FY 2005 wage
index value in CY 2006 and CY 2007.
As discussed below, we adopted an
alternative methodology for CYs 2008
and 2009.
• For rural Puerto Rico, because all
geographic areas in Puerto Rico were
subject to the wage index floor in CYs
2006 through 2009, we applied the
ESRD wage index floor to rural Puerto
Rico as well. We note that there are
currently no ESRD facilities located in
rural Puerto Rico.
For CY 2008, we adopted an
alternative methodology for establishing
a wage index value for rural
Massachusetts and continued to apply
this methodology in CY 2009. Because
we used the same wage index value for
2 years with no update, we believed it
was appropriate to establish a
methodology which employed
reasonable proxy data for rural areas
(including rural Massachusetts) and also
permitted annual updates to the wage
index based on that proxy data. For
rural areas without hospital wage data,
we used the average wage index values
from all contiguous CBSAs as a
reasonable proxy for that rural area.
In determining the imputed rural
wage index, we interpreted the term
‘‘contiguous’’ to mean sharing a border.
In the case of Massachusetts, the entire
rural area consists of Dukes and
Nantucket Counties. We determined
that the borders of Dukes and Nantucket
counties are contiguous with CBSA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
12700, Barnstable Town, MA, and CBSA
39300, Providence-New Bedford-Fall
River, RI–MA. We proposed to use the
same methodology for CY 2010. Under
this methodology, the CY 2010 final
wage index values for CBSA 12700
(Barnstable Town, MA—1.2618) and
CBSA 39300 (Providence-New BedfordFall River, RI–MA—1.0782) averages
results in an imputed wage index value
of 1.1700 for rural Massachusetts in CY
2010.
For rural Puerto Rico, for CY 2010, all
areas in Puerto Rico that have a wage
index are eligible for the proposed ESRD
wage index floor of 0.65. Therefore, we
proposed to apply the proposed ESRD
wage index floor of 0.65 to facilities that
are located in rural Puerto Rico.
For Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA
(CBSA 25980), which is an urban area
without specific hospital wage data, we
proposed to apply the same
methodology used to impute a wage
index value that we used in CY 2009.
Specifically, we proposed to utilize the
average wage index value for all urban
areas within the State of Georgia. That
would result in a CY 2010 final wage
index value of 0.9028 for the HinesvilleFort Stewart GA CBSA.
We received no comments on our
proposals for wage areas with no
hospital data. Therefore, we are
finalizing our policies for wage areas
with no hospital data as proposed.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69759 through
69760), we stated that we would
continue to evaluate existing hospital
wage data and possibly wage data from
other sources such as the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, to determine if other
methodologies might be appropriate for
imputing wage index values for areas
without hospital wage data for CY 2010
and subsequent years. To date, no data
from other sources, superior to that
currently used in connection with the
IPPS wage index has emerged.
Therefore, for ESRD purposes, we
continue to believe this is an
appropriate policy.
k. Budget Neutrality Adjustment
Section 1881(b)(12)(E)(i) of the Act, as
added by section 623(d) of the MMA,
required that any revisions to the ESRD
composite rate payment system as a
result of the MMA provision (including
the geographic adjustment) be made in
a budget neutral manner. Given our
application of the ESRD wage index,
this means that aggregate payments to
ESRD facilities in CY 2010 would be the
same as aggregate payments that would
have been made if we had not made any
changes to the geographic adjusters. We
note that this BN adjustment only
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61925
addresses the impact of changes in the
geographic adjustments. A separate BN
adjustment was developed for the casemix adjustments required by the MMA.
As we did not propose any changes to
the case-mix measures for CY 2010, the
current case-mix BN adjustment of
0.9116 would remain in effect for CY
2010. As in CY 2009, for CY 2010, we
proposed to apply the proposed wageindex BN adjustment factor of 1.057888
directly to the ESRD wage index values.
Because the ESRD wage index is only
applied to the labor-related portion of
the composite rate, we computed the BN
adjustment factor based on that
proportion (53.711 percent).
To compute the proposed CY 2010
wage index BN adjustment factor
(1.057888), we used the FY 2006 prefloor, pre-reclassified, non-occupational
mix-adjusted hospital data to compute
the wage index values, 2008 outpatient
claims (paid and processed as of
December 31, 2008), and geographic
location information for each facility
which may be found through Dialysis
Facility Compare Web page on the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
DialysisFacilityCompare/. The FY 2006
hospital wage index data for each urban
and rural locale by CBSA may also be
accessed on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/
WIFN/list.asp. The wage index data are
located in the section entitled, ‘‘FY 2010
Final Rule Occupational Mix Adjusted
and Unadjusted Average Hourly Wage
and Pre-Reclassified Wage Index by
CBSA.’’
Using treatment counts from the 2008
claims and facility-specific CY 2009
composite rates, we computed the
estimated total dollar amount each
ESRD provider would have received in
CY 2009. The total of these payments
became the target amount of
expenditures for all ESRD facilities for
CY 2010. Next, we computed the
estimated dollar amount that would
have been paid for the same ESRD
facilities using the ESRD wage index for
CY 2010. The total of these payments
became the new CY 2010 amount of
wage-adjusted composite rate
expenditures for all ESRD facilities.
Section 153(a) of the MIPPA revised
section 1881(b)(12)(G) of the Act to
provide for an update of 1 percent to the
composite rate component of the
payment system effective January 1,
2010. We note that when computing the
new CY 2010 amount, we did not
include this 1 percent increase because
the BN adjustment would negate the
increase.
After comparing these two dollar
amounts (target amount divided by the
new CY 2010 amount), we calculated an
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61926
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
adjustment factor that, when multiplied
by the applicable CY 2010 ESRD wage
index value, would result in aggregate
payments to ESRD facilities that would
remain within the target amount of
composite rate expenditures. When
making this calculation, the final ESRD
wage index floor value of 0.6500 is
applied whenever appropriate. The final
wage BN adjustment factor is 1.057735
for CY 2010.
To ensure BN, we also must apply the
wage index BN adjustment factor to the
wage index floor of 0.6500 which results
in an adjusted wage index floor of
0.6875 (0.6500 x 1.057735) for CY 2010.
General Comments
Comment: One commenter supports
our proposal to maintain the existing
case-mix adjusters and believes it will
be important to maintain consistency in
the current composite rate by preserving
the current case-mix adjustors, given the
anticipated shift to a bundled payment
system.
Response: As explained earlier in this
section, we did not propose any changes
to the current basic case-mix composite
rate payment system. We have
maintained the current basic case-mix
adjusters for CY 2010. We have
proposed a number of patient-level
adjusters in the new bundled ESRD PPS
system, which are explained in detail in
the ESRD PPS proposed rule (74 FR
49925 and 49926).
l. ESRD Wage Index Tables
The CY 2010 ESRD wage index tables
are located in Addenda F and G of this
final rule with comment period.
J. Discussion of Chiropractic Services
Demonstration
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Background
Section 651 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub.
L. 108–173) requires the Secretary to
conduct a 2-year demonstration to
evaluate the feasibility and advisability
of expanding coverage for chiropractic
services under Medicare. Medicare
coverage for chiropractic services is
limited to manual manipulation of the
spine to correct a subluxation described
in section 1861(r)(5) of the Act. The
demonstration expanded current
Medicare coverage to include ‘‘care for
neuromusculoskeletal conditions
typical among eligible beneficiaries and
diagnostic and other services that a
chiropractor is legally authorized to
perform by the State or jurisdiction in
which such treatment is provided’’ and
was conducted in four geographically
diverse sites, two rural and two urban
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
regions, with each type including a
Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA). The two urban sites were 26
counties in Illinois and Scott County,
Iowa, and 17 counties in Virginia. The
two rural sites were the States of Maine
and New Mexico. The demonstration,
which ended on March 31, 2007, was
required to be budget neutral as section
651(f)(1)(B) of the MMA mandates the
Secretary to ensure that ‘‘the aggregate
payments made by the Secretary under
the Medicare program do not exceed the
amount which the Secretary would have
paid under the Medicare program if the
demonstration projects under this
section were not implemented.’’
In the CY 2006, 2007, and 2008 PFS
final rules with comment period (70 FR
70266, 71 FR 69707, 72 FR 66325,
respectively), we included a discussion
of the strategy that would be used to
assess BN and the method for adjusting
chiropractor fees in the event the
demonstration results in costs higher
than those that would occur in the
absence of the demonstration. We stated
BN would be assessed by determining
the change in costs based on a pre-post
comparison of Medicare costs for
beneficiaries in the demonstration and
their counterparts in the control groups
and the rate of change for specific
diagnoses that are treated by
chiropractors and physicians in the
demonstration sites and control sites.
We also stated that our analysis would
not be limited to only review of
chiropractor claims because the costs of
the expanded chiropractor services may
have an impact on other Medicare costs.
If the demonstration was not budget
neutral, we anticipated making
reductions in the CY 2010 and CY 2011
physician fee schedules. We indicated
that if we determined that the
adjustment for BN was greater than 2
percent of spending for the chiropractor
fee schedule codes, we would
implement the adjustment over a 2-year
period. However, if the adjustment was
less than 2 percent of spending under
the chiropractor fee schedule codes, we
would implement the adjustment over a
1-year period.
2. Analysis of Demonstration
Brandeis University, the
demonstration evaluator, used two
approaches in examining BN. The ‘‘All
Neuromusculoskeletal Analysis (NMS)’’
reflects an intent-to-treat approach
whereby the utilization of all
beneficiaries who received any
Medicare covered services for
neuromusculoskeletal conditions in the
demonstration areas was examined.
This method is potentially subject to
large external forces because of its
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inclusion of all beneficiaries including
those who did not use chiropractic
services and who would not become
users of chiropractic services, even with
expanded coverage for them. Therefore,
a second analysis, termed the
‘‘Chiropractic User Analysis’’ was
conducted to examine only the subset of
beneficiaries who used chiropractic
services for the treatment of their
neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Both
approaches use hierarchical linear
modeling of costs over 3 years—1 year
prior to the demonstration and the 2
years of the demonstration. We posted
a report describing these analyses on
CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/reports/downloads/
MMA651_BudgetNeutrality.pdf.
The results of both analyses indicate
that the demonstration was not budget
neutral. In the ‘‘All NMS Analysis,’’
which compared the Medicare costs
associated with NMS conditions for all
beneficiaries in the demonstration areas
with those of beneficiaries with similar
characteristics from similar geographic
areas that did not participate in the
demonstration, the total effect of the
demonstration to Medicare was $114
million. In the ‘‘Chiropractic User
Analysis,’’ which compared the
Medicare costs associated with NMS
conditions for beneficiaries who used
expanded chiropractic services in the
demonstration areas, with those of
beneficiaries with similar characteristics
who used chiropractic services as
currently covered by Medicare to treat a
neuromusculoskeletal condition from
similar geographic areas that did not
participate in the demonstration, the
total effect of the demonstration to
Medicare was $50 million.
Both approaches to assessing BN have
strengths and limitations. The ‘‘All NMS
Analysis’’ provides the broadest view of
the Medicare population that would
have been eligible for the
demonstration’s expanded coverage of
chiropractic services. Its inclusion of all
beneficiaries with neuromusculoskeletal
conditions guards against validity
threats of selection. However, this
approach creates a large heterogeneous
group which may only include a small
proportion of chiropractic service users.
Basing estimates of BN on such a large
heterogeneous group increases the
potential for changes in the use of
services seldom affected by
chiropractors to be falsely attributed to
the demonstration, which could result
in the costs of the demonstration to
appear larger than actual.
Consistent with the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33520, 33639
through 33640), for this final rule with
comment period, we continue to believe
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
that the BN estimate should be based on
the ‘‘Chiropractic User Analysis’’
because of its focus on users of
chiropractic services rather than all
Medicare beneficiaries with
neuromusculoskeletal conditions,
including those who did not use
chiropractic services and who would
not have become users of chiropractic
services even with expanded coverage
for them. Users of chiropractic services
are most likely to have been affected by
the expanded coverage provided by this
demonstration. Cost increases and
offsets, such as reductions in
hospitalizations or other types of
ambulatory care, are more likely to be
observed in this group. Therefore, as
proposed, we are adjusting the Medicare
PFS for all chiropractors using the
estimate provided in the ‘‘Chiropractic
User Analysis.’’
The CMS Office of the Actuary
(OACT) estimates chiropractic
expenditures in CY 2010 to be
approximately $487 million based on
actual Medicare spending for
chiropractic services for the most recent
available year. Because the costs of this
demonstration were higher than
expected and we did not anticipate a
reduction to the PFS of greater than 2
percent per year, we are finalizing our
proposal (74 FR 33639 through 33640)
to recoup the $50 million in
expenditures from this demonstration
over a 5-year period rather than over a
2-year period. As proposed, we are
recouping $10 million each year
through adjustments to the PFS for
chiropractic codes in calendar years
2010 through 2014. This approach
reflects a change from our BN
discussion in the CY 2006, 2007, and
2008 PFS rules, which was described
previously in this section. In those
rules, we had proposed that if the
adjustment for BN was greater than 2
percent of spending for the chiropractor
fee schedule codes, the adjustment
would be implemented over a 2-year
period. Under this final rule, we are
recouping costs by reducing payment
under the PFS for chiropractic fee codes
by $10 million each year starting CY
2010 through CY 2014. We note that in
the proposed rule, we proposed a 2
percent reduction in the chiropractic fee
codes in order to achieve the $10
million yearly recoupment. We note that
2 percent was an approximation.
Because of rounding, the $10 million
recoupment in each of CYs 2010
through 2014 will amount to
approximately a 2 percent reduction
since the reduction in the chiropractic
fee codes may be slightly higher or
lower than 2 percent, depending on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
OACT’s estimate of chiropractic
expenditures for that calendar year. In
order to reflect this fact, we are refining
the language in this final rule to indicate
that the chiropractic fee codes will be
reduced by approximately 2 percent for
CYs 2010 through 2014. Additionally,
we believe that spreading this
adjustment over a longer period of time
will minimize its potential negative
impact on chiropractic practices.
3. Payment Adjustment
To implement the required BN
adjustment, as was proposed (74 FR
33640), we are reducing the payment
amount under the PFS for the
chiropractic CPT codes (that is, CPT
codes 98940, 98941, and 98942). As
explained previously, we are finalizing
our plans to recoup $10 million each
year through adjustments to chiropractic
CPT codes for calendar years 2010
through 2014. In order to achieve the
$10 million recoupment during such
years, payment under the PFS for these
codes will be reduced by approximately
2 percent. As stated in prior PFS rules,
application of the BN adjustment would
be specific to these three codes which
represent the ‘‘chiropractic fee
schedule’’ because they are the only
chiropractic codes recognized under the
PFS. This methodology also
appropriately impacts the chiropractic
profession that is directly affected by
the demonstration. Consistent with the
proposed rule, for this final rule with
comment period, we are reflecting this
reduction only in the payment files used
by the Medicare contractors to process
Medicare claims rather than through
adjusting the RVUs. Avoiding an
adjustment to the RVUs would preserve
the integrity of the PFS, particularly
since many private payers also base
payment on the RVUs. The RVUs
published in Addendum B and posted
on our Web site will not show this
reduction but will be annotated to state
that the reduction resulting from the
chiropractic demonstration is not
reflected in the RVUs.
We received the following comments
regarding the methodology used to
evaluate BN in the chiropractic services
demonstration.
Comment: Instead of the application
of an adjustment to the national
chiropractor fee schedule, the
commenter believes the Congressional
intent was for CMS to make an
adjustment to the totality of services
payable under the Part B Trust Fund
because of the language in section
651(f)(A) of the MMA, which directs the
Secretary to ‘‘provide for the transfer
from the Federal Supplementary
Insurance Trust Fund * * * of such
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61927
funds as are necessary for the costs of
carrying out the demonstration projects
under this section.’’
Response: We disagree that the intent
of section 651 of the MMA requires the
application of a BN adjustment to the
totality of services payable under the
Part B Trust Fund. Specifically, section
651(f)(1)(B) of the MMA requires the
Secretary to ‘‘ensure that the aggregate
payments made by the Secretary under
the medicare program do not exceed the
amount which the Secretary would have
paid under the medicare program if the
demonstration projects under this
section were not implemented.’’ This
statutory provision does not specify a
particular methodology for ensuring BN,
but leaves that decision to the Secretary.
Additionally, section 651(f)(1)(A) of the
MMA, in pertinent part, provides that
‘‘the Secretary shall provide for the
transfer from the Federal
Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund
* * * of such funds as are necessary for
the costs of carrying out the
demonstration projects under this
section.’’ This provision merely
indicates that payment for the
demonstration is to be made from Part
B Trust Fund dollars. Section
651(f)(1)(A) of the MMA does not
specify in any manner the methodology
by which the Secretary is to ensure BN.
Consequently, we do not believe it is a
mandate requiring the application of an
adjustment to the totality of services
payable under the Part B Trust Fund.
Comment: The commenter states that
more information is necessary to fully
understand the findings provided by the
evaluator, Brandeis University. The
commenter noted that the increase in
costs from the demonstration was
completely due to the Illinois site, and
not the other sites, and that it is
‘‘premature to use demonstration
findings to estimate the cost of a
national roll out * * * without further
investigation of why the Chicago area is
such an outlier.’’ The commenter also
asks how the increase in costs for all
neuromusculoskeletal conditions could
be causally related to the demonstration
project.
Response: Regardless of the
differences in the demonstration areas,
the evaluation conducted by Brandeis
University found that expanding
coverage for chiropractic services under
the demonstration resulted in increased
Medicare expenditures, and the
Secretary must recoup these costs in
order to meet the BN requirement of the
law. The decision to recoup funds is
related to the results of the
demonstration and the requirement in
the law and not to the discussion in the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61928
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
evaluation report of the costs of a
national expansion of coverage.
With respect to the comment
questioning how the increase in costs
for all NMS conditions could be
causally related to the demonstration,
we are unsure of what the commenter is
asking. If the commenter is asking if
Medicare costs associated with all
neuromusculoskeletal conditions were
used in the evaluation, the response is
no, only costs for specific NMS
diagnoses that can be treated by
chiropractors were included in the
evaluation. If the commenter is asking
for the rationale for the ‘‘All NMS’’
analysis, the response is that this
analysis provides a broader view of all
of the beneficiaries who would have
been eligible for the expanded coverage
under the demonstration. This analysis
includes beneficiaries with the
appropriate neuromusculoskeletal
conditions who could have been treated
by either a chiropractic physician or
other medical physician. The intent-totreat approach of the ‘‘All NMS’’
analysis guards against selection threats
to validity. As mentioned previously in
this section, we did not base the BN
estimate on the ‘‘All NMS’’ analysis
because it included Medicare
beneficiaries who did not use
chiropractic services and who would
not have become users of chiropractic
services even with expanded coverage
for them.
K. Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities (CORF) and
Rehabilitation Agency Issues
A Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facility (CORF) is a
Medicare provider that furnishes
respiratory therapy services among
other services. In § 485.70, we set forth
the personnel qualifications that must
be satisfied by a CORF as a condition of
participation under § 485.58 and as a
condition of coverage of CORF services,
including personnel qualifications for
respiratory therapists providing CORF
respiratory therapy services.
In the CY 2009 PFS proposed rule (73
FR 38502) and subsequent final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69942), we
revised the definition of a respiratory
therapist under § 485.70(j). The change
in the definition of respiratory therapist
was intended to ensure accuracy in
reference to persons who are qualified
to perform respiratory therapy and to
ensure that language regarding these
professionals is consistent with current
industry requirements for education,
training, and practice.
Prior to its modification by the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period, § 485.70(j) reflected the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
qualifications for Certified Respiratory
Therapists (CRTs)’’ and ‘‘Registered
Respiratory Therapists (RRTs)’’ as terms
commonly used by the professional
industry to identify persons furnishing
respiratory therapy services.
Since publication of the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment, we have been
informed by the industry that the
changes made in the definition of
respiratory therapist exclude a category
of professional that has completed the
requirements of a CRT, has completed a
nationally accredited educational
program that confers eligibility for the
National Board for Respiratory Care
(NBRC) registry exam for respiratory
therapists (RTs), and is eligible to sit for
the national registry examination
administered by the NBRC, but has not
yet passed the examination. These
persons are referred to in the industry
as CRTs.
Because it is our policy that Medicare
payment is available for respiratory
services provided to Medicare
beneficiaries in a CORF only if provided
by a respiratory therapist meeting the
qualifications set forth in § 485.70(j),
payment is not available for respiratory
services provided by CRTs in the CORF
setting. We note that personnel
qualifications for respiratory therapists
previously set forth at § 485.70(j) prior
to its modification by the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period did not
exclude this category of personnel from
the definition of respiratory therapist.
We have also heard from CRTs and from
CORFs that this change has limited the
availability of respiratory therapy
services to Medicare beneficiaries in
certified CORFs, as many of these
services are provided by CRTs. Thus, in
modifying the definition of respiratory
therapist in the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period, we may have
inadvertently impacted access to
respiratory therapy services for some
Medicare beneficiaries.
Thus, we proposed to modify the
definition of respiratory therapist and to
clarify the terms that are used to
identify those persons who furnish
respiratory services in CORFs in
§ 485.70(j) to include CRTs, that is those
individuals who have completed a
nationally accredited educational
program for respiratory therapists and
are eligible to sit for the national registry
examination administered by the
National Board for Respiratory Care
(NBRC), but who have not yet passed
the examination. The change in the
definition we proposed would permit
CRTs to furnish respiratory therapy
services to Medicare beneficiaries in the
CORF setting.
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
As proposed, our intent was to assure
that persons who were qualified to
furnish respiratory therapy services to
patients in CORFs prior to the
finalization of CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69942),
will continue to qualify to furnish RT
services to CORF patients under this
proposed rule.
We solicited public comment on the
proposed change to § 485.70(j). We also
solicited comments from the industry
regarding the difference in services
furnished by the different levels of
professionals who provide RT services
in CORFs.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
discussion of the proposed changes to
§ 485.70(j).
Comment: Commenters expressed
strong support for the regulatory
changes that we proposed, specifically
the clarification of the professional
qualifications for respiratory therapists
(RTs) in the CORFs setting.
Response: We appreciate support for
this regulatory change as we believe it
is in the best interest of Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries. As a result of
the comments, we are finalizing these
regulatory requirements as proposed.
L. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Technical
Correction to the Rural Adjustment
Factor Regulations (§ 414.610)
Section 1834(l)(9) of the Act provides
that for ‘‘ground ambulance services
furnished on or after July 1, 2001, and
before January 1, 2004, for which
transportation originates in a rural area
* * * or in a rural census tract of a
metropolitan statistical area * * * the
fee schedule established under this
subsection shall provide that, with
respect to the payment rate for mileage
for a trip above 17 miles, and up to 50
miles, the rate otherwise established
shall be increased by not less than 1⁄2 of
the additional payment per mile
established for the first 17 miles of such
a trip originating in a rural area.’’ Thus,
the statute authorized a rural mileage
bonus for miles 18 through 50 for
ground ambulance services furnished on
or after July 1, 2001 and prior to January
1, 2004. This provision was
implemented in § 414.610(c)(5)(i), but
the regulation text does not currently
specify the statutory time period during
which this rural mileage bonus was
effective. In the ‘‘Medicare Program;
Coverage and Payment of Ambulance
Services; Inflation Update for CY 2004’’
final rule with comment period (68 FR
67960, 67961), we acknowledged that
we inadvertently omitted from the
regulation text the time period during
which this statutory adjustment was
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
applicable, and stated we were ‘‘revising
§ 414.610(c) to reflect that this bonus
payment applies only for services
furnished during the statutory period.’’
Thus, in the ‘‘Medicare Program;
Coverage and Payment of Ambulance
Services; Inflation Update for CY 2004’’
final rule with comment period, we
revised the regulation to include the
time period during which the
adjustment is applicable (68 FR 67963).
However, the revised language
specifying the statutory time period was
dropped inadvertently from the
regulation text when § 414.610(c)(5) was
later republished in the ‘‘Medicare
Program; Medicare Ambulance MMA
Temporary Rate Increases Beginning
July 1, 2004’’ interim final rule (69 FR
40288, 40292).
In this final rule with comment
period, we are finalizing our proposal to
reinstate the language that was
originally finalized in ‘‘Medicare
Program; Coverage and Payment of
Ambulance Services; Inflation Update
for CY 2004’’ final rule with comment
period (68 FR 67963), but then
inadvertently omitted again when
§ 414.610(c)(5) was later republished, so
that § 414.610(c)(5)(i) correctly sets forth
the statutory time period during which
this rural mileage bonus was applicable.
This revision to the regulation is a
technical correction to conform the
regulation to the statute. For further
information, see program instruction,
Transmittal AB–03–110; Date August 1,
2003; Change Request 2767 which was
issued to inform contractors to
discontinue paying such bonuses
effective January 1, 2004 in accordance
with the statute.
M. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule:
Signature on Requisition
In the March 10, 2000 Federal
Register, we published the ‘‘Medicare
Program; Negotiated Rulemaking:
Coverage and Administrative Policies
for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory
Services’’ proposed rule (65 FR 13082)
announcing and soliciting comments on
the results of our negotiated rulemaking
committee tasked to establish national
coverage and administrative policies for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests
under Part B of Medicare. In our final
rule published in the November 23,
2001 Federal Register (66 FR 58788), we
explained our policy on ordering
clinical diagnostic laboratory services
and amended § 410.32 to make our
policy more explicit. Our regulation at
§ 410.32(a) included the requirement
that ‘‘[a]ll diagnostic x-ray tests,
diagnostic laboratory tests, and other
diagnostic tests must be ordered by the
physician who is treating the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
beneficiary.’’ In the November 23, 2001
final rule, we added paragraph (d)(2) to
§ 410.32 to require that the physician or
qualified nonphysician practitioner
(NPP) (that is, clinical nurse specialists,
clinical psychologists, clinical social
workers, nurse-midwives, nurse
practitioners (NPs), and physician
assistants (PAs)) who orders the service
must maintain documentation of
medical necessity in the beneficiary’s
medical record (66 FR 58809). In the
preamble discussions to the March 10,
2000 proposed rule and November 23,
2001 final rule (65 FR 13089 and 66 FR
58802, respectively), we noted that
‘‘[w]hile the signature of a physician on
a requisition is one way of documenting
that the treating physician ordered the
test, it is not the only permissible way
of documenting that the test has been
ordered.’’ In those preambles, we
described the policy of not requiring
physician signatures on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, but
implicitly left in place the existing
requirements for a written order to be
signed by the ordering physician or NPP
for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests,
as well as other types of diagnostic tests.
We further stated in the preambles of
the proposed and final rules that we
would publish an instruction to
Medicare contractors clarifying that the
signature of the ordering physician is
not required for Medicare purposes on
a requisition for a clinical diagnostic
laboratory test (65 FR 13089 and 66 FR
58802).
On March 5, 2002, we published a
program transmittal implementing the
administrative policies set forth in the
final rule, including the following
instruction: ‘‘Medicare does not require
the signature of the ordering physician
on a laboratory service requisition.
While the signature of a physician on a
requisition is one way of documenting
that the treating physician ordered the
service, it is not the only permissible
way of documenting that the service has
been ordered. For example, the
physician may document the ordering of
specific services in the patient’s medical
record.’’ (Transmittal AB–02–030,
Change Request 1998, dated March 5,
2002).
On January 24, 2003, we published a
program transmittal in order to
manualize the March 5, 2002
Transmittal. (Transmittal 1787, Change
Request 2410, dated January 24, 2003).
The cover note to the transmittal states,
‘‘Section 15021, Ordering Diagnostic
Tests, manualizes Transmittal AB–02–
030, dated March 5, 2002. In accordance
with negotiated rulemaking for
outpatient clinical diagnostic laboratory
services, no signature is required for the
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61929
ordering of such services or for
physician pathology services.’’ In the
manual instructions in that transmittal
in a note, we stated: ‘‘No signature is
required on orders for clinical
diagnostic services paid on the basis of
the physician fee schedule or for
physician pathology services.’’ The
manual instructions did not explicitly
reference clinical diagnostic laboratory
tests as the cover note did. Rather, the
transmittal seemed to extend the policy
set forth in the Federal Register (that no
signature is required on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule) to also apply to clinical
diagnostic tests paid on the basis of the
PFS and physician pathology services.
In addition, the manual instructions
used the term ‘‘order’’ instead of
‘‘requisition,’’ which some members of
the industry have asserted caused
confusion.
When we transitioned from paper
manuals to the current electronic
Internet Only Manual system, these
manual instructions were inadvertently
omitted from the new Benefit Policy
Manual (BPM).
In August 2008, we issued a program
transmittal (Transmittal 94, Change
Request 6100, dated August 29, 2008) to
update the BPM to incorporate language
that was previously contained in section
15021 of the Medicare Carriers Manual.
The reissued language states, ‘‘No
signature is required on orders for
clinical diagnostic tests paid on the
basis of the clinical laboratory fee
schedule, the physician fee schedule, or
for physician pathology services.’’ Based
on further review, we have determined
that there are no clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid under the PFS.
After Transmittal 94 was published, we
received numerous inquiries from
laboratory, diagnostic testing, and
hospital representatives who had
questions about whether the provision
applied to all diagnostic services,
including x-rays, MRIs, and other
nonclinical laboratory fee schedule
diagnostic services.
To resolve any existing confusion
surrounding the implementation of the
policy in 2001 and subsequent
transmittals, we restated and solicited
public comments on our policy in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33641). Our current policy is that a
physician’s signature is not required on
a requisition for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid on the basis of the
Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
(CLFS); however, it must be evident, in
accordance with our regulations at
§ 410.32(d)(2) and (3), that the physician
ordered the services. The policy that
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
signatures are not required on
requisitions applies to requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the CLFS.
We note that we solicited and
received comments on this signature
requirement during the notice and
comment period for the March 10, 2000
proposed rule in the context of our
proposal to add paragraph (d)(2)(i) to
§ 410.32 to require that the practitioner
who orders a diagnostic laboratory test
must maintain documentation of
medical necessity in the beneficiary’s
medical record. The majority of
comments supported the adoption of a
policy that the signature of the
practitioner on a requisition for a
clinical diagnostic laboratory test paid
under the CLFS is not the only way of
documenting that the test has been
ordered and, thus, should not be
required provided such documentation
exists in an alternate form.
This policy regarding requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests does
not supersede other applicable Medicare
requirements (such as those related to
hospital Conditions of Participation
(CoPs)) which require the medical
record to include an order signed by the
physician who is treating the
beneficiary. Nor do we believe that
anything in our policy regarding
signatures on requisitions for clinical
diagnostic lab tests supersedes other
requirements mandated by professional
standards of practice or obligations
regarding orders and medical records
promulgated by Medicare, the Joint
Commission, or State law; nor do we
believe the policy would require
providers to change their business
practices.
We also restated and solicited public
comment on our long-standing policy
consistent with the principle in
§ 410.32(a) that a written order for
diagnostic tests including those paid
under the CLFS and those that are not
paid under the CLFS (for example, that
are paid under the PFS or under the
OPPS), such as X-rays, MRIs, and the TC
of physician pathology services, must be
signed by the ordering physician or
NPP. That is, the policy that signatures
are not required on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
based on the CLFS applies only to
requisitions (as opposed to written
orders) (74 FR 33642).
Additionally, we solicited public
comments about the distinction between
an order and a requisition (74 FR
33642). We note that an ‘‘order’’ as
defined in our IOM, 100–02, Chapter 15,
Section 80.6.1, is a communication from
the treating physician/practitioner
requesting that a diagnostic test be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
performed for a beneficiary. The order
may conditionally request an additional
diagnostic test for a particular
beneficiary if the result of the initial
diagnostic test ordered yields to a
certain value determined by the treating
physician/practitioner (for example, if
test X is negative, then perform test Y).
An order may be delivered via the
following forms of communication:
• A written document signed by the
treating physician/practitioner, which is
hand-delivered, mailed, or faxed to the
testing facility.
• A telephone call by the treating
physician/practitioner or his or her
office to the testing facility; or
• An electronic mail, or other
electronic means, by the treating
physician/practitioner or his or her
office to the testing facility.
If the order is communicated via
telephone, both the treating physician/
practitioner, or his or her office, and the
testing facility must document the
telephone call in their respective copies
of the beneficiary’s medical records.
In the proposed rule (74 FR 33642),
we defined a ‘‘requisition’’ as the actual
paperwork, such as a form, which is
provided to a clinical diagnostic
laboratory that identifies the test or tests
to be performed for a patient. It may
contain patient information, ordering
physician information, referring
institution information, information
about where to send reports, billing
information, specimen information,
shipping addresses for specimens or
tissue samples, and checkboxes for test
selection. We believe it is ministerial in
nature, assisting labs with billing and
handling of results, and serves as an
administrative convenience to providers
and patients. We believe that a written
order, which may be part of the medical
record, and the requisition are two
different documents, although a
requisition that is signed may serve as
an order. We welcomed comments from
the public about the distinction between
requisitions and orders.
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
discussion of the physician signature on
requisitions issue.
Comment: We received several
comments concerning the fact that a
diagnostic test, such as an x-ray,
continues to require the signature of the
ordering physician or NPP on the
written order whether or not the
diagnostic test is paid under the CLFS.
Response: We are appreciative that
the general public recognized a clear
distinction in the proposed rule
between clinical diagnostic laboratory
tests paid under the CLFS and
diagnostic tests that may also be paid
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under the PFS or OPPS. The discussion
in the proposed and final rules this year
concerns our current policy that a
physician’s signature is not required on
a requisition for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid on the basis of the
CLFS. This policy was the result of
Negotiated Rulemaking and was
outlined in proposed and final rules
published during 2000 and 2001,
respectively (65 FR 13089 and 66 FR
58790, 58801, and 58802). This policy
does not include diagnostic tests such as
x-rays.
Comment: One commenter was
supportive of both policies on which we
solicited comments. Specifically, this
commenter supported our policy that a
written order for diagnostic tests
(including those paid under the CLFS
and those that are not paid under the
CLFS) must be signed by the ordering
physician or NPP. The commenter
further stated that the request for a
diagnostic test represents part of the
physician’s plan for the patient, which
is part of the patient’s medical record.
As such, when the request is in writing,
a physician signature would be
appropriate and likely easily generated.
The commenter also supported our
policy that a physician’s signature is not
required on a requisition for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid on the
basis of the CLFS. The commenter
stated that, to the extent a requisition is
simply a paper mechanism for
transmitting an order and more
administrative in nature, it is less likely
to be generated or handled by the
physician. Thus, to require a physician’s
signature on a requisition for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid on the
basis of the CLFS would be an added
and unnecessary burden on physicians.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of our policies and
the commenter’s input on these issues.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that we should not require a
physician’s signature on a medical
request, whether that request be an
order or a requisition, for any type of
test, paid under the CLFS or not, within
or outside the hospital setting.
Response: To do as commenters
suggest would be a departure from longstanding Medicare policy requiring the
physician’s signature on written orders
in other settings. This procedure serves
to document that the physician or NPP
ordered the test and documented the
medical necessity of the test. The
exception of not requiring a physician’s
signature on the requisition for a
clinical diagnostic laboratory test paid
under the CLFS only is very narrow and
does not include other types of tests
paid in other types of settings.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Several commenters raised
concerns about issues relating to
electronic medical records. Specifically,
commenters were concerned whether or
not an electronic signature would be
acceptable and had questions about
what constitutes a medical record in a
paperless environment. One commenter
stated that, generally, electronic systems
that are used to request laboratory
testing can be used by physicians with
authorized access only and that as a
result, a physician’s signature should
not be expected or required.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns about these
issues. CMS is in the process of
developing guidelines concerning
electronic records and electronic
signatures for use in CMS programs.
These guidelines will be finalized at a
later date. The general public will be
kept apprised of our progress on this
issue through future official issuances.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to establish a ‘‘rule of reason’’ with
regard to what is required to be in the
medical record, while two other
commenters provided detailed
suggestions on how to improve our
manual language in this regard. These
commenters were concerned about the
fact that physicians sometimes make
shorthand notes or indicate that there
was an office visit only without further
details in the medical record concerning
the specific laboratory tests that are
ordered.
Response: We believe that, whenever
a physician orders services, including
laboratory tests, for a patient in order to
assist in diagnosing or treating the
patient’s conditions, the ordering of
those services should be documented in
the patient’s medical record.
Nonetheless, we do appreciate the
commenters’ concerns about the scope
of the medical record and efforts to
make detailed suggestions about how to
improve the direction provided in our
manuals. We will carefully consider
these issues and if we decide that
further clarification is warranted, will
issue such clarification.
Comment: Several commenters were
concerned that, while documentation to
support an unsigned requisition would
be required to be maintained in the
medical record, employees at the
clinical diagnostic laboratory do not
have access to the medical record to
verify whether or not this
documentation exists. Commenters
stated that, once a laboratory receives an
order or requisition, it is obligated to
perform the test as quickly as possible
because it is in the best interest of the
Medicare beneficiary, regardless of
whether or not a physician signature is
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
present. Commenters also raised the
issue of fragility of the specimen and
that it is essential to complete testing as
soon as possible before the specimen
begins to degrade. Commenters were
concerned about being obligated to
ensure that orders maintained in the
physician’s office were signed prior to
being able to perform the test in the
laboratory. The commenters do not
believe that this obligation is fair to
them or the Medicare patient as access
to essential information could be
delayed or compromised. Conversely,
another commenter recommended that,
in addition to the affirmation by the
physician in the medical record that the
laboratory test had been ordered, the
laboratory should be required to close
the loop and provide documentation
that the test had been performed for
inclusion in the medical record as well.
Response: We recognize that, without
the physician’s signature on the
requisition, some clinical diagnostic
laboratories believe it is burdensome to
verify that the request for services is
valid. However, our regulations at
§ 410.32(d)(2)(iii) provide the entity
submitting the claim (that is, the clinical
diagnostic laboratory) with the option to
request additional diagnostic and other
medical information to document that
the services it bills are reasonable and
necessary.
Comment: Several commenters
believe that the signature issue is
burdensome because multiple physician
services can be requested on the same
form, and, in such cases, one service
might require the physician’s signature
while another might not. For example,
it is possible that both the Technical
Component (TC) of physician pathology
services and clinical laboratory services
may appear on the same requisition and
that it would be confusing to have one
set of requirements for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests and a
different set of requirements for
physician pathology services.
Physicians may not know whether a
particular laboratory or pathology test is
paid under the CLFS or the PFS. The
commenters suggested that we further
clarify our policy to address this
particular issue. We received a number
of comments specifically requesting that
we develop a single policy for all
outpatient laboratory services, without
distinction for those paid under the
CLFS or the PFS.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns. We will examine
options for creating a fair and consistent
policy regarding signatures that will
address situational needs.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that we needed to draw a clearer
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61931
distinction between a requisition and an
order, as they did not understand the
difference between them. Commenters
also suggested that, as medical records
move to an electronic format, this
distinction becomes more difficult to
describe.
Response: We agree with the
commenters’ interest in having clear
and concise distinctions between
‘‘requisition’’ and ‘‘order’’ especially as
we move toward electronic means of
record keeping and communication. We
asked for comments about how to define
a requisition, and we did receive some
helpful suggestions. At this time, we are
not addressing the specific comments
on the distinction between orders and
requisitions. We will continue to
develop clearer direction on this issue,
taking into consideration the
suggestions submitted by commenters.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that physicians are signing
stacks of laboratory requisition forms in
advance of their use, or using a presigned hand stamp to make a requisition
form official. The commenter stated that
we did not draw a distinction between
requisitions signed in advance and
requisitions signed at the point of
service for a specific purpose in the
presence of the patient.
Response: We appreciate that the
commenter brought these real world
procedures to our attention. We will
review this issue and consider it in the
future as we consider all the issues that
were brought to our attention through
the proposed rulemaking effort this
year.
Comment: We received several
comments concerning the date of
service (DOS) rule in reference to
performing clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests on stored specimens
which were collected from the patient
during the time that he/she was an
inpatient at a hospital.
Response: We thank the commenters
for their concerns on this issue.
However, since we have not proposed
any changes to the DOS rule at this
time, we will not be addressing this
comment in this final rule as these
comments are outside the scope of our
proposals for CY 2010.
In light of the issues and concerns
raised during the comment period, and
our desire to create policy that will
address the concerns in a meaningful,
clear, and thoughtful way, we will
continue to carefully consider the issues
of physician signatures on requisitions
and orders. We plan to revisit these
issues in the future paying particular
attention to the definition of order and
requisition.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61932
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
N. Physician Self-Referral
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. General Background
Section 1877 of the Act, also known
as the physician self-referral law,
prohibits the following: (1) a physician
from making referrals for certain
designated health services (‘‘DHS’’)
payable by Medicare to an entity with
which he or she (or an immediate family
member) has a direct or indirect
financial relationship (an ownership/
investment interest or a compensation
arrangement), unless an exception
applies; and (2) the entity from
presenting or causing a claim to be
presented to Medicare (or billing
another individual, entity, or third party
payor) for those referred services. The
statute establishes a number of
exceptions and grants the Secretary the
authority to create regulatory exceptions
for financial relationships that pose no
risk of program or patient abuse.
In the proposed rule, we proposed to
clarify § 411.354(c)(3)(i) regarding the
application of certain exceptions to
arrangements in which a physician
stands in the shoes of his or her
physician organization. In section II.N.2.
of this final rule with comment period,
we respond to public comments on this
proposal and finalize it without change.
In the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR
48721), we revised the definition of
‘‘entity’’ to include any person or entity
that has ‘‘performed services that are
billed as DHS.’’ In section II.N.3 of this
final rule with comment period, we
solicit comments regarding whether we
should issue further guidance on what
constitutes performing services billed as
DHS and if so, the nature or content of
such guidance.
2. Physician Stand in the Shoes
Determining whether an entity
furnishing DHS and a physician have a
direct or indirect compensation
arrangement is a key step in applying
the statute because it affects which
compensation exceptions may apply to
the arrangement. Section 411.354(c)
governs when a physician ‘‘stands in the
shoes’’ of his or her physician
organization and may therefore,
depending on the circumstances, have a
direct, rather than an indirect,
compensation arrangement with an
entity furnishing DHS.
Our proposal (74 FR 33643) sought to
clarify one aspect of the physician stand
in the shoes provisions at § 411.354(c).
Specifically, we proposed to clarify the
second sentence of § 411.354(c)(3)(i) to
provide that, ‘‘[w]hen applying the
exceptions in § 411.355 and § 411.357 of
this part to arrangements in which a
physician stands in the shoes of his or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
her physician organization, the relevant
referrals and other business generated
‘between the parties’ are referrals and
other business generated between the
entity furnishing DHS and the physician
organization (including all members,
employees, and independent contractor
physicians).’’
Section 411.354(c)(3)(i) addresses the
application of the general exceptions to
the referral prohibition related to both
ownership/investment and
compensation (§ 411.355) and the
exceptions to the referral prohibition
related to compensation arrangements
(§ 411.357), to arrangements in which a
physician stands in the shoes of his or
her physician organization. Many of
these exceptions require the
arrangement to be in writing and signed
by the parties and prohibit the
compensation from taking into account
the volume or value of referrals or other
business generated by the referring
physician.
Under § 411.354(c)(3)(i), a physician
who stands in the shoes of his or her
physician organization is deemed to
have the same compensation
arrangements with the same parties and
on the same terms as the physician
organization. The second sentence of
§ 411.354(c)(3)(i) provides that ‘‘[f]or
purposes of applying the exceptions in
§ 411.355 and § 411.357 to arrangements
in which a physician stands in the shoes
of his or her physician organization, the
‘parties’ to the arrangements are
considered to be the entity furnishing
DHS and the physician organization
(including all members, employees, or
independent contractor physicians).’’
After the publication of Phase III,
some members of the industry
questioned whether the second sentence
of § 411.354(c)(3)(i) defined the term
‘‘parties’’ everywhere it appears in the
physician self-referral regulations,
including the requirement in many
exceptions that a compensation
arrangement be in writing and ‘‘signed
by the parties.’’ Consequently, these
members believed it was necessary for
everyone within a physician
organization (that is, all members,
employees, and independent contractor
physicians) to sign a myriad of different
arrangements with an entity furnishing
DHS. This was not our intent. In January
2008, we posted a frequently asked
question (FAQ) on our Web site to
explain that ‘‘we consider a physician
who is standing in the shoes of his or
her physician organization to have
signed the written agreement when the
authorized signatory of the physician
organization has signed the agreement.’’
After the FY 2009 IPPS final rule, under
which only physician owners are
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
deemed to stand in the shoes of their
physician organizations, some industry
representatives questioned whether
physicians who did not stand in the
shoes remained ‘‘parties’’ under
§ 411.354(c)(3)(i) and, would therefore,
need to become signatories to any
compensation arrangement that was
required to be in writing and ‘‘signed by
the parties.’’
We proposed to clarify the second
sentence of § 411.354(c)(3)(i) to provide
that, ‘‘[w]hen applying the exceptions in
§ 411.355 and § 411.357 of this part to
arrangements in which a physician
stands in the shoes of his or her
physician organization, the relevant
referrals and other business generated
‘between the parties’ are referrals and
other business generated between the
entity furnishing DHS and the physician
organization (including all members,
employees, and independent contractor
physicians).’’
Our proposed change clarifies that we
are not defining the term ‘‘parties’’ and
should eliminate any possible public
misconception that all physicians in a
physician organization (whether or not
they stand in the shoes of the physician
organization) must sign the writing(s)
memorializing a compensation
arrangement between their physician
organization and an entity furnishing
DHS. Furthermore, we note that some
members of the industry have
erroneously applied the second
sentence of § 411.354(c)(3)(i) by
analyzing whether the compensation
takes into account the referrals between
the entity furnishing DHS and the
physician who stands in the shoes of the
physician organization only, not the
referrals of all members, employees, and
independent contractor physicians in
the physician organization. The revised
regulation reiterates that the relevant
referrals and other business generated
between the physician organization and
the entity furnishing DHS are the
referrals of all physicians in the
physician organization (including all
members, employees, and independent
contractors), not simply the referrals
made by each physician who stands in
the shoes of the physician organization.
We solicited public comments
regarding our proposal and alternative
approaches to address this issue. We
received five public comments that
related to our proposal which supported
our proposal. After consideration of the
public comments received, we are
adopting our proposal unchanged. We
are revising the second sentence of
§ 411.354(c)(3)(i) to provide that,
‘‘[w]hen applying the exceptions in
§ 411.355 and § 411.357 of this part to
arrangements in which a physician
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
stands in the shoes of his or her
physician organization, the relevant
referrals and other business generated
‘between the parties’ are referrals and
other business generated between the
entity furnishing DHS and the physician
organization (including all members,
employees, and independent contractor
physicians).’’ We believe the finalized
language clarifies the regulation text and
is consistent with our intent to
minimize the potential for abuse
without imposing undue burden on the
provider community. We address below
the specific comments that we received
in response to our proposal in the CY
2010 proposed rule.
Comment: The commenters supported
the clarification to the physician stand
in the shoes provision. Several
commenters appreciated that we
clarified that not all physicians in a
physician organization must sign
documents memorializing a
compensation arrangement between
their organization and a DHS entity.
One commenter stated that it is
beneficial to consider a physician to
have signed the written agreement if the
agreement is signed by the
organization’s authorized signatory.
Response: The commenters’ responses
supported the approach we took in the
proposed rule. Thus, as stated above, we
are revising § 411.354(c)(3)(i) to state
that when applying the exceptions in
§ 411.355 and § 411.357 to arrangements
in which a physician stands in the shoes
of his or her physician organization, the
relevant referrals and other business
generated ‘‘between the parties’’ are
referrals and other business generated
between the entity furnishing DHS and
the physician organization (including
all members, employees, and
independent contractor physicians).
With regards to deeming a physician to
have signed the written agreement, our
revision of the regulation text to avoid
the appearance of defining the word
‘‘parties,’’ eliminates the need to
consider any particular physician to
have signed an agreement that he or she
did not actually sign.
3. Services Provided ‘‘Under
Arrangements’’ (Services Performed by
an Entity Other Than the Entity That
Submits the Claim): Solicitation of
Comments
Under section 1877(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, if a physician (or an immediate
family member) has a financial
relationship with an ‘‘entity,’’ it may not
make a referral to the entity for the
‘‘furnishing’’ of DHS, unless the
financial relationship meets an
exception. In the Phase I final rule, we
defined the term ‘‘entity’’ at § 411.351
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
and specified that ‘‘a person or entity is
considered to be furnishing DHS if it is
the person or entity to which [Medicare]
makes payment.’’ Thus, under the Phase
I rule, only the person or entity that
billed Medicare for the DHS was
considered the DHS ‘‘entity,’’ and not
the person or entity that actually
performed the DHS (where that person
or entity was not the person or entity
billing for it) (66 FR 953). In the CY
2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR 38186
through 38187, 38219, and 38224), we
expressed concern that the Phase I
definition of ‘‘entity’’ might permit
certain abusive agreements for services
provided under arrangements with
hospitals and other providers. Based
upon our concerns about
overutilization, corruption of medical
judgment and other abuse, we proposed
to revise the definition of ‘‘entity’’ at
§ 411.351 to include ‘‘the person or
entity that has performed the DHS’’.
In the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR
48434 and 48729), we stated our belief
that, in some instances, hospitals would
prefer to furnish services directly but
have been concerned about losing
referral streams if they compete with
physician service providers. Very few
comments submitted by hospitals
objected to our proposed revision to the
definition of entity, and, instead, two
major hospital associations were
generally supportive of it. Some
physician commenters asserted that
hospitals are risk averse to bringing
services to communities. We questioned
whether physicians are less risk averse
because they can control the referral
stream. We stated that hospitals may be
more concerned about risk because they
fear that referrals will go to their
competitors if they do not enter into
contractual arrangements with
physician groups. Finally, we stated that
‘‘our proposal as finalized will create a
more level playing field between
hospitals and physicians and also
among hospital competitors.’’
In that rule, we finalized the proposal
by amending the definition of entity at
§ 411.351 to specify that an entity
furnishing DHS includes the person or
entity that has presented a claim to
Medicare for the DHS as well as any
person or entity that has ‘‘performed
services that are billed as DHS,’’
notwithstanding that another person or
entity actually billed the services as
DHS.
Commenters to the proposed rule
expressed concern regarding the
potential ambiguity of the meaning of
‘‘performs.’’ We declined to provide a
specific definition of ‘‘performed
services that are billed as DHS,’’ but
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61933
stated the following in response to one
of the commenters:
By way of example only, we consider a
service to have been ‘‘performed’’ by a
physician or physician organization if the
physician or physician organization does the
medical work for the service and could bill
for the service, but the physician or
physician organization has contracted with
the hospital and the hospital bills for the
service instead * * *. We do not consider an
entity that leases or sells space or equipment
used for the performance of the service, or
furnishes supplies that are not separately
billable but used in the performance of the
medical service, or that provides
management, billing services, or personnel to
the entity performing the service, to perform
DHS. (73 FR 48726, emphasis added).
We delayed the effective date of the
amendment to the definition of ‘‘entity’’
until October 1, 2009, in order to afford
parties an adequate time to restructure
arrangements (73 FR 48723).
We assume that health care providers
have restructured their arrangements to
come into compliance with the new rule
by the October 1, 2009 effective date.
We have received numerous inquiries
regarding whether we plan to issue
additional guidance on the revised
definition of entity, including the
meaning of ‘‘performed services that are
billed as DHS.’’ We continue to believe
that the changes set forth in the FY 2009
IPPS final rule effectuated our intent to
minimize overutilization and anticompetitive behavior and, as such, we
decline to issue a specific proposal
concerning the definition of entity at
this time. In order to keep abreast of the
views of industry stakeholders, we are
soliciting comments to determine if
further guidance is necessary and, if so,
what clarification(s) may be beneficial
to the industry in interpreting and
applying the changes finalized in the FY
2009 IPPS final rule. Therefore, we are
interested in receiving comments on the
following:
• Whether we should define or clarify
‘‘performed services that are billed as
DHS,’’ and, if so, how.
• Whether ‘‘performed services that
are billed as DHS’’ should be analyzed
in the same manner for inpatient and
outpatient services provided under
arrangements.
• Whether performance of a service
billed as DHS should be determined
based on how many of the following
elements are provided: (1) Lease of
space used for performance of the
service; (2) lease of equipment used for
the performance of the service; (3)
supplies that are not separately billable
but used in the performance of the
service; (4) management services; (5)
billing services, and (6) nonphysician
services that are not separately billable.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61934
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
If so, whether certain of these elements
should be weighed more heavily than
others in determining whether DHS are
performed.
• Whether an interpretation of
‘‘medical work’’ was relied upon in
restructuring arrangements and, if so,
how.
• The degree to which the amount
and nature of services provided by
physician and nonphysician personnel
(for example, technicians) should
influence the determination of whether
a person or organization has performed
services billed as DHS.
• The degree to which the ability to
bill separately for the service should
influence the determination regarding
whether a person or organization has
‘‘performed services that are billed as
DHS.’’
• Whether there are other comments
or alternative approaches or criteria that
would address our policy concerns
about overutilization and other abuse
while minimizing the impact on
legitimate non-abusive arrangements.
We welcome any information
concerning how the industry interpreted
and applied the definition of entity and
how under arrangement agreements may
have been restructured in order to
comply with the new definition of
entity at § 411.351.
O. Durable Medical Equipment-Related
Issues
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Damages to Suppliers Awarded a
Contract Under the Acquisition of
Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program) Caused by the Delay
of the Program
Section 1847 of the Act, as amended
by section 302(b)(1) of the MMA,
requires the Secretary to establish and
implement a Medicare Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies Competitive Bidding Program
(DMEPOS CBP). On July 15, 2008, the
MIPPA was enacted. Section 154 of the
MIPPA amended section 1847 of the Act
to make certain limited changes to the
competitive bidding program, including
adding a new subsection (a)(1)(D) to
section 1847 of the Act. Section
1847(a)(1)(D) terminates retroactively
the competitive bidding contracts that
were awarded to suppliers in 2008 for
the Round 1 of competitive bidding and
prohibits payment based on such
contracts. Section 154 of the MIPPA
effectively reinstated payment for
competitively bid items and services to
the Medicare fee schedule amounts, as
set forth in section 1834 of the Act and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
42 CFR part 414, subpart D of our
regulations.
Section 1847(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the Act,
as amended by the MIPPA, stipulates
that to the extent any damages may be
applicable as a result of the termination
of contracts, payment is to be made from
the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund under section
1841 of the Act. Section 1847(a)(1)(D) of
the Act also states that nothing in
section 1847(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the Act,
which includes the reference to
damages, shall be construed to provide
an independent cause of action or right
to administrative or judicial review with
the regard to the termination of the
Round 1 contracts.
For further discussion of the
Competitive Bidding Program and the
bid evaluation process, see the Medicare
Program; Competitive Acquisition for
Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS) and Other Issues final rule
published in the April 10, 2007 Federal
Register (72 FR 17992) and the
Medicare Program; Changes to the
Competitive Acquisition of Certain
Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies
(DMEPOS) by Certain Provisions of the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) interim
final rule with comment period (IFC)
published on January 16, 2009 Federal
Register (74 FR 2873).
We proposed to add new § 414.425 to
establish a process to evaluate any
claims for damages caused by the
termination of contracts awarded in
early 2008 under the DMEPOS CBP that
were terminated as a result of section
154(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the MIPPA.
We offered contracts in March 2008 to
selected suppliers for the first round of
the DMEPOS CBP. The contracts that
were accepted were terminated by the
MIPPA retroactive to June 30, 2008. We
considered the terms of the contracts
and other processes of the DMEPOS
CBP as we developed this proposed
process to determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether to award damages and,
where applicable, the amount of
damages to be awarded for the
termination of these contracts.
When considering whether to submit
a claim for damages, suppliers may
consider the following factors:
• Each contract stipulated that the
contract is subject to any changes to the
statute or regulations that affect the
Medicare program.
• Each contract indicated CMS does
not guarantee any amount of business or
profits.
• Each contract stipulated that CMS
shall not pay for any expenses incurred
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by the supplier for the work performed
under the contract other than for
payment of Medicare claims authorized
under the contract.
• Upon termination of the contracts
by the MIPPA, payments reverted to the
CY 2008 fee schedule amount, which
was on average 26 percent higher than
payment amounts under the DMEPOS
CBP.
• We will review a supplier’s
estimated and historic capacity and any
expansion plans that were submitted as
part of a supplier’s bid.
• We will review a supplier’s action
to meet its obligation to mitigate its
damages.
• We listed the winning suppliers on
the Medicare.gov Web site in the
supplier locator tool; a supplier is
allowed to keep any new customers they
may have obtained because of being
listed on the supplier locator tool.
• This list is not intended to suggest
that there are not legitimate claims for
damages. However, these are factors that
a supplier may consider when deciding
whether to submit a claim for damages.
The proposed provisions outline the
information that suppliers would need
to provide when submitting claims for
damages and the process that we would
follow to review these claims. The
information we proposed to collect from
suppliers is necessary for us to make a
reasonable decision on whether
damages are warranted and how much
in damages should be awarded. We
believe that the process is not overly
burdensome to those suppliers choosing
to participate in this review process and
would ensure a thorough review of a
supplier’s claim for damages.
We proposed the following process to
file a claim for damage claims:
a. Eligibility To File a Claim
Any aggrieved supplier that was
awarded a contract in March 2008 for
the Round 1 DMEPOS CBP and believes
it has suffered damages is eligible to
submit a claim. The supplier must be
able to demonstrate how its company
was damaged. These damages must be
substantiated and be as a direct result of
the termination by MIPPA of their
Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract. Only a
contract supplier, and not a
subcontractor of a contract supplier, is
eligible to submit a claim for damages.
Comment: One commenter stated that
although CMS has no direct obligation
to subcontractors, CMS should allow
contract suppliers to include in their
claims the damages incurred by their
subcontractors.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s statement that we should
consider the damages incurred by
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
subcontractors because the contract is
between CMS and the contract supplier.
We believe the extent of our obligation
should only consider damages realized
by the contract supplier. However,
should a contract supplier realize
damages due to their arrangement with
a subcontractor those damages may be
included if they are directly attributable
to the Round 1 terminations. We do not
believe that the language of MIPPA
extends beyond the original contract
arrangements between CMS and
contract suppliers, as required by the
MMA.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are not
making any changes to the proposed
process for awarding damages for
contracts terminated under the MIPPA.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
b. Timeframes for Filing a Claim
A completed claim, including all
documentation described below in
section II.O.1.c., must be filed within 90
days of January 1, 2010, which is the
effective date of these damages
provisions, unless the 90th day is a
weekend or Federal holiday. In that
case, the last date to file a claim will be
the day following the weekend or
Federal holiday. The date of filing is the
actual date of receipt by the Competitive
Bidding Implementation Contractor
(CBIC) of a completed claim from the
supplier that includes all of the
information required by this rule. We
strongly urge claimants to use a tracking
method such as with the United States
Postal Service or a carrier that requires
a return receipt that indicates the date
on which the claim was delivered.
We did not receive any comments on
this section of the proposed process for
awarding damages for contracts
terminated under the MIPPA. Therefore,
we are finalizing these provisions as
proposed with a minor change by
adding the effective date of these
damages provisions.
c. Information That Must Be Included in
a Claim
At a minimum, a claim should
include all of the following:
• Supplier’s name and bidding
number.
• Supplier’s current contact
information (Name of authorized
official, U.S. Post Office mailing
address, phone number and e-mail
address).
• A copy of the DMEPOS CBP Round
1 contract(s) the supplier signed with
CMS.
• A detailed explanation of the
damages incurred by the supplier. The
explanation must document the
supplier’s damages through receipts and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
records that establish the claimant’s
damages directly related to meeting the
terms of the DMEPOS CBP Round 1
contract.
• The supplier must also explain how
it would be damaged if not reimbursed.
• A detailed explanation of the steps
of all attempts to use for other purposes,
return, or dispose of equipment or other
assets purchased or rented for use in the
Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract
performance.
Damages claimed must be specifically
related to carrying out the terms of the
contract, and may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Items or equipment purchased or
rented and dates of such rental or
purchases.
• Additional employee costs.
• Additional inventory costs.
• Additional facility costs.
The supplier must include a separate
justification for any of these items for
which it is claiming damages and
explain how they were necessary to
meet the deadline of July 14, 2008 of the
Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract. This
does not include expenses that would
have occurred if the supplier had not
been awarded a contract but only those
expenses that were incurred for the
Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract
performance. The claim must also detail
steps taken by the supplier to mitigate
damages that they may have incurred
due to the contract termination.
In addition, we are not considering
claims for expenses incurred prior to
March 20, 2008, including the purchase
or rental of items or equipment before
that date, because a supplier would not
have known that it was going to be
offered a contract. We are not
considering claims for most expenses
incurred after July 14, 2008, including
the purchase or rental of items or
equipment, because this is the date on
which MIPPA terminated all of the
Round 1 contracts. The only exception
to this requirement would be for
expenses incurred to mitigate damages
associated with the termination of the
Round 1 contracts.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should not exclude costs
incurred prior to March 20, 2008 and
after July 14, 2008.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. We first notified suppliers
on March 20, 2008, that they were being
offered a contract. We are not
considering claims for expenses
incurred prior to March 20, 2008,
because a supplier would not have
known that it was going to be offered a
contract before that date. We are also
not considering claims for most
expenses incurred after July 14, 2008,
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61935
including the purchase or rental of
items or equipment, because this is the
date on which MIPPA terminated all of
the Round 1 contracts.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should include costs incurred
in preparing or submitting a claim for
damages.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. Any damages awarded
under this contract only include costs
incurred in carrying out the terms of the
contract. The cost of submitting a claim
for damages is not a cost that is incurred
in carrying out the terms of the contract.
Suppliers must weigh the cost of filing
a claim for damages against damages
they believe they incurred.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should include consulting and
legal expenses required to submit a bid
in the competitive bidding program.
Response: We disagree. Suppliers
could have incurred these costs even if
they were not awarded a contract. The
MIPPA provision pertains to damages
that were the result of the termination
of the contract and not the cost of
applying for the contract. This does not
include expenses that would have
occurred if the supplier had not been
awarded a contract but only those
expenses that were incurred for the
Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract
performance. Damages claimed must be
specifically related to carrying out the
terms of the contract.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should allow suppliers to
amend a claim deemed incomplete by
the CBIC.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. The proposed rule
describes what constitutes, at a
minimum, a complete claim. While all
claims for damages will be considered,
there is certain minimum information
that has to be submitted with the claim
in order for the claim to be processed.
Without this information we will not be
able to process the claim. We believe
that 90 days is sufficient time for the
supplier to submit a completed claim.
This provides an equal amount of time
for all suppliers filing a claim for
damages to submit their claim.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should not exclude from
damages ‘‘costs that the supplier has
recouped by any means’’.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. We believe that all parties
to a contract are obligated to take action
to mitigate any damages and to describe
the steps they have taken to meet this
obligation. For example, if a supplier
purchases inventory to carry out the
terms of the contract and later uses this
inventory for other Medicare
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61936
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
beneficiaries, in effect the Medicare
program would be charged twice for the
same item, if it were to include these
costs in an award for damages. Each
supplier has an obligation to mitigate, as
far as possible, damages associated with
the termination of its Round 1
contract(s).
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are not
making any changes to this section of
the proposed process for awarding
damages for contracts terminated under
the MIPPA.
e. Filing a Claim
Suppliers should submit claims, with
all supporting documentation, with the
CMS CBIC at the following address:
CBIC; Bldg 200, Suite 400; 2743
Perimeter Parkway; Augusta, Georgia
30909. The authorized official for the
supplier must certify the accuracy of the
information on the claim and all
supporting documentation. The
authorized official is appointed by the
supplier and has the legal authority
granted by the supplier to submit the
claim for damages. This person may be
the supplier’s general partner, chairman
of the board, chief financial officer,
chief executive officer, president, direct
owner of the supplier organization, or
must hold a position of similar status
and authority within the supplier’s
organization. The CBIC will not accept
electronic submissions of claims for
damages.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that CMS allow suppliers
who are dissatisfied with CMS’ decision
to obtain an independent administrative
review of the determination for damages
under this process.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. The statute does not
provide for review of such
determinations. Section 1847(a)(1)(D) of
the Act, as amended by section
154(a)(1)of MIPPA does not provide for
administrative or judicial review of the
Determining Authority’s decision.
Section 1847(a)(1) of the Act, as revised
by section 154(a) of the MIPPA,
terminated the contracts that were
awarded under the competitive
acquisition program, and provided that
such termination and award of damages
should not be construed to provide an
independent cause of action or right to
administrative or judicial review.
Therefore, the Determining Authority’s
final decision is not subject to
administrative or judicial review.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS should identify
who within CMS will be tasked with the
reviews and the standards that will
apply to requests for claims.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: We will utilize the
necessary resources within the agency
to make these decisions. We will be
utilizing the expertise from various
components within CMS, such as the
Office of Acquisition and Grants
Management, Office of Financial
Management and the Office of the
General Counsel in the Department of
HHS as necessary. An Agency official
who is a senior executive and who has
responsibility for the competitive
bidding program will be designated as
the Determining Authority.
After consideration of the public
comments, we are not making any
changes to this section of the proposed
process for awarding damages for
contracts terminated under the MIPPA.
f. Review of Claim
(1) Role of the CBIC
The CBIC will conduct the first level
of review and make recommendations to
CMS, hereafter referred to as the
Determining Authority regarding:
• Whether the claim is complete and
was filed in a timely manner. The CBIC
may seek further information from the
claimant when making its
recommendation. The CBIC may set a
deadline for receipt of additional
information.
• When the claim is incomplete or
was not filed in a timely manner, the
CBIC will make a recommendation to
the Determining Authority not to
process the claim further.
• Whether the government owes
damages because of the MIPPA. The
CBIC will include an explanation
supporting its recommendation. The
CBIC will recommend a reasonable
amount of damages, if any, based on the
claim submitted, including all
accompanying documentation. The
CBIC will consider the language of the
contract, as well as both costs incurred
and the contract supplier’s attempts and
actions to limit the damages.
(2) CMS’ Role as the Determining
Authority
CMS is the Determining Authority
because we are responsible for the final
review and final determination
regarding claims for damages.
• The Determining Authority shall
review the recommendation of the CBIC.
• The Determining Authority may
seek further information from the
claimant or the CBIC in making a
concurrence or non-concurrence
determination.
• The Determining Authority may set
a deadline for receipt of additional
information. A claimant’s failure to
respond timely may result in a denial of
the claim.
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• If the Determining Authority
concurs with the CBIC recommendation,
the Determining Authority shall submit
a final signed decision to the CBIC and
direct the CBIC to notify the claimant of
the determination and the reasons for
the final determination.
• If the Determining Authority
nonconcurs with the CBIC
recommendation, the Determining
Authority may:
+ Write a determination granting (in
whole or in part) a claim for damages or
denying a claim in its entirety; or direct
the CBIC to write said determination for
the Determining Authority’s signature.
+ Return the claim to the CBIC with
further instructions.
• The Determining Authority’s
determination is final and binding; it is
not subject to administrative or judicial
review under section 1847(a)(1)(D) of
the Act, as amended by section 154(a)(1)
of the MIPPA.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that an additional step be
included to permit affected suppliers to
cure technical and other deficiencies in
their claim.
Response: We do not agree with the
commenters. Claimants are required to
submit a complete claim in a timely
manner. CMS stated in the rule that
either the CBIC or CMS as the
Determining Authority may seek further
information from the claimant
concerning the claim. This does not
mean that claimants will have an
opportunity to provide additional
information after the deadline for filing
has ended, unless requested to do so by
the CBIC or CMS.
After consideration of the public
comments, we are not making any
changes to this section of the proposed
process for awarding damages for
contracts terminated under the MIPPA.
g. Timeframe for Final Determinations
Every effort will be made to make a
final determination within 120 days of
initial receipt of the claim for damages
by the CBIC or the receipt of additional
information that was requested by the
CBIC, whichever is later. In the case of
more complex cases, or in the event of
a large workload, a decision will be
issued as soon as practicable.
We did not receive any comments on
this section of the proposed process for
awarding damages for contracts
terminated under the MIPPA. Therefore,
we are finalizing the provisions as
proposed.
h. Notification to Claimant of Damage
Determination
The CBIC shall mail the final
determination to the claimant by
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
certified mail return receipt requested. If
CMS determines that money is due to a
claimant, this notification will indicate
when and how the money will be
transmitted. If a monetary award is due,
the supplier will be required to provide
banking information for electronic
deposit.
We did not receive any comments on
this section of the proposed process for
awarding damages for contracts
terminated under the MIPPA. Therefore,
we are finalizing these provisions as
proposed.
We are finalizing the provisions
concerning damages as proposed in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33644).
2. Notification to Beneficiaries for
Suppliers Regarding Grandfathering
Section 1847(a)(4) of the Act requires
that in the case of covered durable
medical equipment (DME) items for
which payment is made on a rental
basis under section 1834(a) of the Act,
and in the case of oxygen for which
payment is made under section
1834(a)(5) of the Act, the Secretary shall
establish a ‘‘grandfathering’’ process
under which rented DME items that
were furnished prior to the start of the
Competitive Bidding Program (CBP)
may be continued to be rented to the
beneficiary by a noncontract supplier.
Agreements for those covered items and
supplies that were rented by the
supplier to the beneficiary before the
start of a CBP may be continued,
regardless of whether the existing
supplier participates in the CBP.
In the April 10, 2007 final rule (72 FR
17992), in § 414.408(j), we established
the grandfathering process described
below for rented DME and oxygen and
oxygen equipment when these items are
included under the Medicare DMEPOS
CBP. A supplier that is furnishing DME
or is furnishing oxygen or oxygen
equipment on a rental basis to a
beneficiary prior to the implementation
of a CBP in the competitive bidding area
(CBA) where the beneficiary maintains
a permanent residence may elect to
continue furnishing the item as a
grandfathered supplier. This process
only applies to suppliers that began
furnishing the competitive bid items
described above before the start of the
CBP to beneficiaries who maintain a
permanent residence in a CBA.
In the case of the rented DME and
oxygen and oxygen equipment
identified in this section, we established
in § 414.408(j)(4) that Medicare
beneficiaries have the choice of
deciding whether they would like to
continue receiving the rented item from
a grandfathered supplier or if they
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
would like to receive the item from a
contract supplier.
Suppliers that agree to be a
grandfathered supplier for an item must
agree to be a grandfathered supplier for
all current beneficiaries who request to
continue to rent that item from them.
The beneficiary’s decision to use a
grandfathered supplier depends on the
decision of the noncontract supplier
that is currently renting the competitive
bidding item to continue renting the
item as a grandfathered supplier after
the start of the CBP in accordance with
the terms we have specified. The
payment rules for grandfathered
suppliers are specified in existing
§ 414.408(j)(2).
In addition, the beneficiary may elect,
at any time, to transition from a
noncontract supplier to a contract
supplier. The contract supplier would
be required to accept the beneficiary as
a customer regardless of how many
rental months had already been paid for
the beneficiary to receive this item. If
the grandfathered supplier is not willing
to continue furnishing the item, a
beneficiary must select a contract
supplier to furnish the item in order to
receive Medicare payment for that item.
The grandfathered supplier is paid
based on the payment rules outlined in
the final rule on Competitive Bidding at
§ 414.408(j).
As a result of what we learned from
Round 1 of the CBP, we proposed
changes to the ‘‘grandfathering’’ rules by
establishing notification requirements
for noncontract suppliers that are
furnishing rented DME competitive bid
items at the time of implementation of
the CBP in the CBA in which the
beneficiary resides. We also proposed a
new definition for a grandfathered item
to include all rented item(s) in a
competitive bidding product category
that a supplier currently provides to its
beneficiaries. Under the current
regulation, suppliers may choose the
items within a product category for
which they want to become a
grandfathered supplier.
As proposed, a noncontract supplier
would have to choose to be either a
grandfathered supplier for all or for
none of the rented DME items within a
product category that the supplier
currently provides.
For further discussion of the CBP and
the bid evaluation process, see the April
10, 2007 final rule and the January 16,
2009 interim final rule with comment
period.
We proposed to revise the definition
of ‘‘grandfathered item’’ in § 414.402 so
that the term would refer to all rented
items within a competitive bid product
category that the supplier currently
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61937
rents to beneficiaries. In addition, we
proposed to redesignate the current
§ 414.408(j)(5) as § 414.408(j)(7) and add
new § 414.408(j)(5) and (j)(6). The new
§ 414.408(j)(5) and (j)(6) will specify the
notification requirements that apply to
noncontract suppliers that are renting
DME competitive bid items in a CBA at
the time of implementation of the CBP.
a. Definition of a Grandfathered Item
We proposed to revise the definition
of a ‘‘grandfathered item’’ in § 414.402
to avoid confusion, on the part of
beneficiaries, regarding rented DME
items for which a noncontract supplier
is willing or not willing to be a
grandfathered supplier. Under the
current regulations, a supplier may
make separate choices regarding
grandfathering for each individual
HCPCS code. For example, a supplier
may choose to be a grandfathered
supplier for a particular type of walker
within the product category instead of
all of the walkers included in that
product category that are furnished on
rental basis.
Under the revised definition, a
noncontract supplier would have to
choose to be either a grandfathered
supplier for all or for none of the DME
rented items within a product category
that the supplier currently provides. We
believe that it would be easier for
beneficiaries to recognize which items a
supplier is grandfathering or not
grandfathering if the supplier’s election
concerning grandfathering was made by
product category rather than making
separate choices for each individual
HCPCS code. In addition, this proposed
revision would prevent suppliers from
choosing to be a grandfathered supplier
for only the more profitable items,
which could disadvantage certain
beneficiaries.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS should allow noncontract
suppliers to furnish and bill for
supplies, such as CPAP masks, for
‘‘capped’’ rental equipment, as well as,
supplies for rental equipment that they
have chosen to grandfather.
Response: Section 1847(a)(4) of the
Act only refers to DME items for which
payment is made on a rental basis under
section 1834(a) of the Act. Therefore,
grandfathering can only apply to those
items and necessary accessories and
supplies provided during the rental
period. Once the rental period ends
additional accessories and supplies
must be provided by the contract
supplier.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that CMS should expand the
grandfathering provisions to all
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61938
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
products including diabetic testing
supplies subject to the CBP.
Response: Section 1847(a)(4) of the
Act only refers to DME items for which
payment is made on a rental basis under
section 1834(a) of the Act. Therefore, we
cannot extend grandfathering provisions
to items that are not DME or not paid
on a rental basis.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are not
making any changes to this section of
the proposed rule.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
b. Notification of Beneficiaries and CMS
by Suppliers That Choose To Become
Grandfathered Suppliers
We proposed to add a new
§ 414.408(j)(5)to require suppliers
furnishing items to be included in a CBP
that are eligible for grandfathering to
notify beneficiaries in the CBA and CMS
regarding their decision whether to
become grandfathered suppliers.
The notification requirements we
proposed will prohibit certain
inappropriate practices of noncontract
suppliers. These inappropriate practices
include: (1) suppliers attempting to
receive additional monthly rental
payments from Medicare by
circumventing the grandfathering
requirements; and (2) suppliers not
formally notifying beneficiaries before
picking up the rented item from the
beneficiary’s home. We also proposed to
require a notification process to protect
beneficiaries and to ensure less
confusion during the transition period
prior to implementation of the CBP. The
proposed requirements will help ensure
that beneficiaries are contacted and
informed about the grandfathering
process and what choices they have
concerning their choice of supplier.
Moreover, the notice will help to ensure
that beneficiaries do not have medically
necessary DME equipment taken from
them unexpectedly by a noncontract
supplier.
(1) Notification of Beneficiaries by
Suppliers That Choose To Become
Grandfathered Suppliers
We proposed to add § 414.408(j)(5)(i)
which requires a noncontract supplier
that elects to become a grandfathered
supplier in a CBA to provide a written
notification to each Medicare
beneficiary in that CBA who is currently
renting a grandfathered item from that
supplier. The notification must state
that the supplier is willing to continue
to rent the grandfathered item(s) to the
beneficiary as a grandfathered supplier.
The notice must identify the DME
grandfathered rented items for which
the supplier will be a grandfathered
supplier.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
To ensure that beneficiaries are
sufficiently informed and prepared for
competitive bidding changes that affect
rented DME, we proposed in
§ 414.408(j)(5) to require that the
notification of the beneficiary must meet
the following requirements. The
notification must:
• Be sent by the supplier to the
beneficiary at least 30 business days
before the start date of the
implementation of the CBP in the CBA
in which the beneficiary resides. The
30-day notice is necessary to give the
beneficiary sufficient time before the
start of the CBP to consider whether to
continue to use their current supplier.
Suppliers will be given sufficient time
to meet the 30-day notification
requirement.
• Identify the grandfathered items
that the supplier is willing to continue
to rent to the beneficiary.
• Be in writing (for example, by letter
or postcard) and the supplier must
maintain proof of delivery.
• State that the supplier is offering to
continue to furnish certain rented DME,
oxygen and oxygen equipment, and
supplies that the supplier is currently
furnishing to the beneficiary (that is,
before the start of the CBP) and is
willing to continue to provide these
items to the beneficiary for the
remaining rental months.
• State that the beneficiary has the
choice to continue to receive a
grandfathered item(s) from the
grandfathered supplier or may elect to
receive the item(s) from a contract
supplier after the end of the last month
for which a rental payment is made to
the noncontract supplier.
• Provide the supplier’s telephone
number and instruct the beneficiaries to
call the supplier with questions
regarding grandfathering and to notify
the supplier of his or her election.
• State that the beneficiary can obtain
information about the CBP by calling 1–
800–MEDICARE or accessing https://
www.medicare.gov on the internet.
In § 414.408(j)(i)(B), we proposed that
the supplier should obtain an election
from the beneficiary and maintain a
record of its attempts to communicate
with the beneficiary to obtain the
beneficiary’s election regarding
grandfathering. We also proposed that
the supplier maintain a record of the
beneficiary’s choice, the date on which
the choice was made, and how the
beneficiary communicated his or her
choice to the supplier. The 30-day
notice to the beneficiary must be in
writing to ensure that there is a record
that the notification was made.
Comment: One commenter stated
there may be difficulty contacting the
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
beneficiary within the 30-business day
requirement.
Response: We disagree. The suppliers
should have an ongoing relationship
with beneficiaries and be aware of how
to contact them. In addition, suppliers
are responsible for keeping themselves
informed about the CBP and the
notification requirements. When a
supplier begins providing rented items
to a beneficiary just prior to the start of
the CBP and there are less than 30 days
remaining before the start of the CBP,
the supplier is required to provide the
30-day notification to the beneficiary at
the time the supplier agrees to provide
the items to the beneficiary. If the
supplier decides not to be a
grandfathered the supplier would still
be required to provide the 10-day and 2day notifications prior to picking up the
equipment.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the supplier send out
the initial notification letter to the
beneficiary notifying them of the
grandfathering option. The commenter
also suggested that the beneficiary
should not be required to take any
additional steps if they would like to
continue with their current supplier.
The beneficiary would only be required
to provide their current supplier with
documentation if they wish to make a
change to an alternate supplier.
Response: Beneficiaries are
responsible for notifying their current
supplier of their decision. We believe
that this is the only way to ensure that
the beneficiary has made an informed
decision. The supplier must obtain an
election from the beneficiary and
document this in their records;
however, this may be a verbal election.
Comment: Another commenter stated
that CMS should limit the notification
by noncontract supplier to a 30-day
notice as to whether they will be a
grandfathered supplier.
Response: We believe the notification
process as outlined in the proposed rule
is a necessary beneficiary protection to
ensure that beneficiaries do not have
medically necessary equipment taken
from them unexpectedly by a
noncontract supplier.
Comment: One commenter stated the
notice should include information for
the beneficiary on how to contact the
supplier to notify them as to their
decision.
Response: We agree. The proposed
rule states it is a requirement to provide
a 30-day written notification that should
include the supplier’s telephone
number and instructions for the
beneficiary to call the supplier to notify
them of his or her election and provide
the opportunity for them to ask any
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
questions they may have regarding
grandfathering.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the two suppliers
should then be required to coordinate
the pickup and delivery of equipment.
Response: We agree. The proposed
rule states when a beneficiary chooses
to switch to a new contract supplier, the
current noncontract supplier, and the
new contract supplier are responsible
for making arrangements that are
suitable to the beneficiary.
Comment: One commenter stated that
multiple notification requirements
impose a burden on suppliers who have
lost competitive bids and will have little
or no incentive to comply with these
requirements.
Response: We disagree. The
noncontract supplier has been paid for
furnishing the equipment up to the first
anniversary date after the start of the
CBP. Therefore, they have already
received compensation for this time
period. In addition, the suppliers should
have an ongoing relationship with the
beneficiary, be aware of how to contact
them, and know about any changes in
their circumstances. We believe the
notification process is necessary to
protect the beneficiaries.
Comment: Another commenter
believes that CMS has underestimated
the paperwork burden requiring the
beneficiary sign another document and
for suppliers to track that
documentation.
Response: There is no requirement for
the beneficiary to sign an additional
document. The supplier must obtain an
election from the beneficiary; however,
this may be a verbal election. We also
believe suppliers should have an
ongoing relationship with the
beneficiaries for which they are
providing items and services and billing
Medicare. We do not believe this is an
additional paperwork burden but rather
good business practices.
After consideration of the public
comments, we are finalizing this section
of the proposed rule as proposed.
We proposed to add paragraphs
§ 414.408(j)(5)(i)(C)(1) through (3) which
state if the beneficiary chooses not to
continue to receive a grandfathered
item(s) from the noncontract supplier,
the supplier must provide the
beneficiary with 2 additional notices
prior to picking up its equipment. These
notices are described below as the 10Day Notification and the 2-Day
Notification.
(i) 10-Day Notification
Ten business days prior to picking up
the item, the supplier should have
direct contact (for example, a phone
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
call) with the beneficiary or the
beneficiary’s caregiver and receive
acknowledgement that the beneficiary
understands their equipment will be
picked up and that this should occur on
the first anniversary date after the start
of the CBP or another date agreed to by
the beneficiary. The noncontract
supplier must bill and will be paid for
the furnishing of the equipment up to
the first anniversary date after the start
of the CBP and the new supplier cannot
bill for furnishing the equipment prior
to this anniversary date. This
requirement still applies if a date other
than the anniversary date is chosen.
The beneficiary’s anniversary date
occurs every month on the date of the
month on which the item was first
delivered to the beneficiary by the
current supplier. The anniversary date
marks the date of every month on which
a new monthly rental period begins. For
example, using July 1 as the beginning
date of the Medicare DMEPOS CBP:
• If a beneficiary’s last anniversary
date before the beginning of the CBP is
June 29, the noncontract supplier must
submit a claim for the rental month
beginning June 29 and ending July 28.
The noncontract supplier should not
pick up the equipment prior to July 29.
In this case, the noncontract supplier
has been paid up to July 29 and
therefore should pick up its equipment
on July 29, and the contract supplier
would deliver its equipment on July 29
and begin billing for the next month’s
rental as of that date.
• If a beneficiary’s anniversary date is
July 1, also the beginning date for the
CBP, the noncontract supplier should
not pick up the equipment before July
1 and should not submit a claim for the
July rental period. The contract supplier
should deliver the equipment to the
beneficiary on July 1 and submit a claim
for this month.
When a DME supplier submits a
monthly bill for capped rental DME
items, the date of delivery (‘‘from’’ date)
on the first claim must be the ‘‘from’’ or
anniversary date on all subsequent
claims for the item. For example, if the
first claim for a wheelchair is dated
September 15, all subsequent bills must
be dated for the 15th of the following
months (October 15, November 15, etc.).
In cases where the anniversary date falls
at the end of the month (for example,
January 31) and a subsequent month
does not have a day with the same date
(for example, February), the final date in
the calendar month (for example,
February 28) will be used.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the burden of the coordination for the
equipment pickup and replacement of
an item should be placed upon the
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61939
winning bidder and the losing bidder, in
coordination with the beneficiary, rather
than requiring the beneficiary to be in
contact with both suppliers.
Response: We agree. In the proposed
rule, we stated that when a beneficiary
chooses to switch to a new contract
supplier, the current noncontract
supplier and the new contract supplier
must make arrangements that are
suitable to the beneficiary. We believe
that such arrangements need to be
coordinated between the noncontract
and contract supplier to ensure that the
beneficiary has continued access to
medically necessary equipment.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the beneficiary and the new contract
supplier must assume the primary
responsibility for the transition. Any
other allocation of responsibility
between contract and noncontract
supplier is impractical.
Response: We disagree. The
noncontract supplier has been paid for
furnishing the equipment up to the first
anniversary date after the start of the
CBP. Therefore, they have already
received compensation for this time
period. The notification process is for
beneficiary protection to ensure less
confusion during the transition period.
Therefore, we believe the noncontract
supplier must play a role in this
transition.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing this section of the proposed
rule as proposed.
(ii) 2-Day Notification
Two business days prior to picking up
the item, the supplier must contact the
beneficiary by phone to remind the
beneficiary of the date the supplier will
pick up the item. This supplier should
not pick up the item before the
beneficiary’s first anniversary date that
occurs after the start of the CBP.
There may be unusual circumstances
that make it difficult to contact certain
beneficiaries. However, we do not
expect this to occur often because these
suppliers have been submitting monthly
rental claims for providing services to
these beneficiaries. Therefore, the
supplier should have an ongoing
relationship with the beneficiary and be
aware of how to contact them and any
changes in their circumstances.
However, under no circumstance should
a supplier pick up a rented item prior
to the supplier’s receiving
acknowledgement from the beneficiary
that they are aware of the date on which
the supplier is picking up the item and
that arrangements have been made to
have the item replaced on that date by
a contract supplier. The pickup of the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61940
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
noncontract supplier’s equipment and
the delivery of the new contract
supplier’s equipment should occur on
the same date. The pick up by the
noncontract supplier and the delivery
by the contract supplier should occur on
the first rental anniversary date of the
equipment that occurs after the start of
the CBP. When a beneficiary chooses to
switch to a new contract supplier, the
current noncontract supplier and the
new contract supplier must make
arrangements that are suitable to the
beneficiary. This provides some
latitude, for the pickup and the delivery
date but not in terms of billing. The new
equipment cannot be billed for until the
anniversary date and the old equipment
cannot be taken from the beneficiary
before the anniversary date.
Comment: One commenter stated that
if a supplier decides it does not want to
grandfather a product category, it
should be sufficient if the supplier
provides notice one time in writing and
follows up by phone as the deadline for
transitioning approaches.
Response: We agree. The initial 30day notification must be in writing to
ensure there is a record that the
notification was made. The supplier
must maintain a record of its attempts
to communicate with the beneficiary to
obtain the beneficiary’s election
regarding grandfathering. The supplier
must maintain a record of the
beneficiary’s choice, the date on which
the choice was made, and how the
beneficiary communicated his or her
choice to the supplier. The 10 and 2-day
notices can be done by phone. We
proposed the 10 and 2-day notification
process as a safeguard to protect
Medicare beneficiaries and ensure that
the beneficiary has continued access to
medically necessary equipment. We do
not believe this process is too
burdensome because these suppliers
have been submitting monthly rental
claims for providing services to these
beneficiaries and this notice can be
satisfied by a phone call to the
beneficiary.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are not
making any changes to this section of
the proposed rule and finalizing it as
proposed.
c. Notification to CMS for Suppliers
That Choose To Become Grandfathered
We proposed to add § 414.408(j)(5)(ii)
to state that suppliers that have chosen
to become grandfathered suppliers must
also notify CMS of their decision at least
30 business days before the start of the
CBP. We believe that 30 business days
is a reasonable period to allow CMS to
compile a list of grandfathered suppliers
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
and to answer questions about the
availability of these suppliers. Unless
the supplier notifies CMS consistent
with this subsection, the supplier will
not be considered a grandfathered
supplier. Having a list of grandfathered
suppliers is important to assist CMS in
administering the grandfathering
process. The list will be used to answer
questions from beneficiaries concerning
which suppliers have chosen the
grandfathering option. The notification
requirement will also help us to ensure
that suppliers are not offering the
grandfathering option to only a select
number of beneficiaries. Also, having a
list of suppliers that have chosen to be
grandfathered suppliers will assist us in
reviewing whether only noncontract
suppliers that have elected to be
grandfathered suppliers have received
Medicare payment for rented
competitive bid items in a CBA.
The notice that a noncontract supplier
must provide to CMS if it elects to
become a grandfathered supplier must
meet the following requirements:
• State that the supplier agrees to
continue to furnish certain rented DME,
oxygen and oxygen equipment that it is
currently furnishing to beneficiaries
(that is, before the start of the CBP) in
a CBA and will continue to provide
these grandfathered items to these
beneficiaries for the remaining months
of the rental period.
• Include all of the following: Name
and address of the supplier; 6-digit NSC
number of the supplier; and product
category(s) by CBA for which the
supplier is willing to be a grandfathered
supplier.
• Suppliers with multiple locations
must submit one notification for the
company rather than for each individual
location.
• State that the supplier agrees to
meet all the terms and conditions
applicable to grandfathered suppliers.
• Be provided by the supplier to CMS
in writing at least 30 business days
before the start date of the
implementation of a CBP.
d. Notifications of Beneficiaries by
Suppliers That Choose Not To Become
Grandfathered Suppliers
We propose to clarify under
§ 414.408(j)(6) that a noncontract
supplier that elects not to become a
grandfathered supplier is required to
pick up the item it is currently renting
to the beneficiary from the beneficiary’s
home after proper notice to the
beneficiary. A noncontract supplier that
decides not to become a grandfathered
supplier does not have the option of
leaving its equipment in the
beneficiary’s home. The noncontract
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supplier is responsible for picking up
the item from the beneficiary.
Proper notification by a supplier who
chooses not to become a grandfathered
supplier must include a 30-day, a 10day, and a 2-day notice of its decision
not to be a grandfathered supplier.
These notifications must meet all of the
requirements listed above for the 30day, 10-day and 2-day notices that must
be sent by suppliers who decide to be
grandfathered suppliers, except for the
following differences for the 30-day
notice.
• The 30-day notice must indicate the
items for which the supplier has
decided not to become a grandfathered
supplier and indicate the date upon
which the equipment will be picked up.
• It must state that the supplier will
only continue to rent these
competitively bid item(s) up to the
beneficiary’s first anniversary date, as
defined in § 414.408(j)(5), that occurs
after the start of the Medicare DMEPOS
CBP.
• It must also state that the
beneficiary must select a contract
supplier for Medicare to continue to pay
for these items.
It must state that the beneficiary can
obtain information about the CBP by
calling 1–800–MEDICARE or accessing
https://www.medicare.gov on the
internet.
• It must also refer him or her to the
supplier locator tool on https://
www.medicare.gov.
The supplier must also provide the
beneficiary with the 10-day and the 2day notices prior to picking up their
equipment.
When a beneficiary chooses to switch
to a new contract supplier, the current
noncontract supplier and the new
contract supplier must make
arrangements that are suitable to the
beneficiary. This provides some
latitude, but the new equipment may
not be billed by the contract supplier
until the first anniversary date following
the start of the CBP. Also, the old
equipment may not be taken from the
beneficiary before proper arrangements
are made and the date of service cannot
occur before the anniversary date.
As discussed above, under no
circumstance should a supplier pick up
the rented item prior to the supplier
making an arrangement with the new
contract supplier for the delivery of the
new equipment at a time suitable to
meet the beneficiary’s medical needs.
The noncontract supplier has been
furnishing services to the beneficiary
and receiving payments from the
program. To ensure that the beneficiary
has continued access to medically
necessary equipment, the noncontract
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
supplier is expected to assist the
beneficiary in locating a contract
supplier. The noncontract supplier
should communicate with the
beneficiary the urgency of arranging to
have the new equipment delivered as
soon as possible.
e. Other Comments
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the current accreditation and surety
bond requirements were too
burdensome.
Response: All comments concerning
accreditation and surety bond
requirements are considered beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
We are finalizing the provisions
concerning grandfathering as proposed
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33644).
P. Five-Year Refinement of Relative
Value Units
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Background
Section 1848(c)(2)(C)(i) of the statute
states that the Secretary shall determine
a number of work RVUs for the service
based on the relative resources
incorporating physician time and
intensity required in furnishing the
service. Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the
Act requires that we review all RVUs no
less than every 5 years.
We initiated the first Five-Year
Review of work RVUs in 1994 and
refinements went into effect beginning
in 1997 (59 FR 63410 and 61 FR 59490).
The scope of the Five-Year Review was
limited to work values, since at that
time, the statute required that PE and
malpractice RVUs be calculated based
on 1991 allowed charges and PE and
malpractice expense shares for the
specialties performing the services.
The second Five-Year Review of
physician work RVUs began in 1999 and
refinements went into effect beginning
in CY 2002 (64 FR 59380 and 66 FR
55246). The third Five-Year Review of
the physician work RVUs began in CY
2004 with the resulting changes being
effective beginning in 2007 (69 FR
66236 and 71 FR 69624).
While the statute requires the
Secretary to review the relative values
for services no less than every 5 years,
the work RVUs for many services, have
never been specifically reviewed since
the inception of the PFS. Since we
approach our review with the
underlying assumption that services are
appropriately valued, the focus of the
Five-Year Reviews has been on
potentially misvalued services that are
identified by us or commenters.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
2. Codes Reviewed Outside the Usual
Five-Year Review Process
Although it was our practice for many
years to wait for the next Five-Year
Review to review and revise any
potentially misvalued services, we
remained concerned that it was
inappropriate to wait 5 years (or until
the next Five-Year Review of work
RVUs) when we had some evidence that
certain services were not valued
correctly. MedPAC, the Congress, and
other stakeholders have expressed
similar concerns.
Subsequent to the completion of the
third Five-Year Review, in collaboration
with the AMA RUC, based on the
additional concern that some services
had not been reviewed since the
inception of the PFS we have
undertaken to review certain potentially
misvalued codes. This effort is
discussed elsewhere in this final rule
with comment period (see section II.F.).
The fourth Five–year Review will be
conducted independently of the review
of codes under the potentially
misvalued code initiative.
3. Fourth Five-Year Review of Work
RVUs
We are initiating the fourth Five-Year
Review of work RVUs with the resulting
changes being effective beginning in
2012. As with the previous Five-Year
Reviews, we are soliciting comments
only on services for which the currently
assigned work RVUs may be
inappropriate. To the extent that there
are changes in physician time or in the
number or level of post procedure visits
as a result of the Five-Year Review of
work, the PE inputs, and we could be
impacted and we would them
accordingly.
Under the Five-Year Review process,
we solicit comments from the public on
codes that are potentially misvalued.
We then review the public comments
and forward codes identified in those
comments, as well as codes that we
have identified as potentially
misvalued, to the AMA RUC. The AMA
RUC then follows a process, similar to
that used for new CPT codes (see
description below). The AMA RUC:
• Surveys its members to assess their
level of interest in reviewing relative
values for certain services (and to
identify services for which the code
descriptors may no longer be
appropriate);
• Develops survey instruments for the
specialty societies to use to assess the
work or level of effort involved with the
service;
• Asks specialty committees to
conduct the surveys, review the results
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61941
and prepare their recommendations for
the AMA RUC; and
• Reviews the specialty committee
recommendations and may either adopt
them, refer them back to the specialty
society or modify them prior to
submitting its recommendations to
CMS.
We then review the AMA RUC
recommendations, decide whether we
agree or disagree, and propose to accept
or reject/revise the AMA RUC
recommendations. Our responses to the
AMA RUC recommendations are
presented, and any changes in
valuations are established through
notice and comment rulemaking.
Consistent with the format for the
previous Five-Year Reviews, in addition
to the codes submitted by the
commenters, we will also identify codes
and submit them to the AMA RUC. Our
focus will be on codes (especially highvolume codes across specialties) that:
• Are valued as being performed in
the inpatient setting, but that are now
predominantly performed on an
outpatient basis, and
• Were not previously reviewed by
the AMA RUC, (for example, Harvardbased codes).
In prior years, we solicited comments
on codes for which there is a rank order
anomaly within the family of codes, and
accepted the possible existence of a rank
order anomaly as a primary reason for
specialty societies to submit codes for
review. An anomalous relationship may
exist between the code being valued and
other codes. For example, code A
describes a service that requires more
work than codes B, C, and D, but code
A is valued lower. For the fourth FiveYear Review of work RVUs, we will no
longer consider the existence of a
possible rank order anomaly to be the
primary basis for undertaking the
review of a code. However, rank order
anomalies will continue to be used as a
way to screen for potential problem
areas.
In addition, when we submit codes to
the RUC for review, we note that in
order to maintain relativity, we may
decide to submit the entire family of
codes (including the base code) for
review. The base code is the most
important code to review because it is
the basis for the valuation of other codes
within the family and allows for all
related codes to be reviewed at the same
time. We believe that reviewing the
entire family of codes can assist in
ensuring relativity between services and
consistent valuation of services.
We also note that codes that have
been reviewed/revised under the
potentially misvalued code initiative
may also be considered for review under
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61942
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the Five-Year Review of work RVUs. We
believe this will allow for the most
systematic review possible to ensure the
appropriateness of values under the
PFS.
The AMA RUC has developed
detailed ‘‘Compelling Evidence
Standards’’ which are used by the RUC
as part of its process to determine if a
recommendation to change the work
RVU is warranted for a given code. We
are including these standards in section
II.P.4. of this final rule with comment
period solely for informational purposes
so that commenters are aware of the
kind of information that has been used
in the past to make a successful
argument to the RUC for changing work
RVUs.
We typically publish a proposed
notice for the Five-Year Review separate
from the annual notice of proposed
rulemaking that is published for the
PFS. Publishing the Five-Year Review
notice separate from the annual PFS
rule allows time for the potential
establishment of refinement panels to
address comments received on proposed
work RVU changes resulting from the
Five-Year Review.
The fourth Five-Year Review of Work
RVUs will be addressed in a proposed
notice that we intend to publish in the
spring of 2011. In that proposed notice,
we will discuss: the codes considered
for review under this fourth Five-Year
Review; the AMA RUC recommended
work RVUs; and our proposed valuation
of the services, including the rationale
for the work valuation. We will solicit
comments on our proposed valuation of
the codes. We will then review and
analyze the comments received in
response to the proposed notice and
publish our decisions as part of the CY
2012 PFS final rule with comment
period. (As previously mentioned, in
past years we have addressed comments
on the proposed notice through the use
of refinement panels, similar to those
used to address comments received on
interim values for new or revised
codes.) The changes would be effective
January 1, 2012.
In the last Five-Year Review of work
RVUs, some specialty societies used
methods other than the AMA RUCdeveloped survey instrument to arrive at
recommended work RVUs. These
methods included reliance on other data
sources (for example, Department of
Veteran Affairs (VA) National Surgical
Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)
and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons
(STS) databases).
• The NSQIP was initiated by the VA
for quality improvement purposes in
1991 with 128 VA medical centers. It
currently includes a large volume of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
surgical procedures from non-VA
medical centers as well. The total
number of cases for VA and non-VA
medical centers is greater than one
million. The NSQIP database contains
pre-, intra-, and post-operative data,
including intra-service times and length
of stay data.
• The STS National database is a
voluntary reporting system for the
collection of outcomes data related to
cardiothoracic surgical services. This
database currently contains over two
million patient records collected from
more than 450 practices (from 1995
through 2004). Over 70 percent of the
hospitals currently performing heart
surgeries in the U.S. reportedly
participate in this database.
As discussed earlier in this section,
specialty societies usually rely on the
AMA RUC survey process to arrive at
work values for their services, often
referencing the median work value (50th
percentile) resulting from the survey as
a recommendation for a proposed work
RVU. However, for the last Five-Year
Review, a few specialty societies used
other data sources, such as those
mentioned above, to establish
recommended work values. We are
concerned that reliance solely on these
other data sources could result in an
inconsistent assignment of work RVUs,
eroding the relativity of the PFS.
We would like to emphasize that the
most common approach used by the
AMA RUC for valuation of the work of
a service is the building block approach.
In constructing the building blocks, a
service is divided into pre-, intra-, and
post-service components. For a surgical
procedure, the pre-service component
consists of all services furnished before
the physician makes the skin incision
(for example, pre-operative evaluation
and scrubbing); the intra-service
component consists of the ‘‘skin-toskin’’ time (that is the operative time
between surgical opening and closing);
and the post-service component
includes immediate post-surgery
services and subsequent hospital and
office visits. Each component (or
building block) is then assigned work
RVUs. Pre-service and intra-service
work RVUs are based on time and the
intensity of the activities. Post-service
work is based on the specified E/M
service for each post-operative visit.
These three component work values are
then summed to compute ‘‘buildingblock’’ work RVUs.
For purposes of the fourth Five-Year
Review of work RVUs and in order to
gain a better understanding of the
distribution of data from surveys and
other data sources submitted in support
of work RVU refinements, we will
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
require that the minimum/maximum
values, the 5th, 25th, 50th (median),
75th, and 95th percentiles be reported.
In addition, we will require reporting of
the geometric mean. This is similar to
information currently reported for the
specialty surveys, with some additional
percentiles and the geometric mean
being included. However if the AMA
RUC recommendation does not include
the information discussed above we
may reject the recommendation.
To the extent the PQRI databases may
include information similar to that
previously described in the physician
surveys, these databases might serve as
an additional source for establishing or
validating work RVUs.
4. RUC Compelling Evidence Standards
The AMA RUC operates with the
initial presumption that the current
values assigned to the codes under
review are correct. This presumption
can be challenged by a society or other
organization presenting a compelling
argument that the existing values are no
longer rational or appropriate for the
codes in question. The justification for
a change must be substantial and meet
the RUC’s compelling evidence
standards.
The argument in support of a change
in work RVUs must be provided in a
comment letter to us, and then later to
the AMA RUC in writing on the
Summary of Recommendation form.
The following guidelines may be used to
develop a ‘‘compelling argument’’ that
the published relative value units
assigned for a service are inappropriate:
• Documentation in the peer
reviewed medical literature or other
reliable data that there have been
changes in physician work due to one
or more of the following:
++ Technique.
++ Knowledge and technology.
++ Patient population.
++ Site-of-service.
++ Length of hospital stay.
++ Physician time.
• An anomalous relationship between
the code being proposed for review and
other codes. For example, if code A
describes a service that requires more
work than codes B, C, and D, but is
nevertheless valued lower. The
specialty would need to assemble
evidence on service time, technical
skill, patient severity, complexity,
length of stay and other factors for the
code being consideredand the codes to
which it is compared. These reference
services may be both inter- and intraspecialty. (Note: The AMA RUC may
wish to continue to use this as part of
its method for determination of
compelling evidence. However, if it is
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
not used according to the parameters we
have discussed earlier in this section we
may reject the AMA RUC
recommendation.)
• Evidence that technology has
changed physician work, that is,
diffusion of technology.
• Analysis of other data on time and
effort measures, such as operating room
logs or national and other representative
databases.
• Evidence that incorrect
assumptions were made in the previous
valuation of the service, as documented,
such as:
++ A misleading vignette, survey, or
flawed crosswalk assumptions in a
previous evaluation;
++ A flawed mechanism or
methodology used in the previous
valuation, for example, evidence that no
pediatricians were consulted in
assigning pediatric values; and
++ A previous survey was conducted
by one specialty to obtain a value, but
in actuality that service is currently
provided primarily by physicians from
a different specialty according to
utilization data.
5. Five-Year Review of Other PFS
Components
a. Malpractice RVUs
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
From 1992 to 1999, malpractice RVUs
were charge-based, using weighted
specialty-specific malpractice expense
percentages and 1991 average allowed
charges. Malpractice RVUs for new
codes after 1991 were extrapolated from
similar existing codes or as a percentage
of the corresponding work RVU. Section
4505(f) of the BBA required us to
implement resource-based malpractice
RVUs for services furnished beginning
in 2000. Initial implementation of
resource-based malpractice RVUs
occurred in 2000. The statute also
requires that we review, and if
necessary adjust, RVUs no less often
than every 5 years. The first review and
update of resource based malpractice
RVUs was addressed in the CY 2005
PFS final rule (69 FR 66263). Minor
modifications to the methodology were
addressed in the CY 2006 PFS final rule
(70 FR 70153). In this rule, we are
implementing the second review and
update of malpractice RVUs (see section
II.C. of this final rule with comment
period).
b. Practice Expense RVUs
The resource-based PE RVUs were
effective January 1, 1999. To assist in
the refinement of the direct PE inputs
(developed by the specialty-specific
Clinical Practice Expense Panels
conducted in the late 1990s), the AMA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
RUC created the Practice Expense
Advisory Committee (PEAC) in CY
1999. The PEAC refined the PE inputs
for nearly all of the CPT codes in the
PFS by the time it sunsetted 5 years
later in March 2004. (The remainder of
the codes, approximately 200, were
refined at the September 2004 and
February 2005 AMA RUC meetings.)
These PEAC (and subsequent AMA
RUC) refinements of the PE inputs were
provided as recommendations to CMS.
A comprehensive review of PE was
undertaken prior to the 4-year transition
period for the PE methodology from the
top-down to the bottom-up methodology
which will be complete in 2010. In this
final rule with comment period we are
incorporating new Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS) data. (These
data are used to update the specialtyspecific PE/HR data used to develop PE
RVUs.)
The next Five-Year Review of PE
RVUs will be addressed in CY 2014 and
we are soliciting comments on
approaches to take for this next FiveYear Review of PE RVUs. However, to
the extent that there are changes in
physician time or in the number or level
of post procedure visits as a result of the
fourth Five-Year Review of work, there
will be a potential impact on the
practice expense inputs, and we will
revise the inputs accordingly.
In the interim, we will continue with
our efforts as part of the misvalued code
initiative to develop a process to ensure
that prices for certain high cost supplies
that are used to determine PE RVUs are
accurate and reflect current information.
Q. Other Issues: 2010 Therapy Caps
Section 1833(g) of the Act applies an
annual, per beneficiary combined cap
on expenses incurred for outpatient
physical therapy and speech-language
pathology services under Medicare Part
B. A similar separate cap for outpatient
occupational therapy services under
Medicare Part B also applies. (The caps
do not apply to expenses incurred for
therapy services furnished in an
outpatient hospital setting.) The caps
were in effect during 1999, from
September 1, 2003 through December 7,
2003 and beginning January 1, 2006.
Also beginning January 1, 2006, the
Deficit Reduction Act (Pub. L. 109–171)
(DRA) provided for an exception
process to the therapy cap until
December 31, 2006. Subsequent
legislation (MIEA–TRHCA and the
MMSEA) extended the exception
process for therapy caps until December
31, 2007 and June 30, 2008,
respectively. Section 141 of the MIPPA
extended the exception process through
December 31, 2009. Several therapy
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61943
associations have requested that we
announce the amount of the therapy cap
for CY 2010 in the PFS final rule.
The annual, per beneficiary therapy
cap for CY 2010 is computed by
multiplying the cap amount for CY
2009, which is $1840, by the Medicare
Economic Index, which is 1.2 percent,
and rounding to the nearest $10.
Therefore, each cap for CY 2010 will be
$1860. The agency’s authority to
provide for exceptions to therapy caps
will expire on December 31, 2009,
unless the Congress acts to extend it. If
the current exception process expires,
the only exceptions to therapy caps will
be for services billed by the outpatient
hospitals.
III. Refinement of Relative Value Units
for Calendar Year 2010 and Response
to Public Comments on Interim Relative
Value Units for 2009
A. Summary of Issues Discussed Related
to the Adjustment of Relative Value
Units
Sections III.B. and III.C. of this final
rule with comment describe the
methodology used to review the
comments received on the RVUs for
physician work and the process used to
establish RVUs for new and revised CPT
codes. Changes to the RVUs and billing
status codes reflected in Addendum B
are effective for services furnished
beginning January 1, 2010.
B. Process for Establishing Work
Relative Value Units for the Physician
Fee Schedule
The CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69726)
contained the work RVUs for Medicare
payment for existing procedure codes
under the PFS and interim RVUs for
new and revised codes beginning
January 1, 2009. We considered the
RVUs for the interim codes to be subject
to public comment under the annual
refinement process. In this section, we
address comments on the interim work
RVUs published in the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period, and our
establishment of the work RVUs for new
and revised codes for the CY 2010 PFS.
C. Work Relative Value Unit
Refinements of Interim Relative Value
Units
1. Methodology (Includes Table titled
‘‘Work Relative Value Unit Refinements
of the 2009 Interim and Related Relative
Value Units’’)
Although the RVUs in the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period
were used to calculate 2009 payment
amounts, we considered the RVUs for
the new or revised codes to be interim.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61944
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
incorrectly valued to one or more of the
reference services. In compiling the set,
we attempted to include: (1) Services
that are commonly performed whose
work RVUs are not controversial; (2)
services that span the entire spectrum
from the easiest to the most difficult;
and (3) at least three services performed
by each of the major specialties so that
each specialty would be represented.
The intent of the panel process was to
capture each participant’s independent
judgment based on the discussion and
his or her clinical experience. Following
the discussion, each participant rated
the work for the procedure. Ratings
were individual and confidential, and
there was no attempt to achieve
consensus among the panel members.
We then analyzed the ratings based on
a presumption that the interim RVUs
were correct. To overcome this
presumption, the inaccuracy of the
interim RVUs had to be apparent to the
broad range of physicians participating
in each panel.
Ratings of work were analyzed for
consistency among the groups
represented on each panel. In addition,
we used statistical tests to determine
whether there was enough agreement
among the groups of the panel and
whether the agreed-upon RVUs were
significantly different from the interim
RVUs published in Addendum C of the
final rule. We did not modify the RVUs
unless there was a clear indication for
a change. If there was agreement across
groups for change, but the groups did
not agree on what the new RVUs should
be, we eliminated the outlier group and
looked for agreement among the
remaining groups as the basis for new
RVUs. We used the same methodology
in analyzing the ratings that we first
used in the refinement process for the
1993 PFS. The statistical tests were
described in detail in the November 25,
1992 final rule (57 FR 55938).
Our decision to convene
multispecialty panels of physicians and
to apply the statistical tests described
above was based on our need to balance
the interests of those who commented
on the work RVUs against the
redistributive effects that would occur
in other specialties.
The following table lists those interim
codes reviewed under the refinement
panel process described in this section.
This table includes the following
information:
• CPT Code. This is the CPT code for
a service.
• Description. This is an abbreviated
version of the narrative description of
the code.
• 2009 Work RVU. The work RVUs
that appeared in the November 2008
rule are shown for each reviewed code.
• Requested Work RVU. This column
identifies the work RVUs requested by
commenters.
• 2010 Work RVU. This column
contains the final RVUs for physician
work.
D. Interim 2009 Codes
cm, 17107, Destruction of cutaneous
vascular proliferative lesions (e.g., laser
technique); 10.0 to 50.0 sq cm, and
17108, Destruction of cutaneous
vascular proliferative lesions (e.g., laser
technique); over 50.0 sq cm were
identified by the AMA RUC’s Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup
through the high intra-service work per
unit of time (IWPUT) screen. The AMA
RUC recommended 3.61 work RVUs for
CPT code 17106, 4.68 work RVUs for
1. Destruction of Skin Lesions Codes
CPT codes 17106, Destruction of
cutaneous vascular proliferative lesions
(e.g., laser technique); less than 10 sq
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.199
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
We accepted comments for a period of
60 days. We received substantive
comments on approximately 12 CPT
codes with interim work RVUs.
To evaluate these comments we used
a process similar to the process used
since 1997. (See the October 31, 1997
final rule (62 FR 59084) for the
discussion of refinement of CPT codes
with interim work RVUs.) We convened
a multispecialty panel of physicians to
assist us in the review of the comments.
We invited representatives from the
organizations from which we received
substantive comments to attend a panel
for discussion of the code on which they
had commented. The panel was
moderated by our medical staff, and
consisted of the following voting
members:
• One or two clinicians representing
the commenting organization.
• Two primary care clinicians
nominated by the American Academy of
Family Physicians and the American
College of Physicians.
• Four carrier medical directors.
• Clinicians with practices in related
specialties who were expected to have
knowledge of the services under review.
The panel discussed the work
involved in the procedure under review
in comparison to the work associated
with other services under the PFS. We
assembled a set of 300 reference services
and asked the panel members to
compare the clinical aspects of the work
of the service a commenter believed was
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
CPT code 17107, and 6.37 work RVUs
for CPT code 17108, which we accepted
in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment (73 FR 69884).
Comment: Commenters disagreed
with the AMA RUC-recommended work
values for these services, which we had
accepted. The commenters expressed
concerns about the AMA RUC’s use of
IWPUT to not only identify potentially
misvalued services but also to revalue
them. Commenters were also concerned
that a ranking system (that is, IWPUT)
not formally recognized by CMS had
been used inappropriately to identify
and value these services. Many
commenters encouraged CMS to
conduct a Refinement Panel Review of
the valuation of these codes.
Response: Based on these concerns,
we referred these codes to the MultiSpecialty Validation Panel for review.
As a result of the statistical analysis of
the 2009 Multi-Specialty Validation
Panel ratings, we have assigned 3.61
work RVUs to CPT code 17106, 4.68
work RVUs to CPT code 17107, and 7.35
work RVUs to CPT code 17108.
2. Hemorrhoidectomy Code
For CPT code 46930, Destruction of
internal hemorrhoid(s) by thermal
energy (eg, infrared coagulation,
cautery, radiofrequency), the AMA RUC
recommended 1.56 work RVUs and a
global period assignment of 090 (major
surgery with a 1-day preoperative
period and 90-day postoperative period
included in the fee schedule amount),
which we accepted in the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment (73 FR 69892).
Comment: We received comments
from independent providers, one
manufacturer, and specialty societies
representing gastroenterologists who
disagreed with the 90-day global period
assignment and requested that we assign
a 10-day (minor procedure with
preoperative relative values on the day
of the procedure and postoperative
relative values during a 10-day
postoperative period included in the fee
schedule amount) global period instead.
The commenters believe this procedure
is a minor procedure and a 10-day
global period assignment would be
appropriate. The commenters also
believe that the work RVUs assigned to
this procedure are more in line with a
10-day global period. We did not receive
any comments from the colon and rectal
surgeons and general surgeons who
participated in the survey of this code
and predominately perform this
procedure.
Response: Prior to the creation of CPT
code 46930, this procedure was
performed using deleted CPT code
46934, Destruction of hemorrhoids, any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
method; internal which was assigned a
90-day global period. We believe the
valuation and assignment of a 90-day
global period is appropriate for this
procedure. The post-operative care and
potential clinical problems remain the
same despite having a new technology
to address this clinical condition. We
will plan to review the clinical
experience with this technology in the
future to learn how patients fared who
underwent destruction of hemorrhoids
with this new technology. In the
meantime, we will maintain a 90-day
global period for this procedure.
3. Stereotactic Radiosurgery Codes
For CPT codes 61796, Stereotactic
radiosurgery (particle beam, gamma ray,
or linear accelerator); 1 simple cranial
lesion, 61797, Stereotactic radiosurgery
(particle beam, gamma ray, or linear
accelerator); each additional cranial
lesion, simple, and 63620, Stereotactic
radiosurgery (particle beam, gamma ray,
or linear accelerator); 1 spinal lesion the
AMA RUC recommended 15.50 work
RVUs for CPT code 61796, 19.75 work
RVUs for CPT code 61798, and 15.50
work RVUs for CPT code 63620. We
disagreed with the AMA RUC
recommendations and assigned 10.79
work RVUs to all three of these codes in
the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment (73 FR 69892). We believed
the specialty societies and the AMA
RUC, in general, used open surgical
codes as comparators during the AMA
RUC process instead of a more
equivalent stereotactic radiation
treatment code.
Comment: The commenters disagreed
with the interim work RVUs assigned by
CMS and urged CMS to accept the AMA
RUC-recommended values for these
codes. The commenters believed CMS
erred in basing the interim values on the
work RVUs of two radiation oncology
services instead of surgical codes. The
commenters expressed that sterotactic
radiosurgey is much more intense than
radiation therapy. Commenters were
also confused as to why CMS valued
CPT codes 61796, 61798, and 63620
identically since CPT code 61796
describes treatment of a ‘‘simple’’
cranial lesion and CPT code 61798
describes treatment of a ‘‘complex’’
cranial lesion. The commenters believed
the work required to treat complex
lesions is much greater than the work
required to treat simple lesions. Based
on these concerns, we referred these
codes to the Multi-Specialty Validation
Panel for review.
Response: As a result of the statistical
analysis of the 2009 Multi-Specialty
Validation Panel ratings, we have
assigned 13.83 work RVUs to CPT code
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61945
61796, 19.75 work RVUs to CPT code
61798, and 15.50 work RVUs to CPT
code 63620.
4. Cardiac Monitoring Codes
For CPT codes 92382, Programming
device evaluation with iterative
adjustment of the implantable device to
test the function of the device and select
optimal permanent programmed values
with physician analysis, review and
report; single lead implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator system, 93283,
Programming device evaluation with
iterative adjustment of the implantable
device to test the function of the device
and select optimal permanent
programmed values with physician
analysis, review and report; dual lead
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
system, 92389, Interrogation device
evaluation (in person) with physician
analysis, review and report, includes
connection, recording and
disconnection per patient encounter;
single, dual, or multiple lead
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
system, including analysis of heart
rhythm derived data elements, and
93295, Interrogation device
evaluation(s) (remote), up to 90 days;
single, dual, or multiple lead
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
system with interim physician analysis,
review(s) and report(s), the AMA RUC
recommended 0.85 work RVUs for CPT
code 93282, 1.18 work RVUs for CPT
code 93283, 0.92 work RVUs for CPT
code 93289, and 1.38 work RVUs for
CPT code 93295. We agreed with the
AMA RUC-recommended value for CPT
code 93282, but disagreed with the
AMA RUC-recommended value for CPT
codes 93283, 93289, 93295 in the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment (73
FR 69892). We questioned the
recommended values for the increments
between some codes within families and
across families of pacemakers,
implantable cardioverter defibrillators
(ICDs), implantable loop recorders, and
implantable cardiovascular monitoring
systems and the methodology used to
determine the AMA RUC recommended
values. The AMA RUC primarily used a
comparison methodology to determine
the value of the pacemaker codes and
the surveyed 25th percentile to
determine the value of the implantable
ICD codes. Even though different
methodologies were utilized to develop
the recommended values, we did not
understand why the increments
between various levels of the pacemaker
programming codes were not also the
appropriate increment between the
various levels of ICD programming
codes. Therefore, we did not accept the
AMA RUC recommendations for CPT
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61946
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Validation Panel ratings, we have
assigned 0.53 work RVUs to CPT code
97802 and 0.45 work RVUs to CPT code
97803.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period we also responded to
the RUC recommendations on the PE
inputs for new and revised CPT codes
for CY 2009. In addition to the PE
comments discussed in section II.B.2. of
this final rule with comment period we
received the following comments
concerning PE inputs.
• CPT Codes 46606, 46608, 46610,
46612, and 46930: CPT code 46930,
Destruction of internal hemorrhoid(s) by
thermal energy (e.g., infrared
coagulation, cautery, radiofrequency),
was a new CPT code for 2009. In the CY
2009 PFS final rule (73 FR 69897), we
asked for comments on whether a light
guide is typical for this code and any of
the other existing codes. Specifically,
we did not accept the AMA RUCrecommended sheath to cover the light
guide that the specialty proposed to add
to the PE database for this service and
4 other procedures as we do not believe
it to be typically used in furnishing
these services. Because the light guide
was not a component of the infrared
coagulator item at the time we re-priced
our entire equipment file for CY 2005,
and because this same equipment item
is used for 4 other endoscopy
procedures, including CPT codes 46606,
6. Medical Nutrition Therapy
46608, 46610, and 46612, we asked
For CPT codes 97802, Medical
commenters to provide us with
nutrition therapy; initial assessment and information and documentation as to
intervention, individual, face-to-face
whether the light guide is typical to any
with the patient, each 15 minutes and
of these 5 procedures. Additionally, we
97803, Medical nutrition therapy; reinvited comments about the typical use
assessment and intervention,
of the sheath in relationship to the light
individual, face-to-face with the patient, guide. In the interim, we assigned the
each 15 minutes, the AMA RUCnew equipment price including the light
recommended 0.53 work RVUs for CPT
guide to the new CPT code 46930 as
code 97802 and 0.45 work RVUs for
well as the four other procedures that
CPT Code 97803, to which we agreed in employ this infrared coagulator for CY
the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
2009.
Comment: We received one comment
comment (73 FR 69890).
Comment: We received a comment
stating that the sheath for the light guide
is required for CPT code 46930 given
from a provider who disagreed with
the potential for contamination of the
CMS’ acceptance of the AMA RUClight guide if a sheath is not used, as
recommended work RVUs. The
well as the difficulty of cleaning the
commenter believed the values were
light guide if it is contaminated.
flawed as a result of a methodological
Commenters also stated that the infrared
error dating back to the 2000 Health
equipment (EQ136) used with the
Care Professional Advisory Committee
sheath is not required for CPT codes
(HCPAC) recommendations. The
46606, Anoscopy; with biopsy, single or
commenter requested that we establish
multiple, 46608, Anoscopy; with
accurate work RVUs (an RVU value of
removal of foreign body, 46610,
0.65 for both codes) or that we ask the
Anoscopy; with removal of single tumor,
AMA RUC to revisit its
polyp, or other lesion by hot biopsy
recommendation. Based on these
concerns, we referred these codes to the forceps or bipolar cautery, and 46612,
Anoscopy; with removal of multiple
Multi-Specialty Validation Panel for
tumors, polyps, or other lesions by hot
review.
Response: As a result of the statistical biopsy forceps, bipolar cautery or snare
technique, as these procedures are
analysis of the 2009 Multi-Specialty
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
codes 93283, 93289, and 93295. Instead,
we established work RVUs that
maintained the same incremental
difference between levels of
programming codes. We assigned 1.05
work RVUs to CPT code 93283, 0.78
work RVUs to CPT code 93289, and 1.17
work RVUs to CPT code 93295.
Comment: Commenters were
disappointed that CMS did not accept
the AMA RUC-recommended work
RVUs and disagreed with CMS’
assumption that there is a constant
increment of work added to the
programming evaluation of an ICD as it
progresses from a single lead to dual
lead device and from a dual lead to a
multiple lead device. Commenters also
disagreed with the comparison codes we
used to value these codes. Although we
agreed with the AMA RUCrecommended value for CPT code
93282, one commenter requested that
we increase the work RVU. Based on
these concerns, we referred these codes
to the Multi-Specialty Validation Panel
for review.
Response: As a result of the statistical
analysis of the 2009 Multi-Specialty
Validation Panel ratings, we have
assigned 0.85 work RVUs to CPT code
93282, 1.15 work RVUs to CPT code
93283, 0.92 work RVUs to CPT code
93289, and 1.29 work RVUs to CPT code
93295.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
typically performed using electrocautery
for which PE inputs are already
associated with these codes.
Response: We thank the commenters
for their input. We are leaving the PE
inputs as is while we conduct
additional research on what is typical in
furnishing these procedures.
• CPT Codes 93306, 93307, 93320,
93325, and 93351: In the CY 2009 PFS
final rule (73 FR 69898), we discussed
the AMA RUC PE recommendations for
CPT codes 93306, Echocardiography,
transthoracic, real-time with image
documentation (2D), includes M-mode
recording, when performed, complete,
with spectral Doppler
echocardiography, and with color flow
Doppler echocardiography, and 93351,
Echocardiography, transthoracic, realtime with image documentation (2D),
includes M-mode recording, when
performed, during rest and
cardiovascular stress test using
treadmill, bicycle exercise and/or
pharmacologically induced stress, with
interpretation and report; including
performance of continuous
electrocardiographic monitoring, with
physician supervision.
For CPT code 93306, we stated that
the AMA RUC did not recommend any
changes to the PE direct inputs for the
related echocardiography codes 93307,
Echocardiography, transthoracic, realtime with image documentation (2D),
includes M-mode recording, when
performed, complete, without spectral
or color Doppler echocardiography,
93320, Doppler echocardiography,
pulsed wave and/or continuous wave
with spectral display (List separately in
addition to codes for echocardiographic
imaging); complete, and 93325, Doppler
echocardiography color flow velocity
mapping (List separately in addition to
codes for echocardiography). We asked
the AMA RUC to review the PE inputs
for CPT codes 93307, 93320, and 93325
to ensure that they are consistent with
the recommended direct inputs for CPT
code 93306.
For CPT code 93351, we stated that
the AMA RUC-recommended PE inputs
included three new equipment items.
These items included an ultrasound
machine, an echocardiography exam
table, and a dual image viewing and
reporting system. We did not accept the
recommended ultrasound machine
valued at $325,000 but used a model in
a similar procedure priced at $248,000
in the PE database. We also did not
accept the echocardiography exam table
($11,095) because we did not believe it
was a typical equipment item found in
the physician’s office. Instead, we
assigned the PE input typical for a
similar service—a $1,915 stretcher. We
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
included the ‘‘dual’’ echocardiography
image viewing and reporting system but
we accepted the base unit price of
$85,000 in place of the $173,000 price
provided by the specialty.
We asked commenters to provide us
with documentation as to the type and
cost of equipment that is used in
furnishing the procedure in the
physician office along with a rationale
for suggested changes from the existing
inputs. We also asked commenters to
provide us with the typical scenario as
to whether one, two, or three ultrasound
units will be connected to the third
equipment item, the ‘‘dual’’
echocardiography image viewing, and
reporting system. We asked for
information as to the amount of time
that the dual image management system
is in use for this procedure.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS revise the PE inputs
associated with CPT codes 93306 and
93351. Specifically, for CPT code 93306,
commenters stated that there are
increased equipment costs, that an
echocardiography room should be
included, and that the equipment times
should be revised from 42 minutes to 63
minutes to reflect their intra-service use
by the sonographer. For 93351,
commenters requested that a higher
priced echocardiography machine, an
echocardiography table, and a cardiac
ultrasound room be added to the
equipment list. Commenters also
requested that we update the price of
the dual echocardiography image
viewing and reporting system to reflect
the more common purchase of this
equipment with additional features
compared to the base model.
Response: For CPT code 93306, we do
not agree that use of an
echocardiography room is typical, nor
do we believe higher equipment costs
are justified at this time. However, we
do agree with commenters that
equipment times should be increased to
63 minutes from 42 minutes to
accurately reflect the use of this
equipment during the procedure and
have adjusted the PE database to reflect
this. For CPT code 93351, the AMA
RUC did not recommend these higher
cost PE inputs and we agreed with
them. We believe we valued the PE
inputs for these CPT codes
appropriately in the CY 2009 final rule.
Therefore, we will assign the PE inputs
from the PE database for similar
services—$248,000 for the ultrasound
machine and $1,915 for the stretcher—
to these codes. We will also continue to
use the accepted base unit price of
$85,000 for the ‘‘dual’’
echocardiography image viewing and
reporting system. In addition, we were
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
advised by the AMA RUC that only one
ultrasound unit is typically connected
to this management system, which is
used for 7 minutes during the
procedure. We agree with the AMA
RUC’s advice.
• CPT Codes 93293 and 93296: In the
CY 2009 final rule (73 FR 69897), we
discussed CPT codes 93293,
Transtelephonic rhythm strip
pacemaker evaluation(s) single, dual, or
multiple lead pacemaker system,
includes recording with and without
magnet application with physician
analysis, review and report(s), up to 90
days, and 93296, Interrogation device
evaluation(s) (remote), up to 90 days;
single, dual, or multiple lead pacemaker
system or implantable cardioverterdefibrillator system, remote data
acquisition(s), receipt of transmissions
and technician review, technical
support and distribution of results (73
FR 69897). The AMA RUC
recommended that a ‘‘pacemaker
interrogation system’’ be used for the
two CPT codes 93293 and 93296.
However, the PE database does not
contain an equipment item with this
description. Because we noted a 100
percent crosswalk from existing CPT
code 93733 that utilizes the pacemaker
follow-up system to the new CPT code
93293, we assigned, on an interim basis,
the pacemaker follow-up system to CPT
codes 93293 and 93296 (a ‘‘new’’ service
without a crosswalk). We asked
commenters to provide documentation
as to the type and cost of equipment that
is used in furnishing these services in
the physician office and other
information to support any changes
from the prior inputs.
Comment: Several commenters agreed
with our use of the ‘‘pacemaker
interrogation system’’ as well as its
interim $123,250 price point for CPT
codes 93293 and 93296. Only one
commenter provided CMS with pricing
information for a comparable
‘‘pacemaker monitoring system’’ based
on three different price quotes, two of
which were lower than the interim
pricing information.
Response: Based on the information
available, we will continue to assign the
‘‘pacemaker interrogation system’’ with
a price of $123,250 to CPT codes 93293
and 93296. We will continue to review
the price of the appropriate cardiac
equipment used in both of these codes.
• CPT Codes 97802 and 97803:
97802, Medical nutrition therapy; initial
assessment and intervention,
individual, face-to-face with the patient,
each 15 minutes; and 97803, Medical
nutrition therapy; re-assessment and
intervention, individual, face-to-face
with the patient, each 15 minutes.
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61947
The above codes were revalued in the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period as a result of the AMA RUC
Recommendations for Potentially
Misvalued Codes (73 FR 69890).
Comment: One commenter stated that
inappropriate PE inputs were used for
calculating the PE RVUs for Medical
Nutrition Therapy codes (CPT codes
97802 and 97803), and requested a
revision of the pre-, intra-, and postservice times listed in the PE database.
The commenter believes that the preservice and post-service times for these
CPT codes should be increased to 3
minutes pre and 5 minutes post to
accurately reflect the time spent.
Response: We agreed with the AMA
RUC recommendations for CPT codes
97802 and 97803 in the CY 2009 final
rule with comment period (73 FR
69890). We believe that the pre- and
post-service times are accurate. If the
commenter is concerned about the
allocated times for these CPT codes, the
commenter should request that the
specialty society submit these codes to
the AMA RUC for reconsideration.
E. Establishment of Interim Work
Relative Value Units for New and
Revised Physician’s Current Procedural
Terminology (CPT) Codes and New
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System Codes (HCPCS) for 2010
(Includes Table 30 Titled ‘‘AMA RUC
Recommendations and CMS’ Decisions
for New and Revised 2010 CPT Codes’’)
One aspect of establishing RVUs for
2009 was to assign interim work RVUs
for all new and revised CPT codes. As
described in our November 25, 1992
notice on the 1993 PFS (57 FR 55951)
and in section III.B. of the CY 1997 PFS
final rule (61 FR 59505), we established
a process, based on recommendations
received from the AMA RUC, for
establishing interim work RVUs for new
and revised codes.
We received work RVU
recommendations for 161 new and
revised CPT codes from the AMA RUC
for 2010. We reviewed the AMA RUC
recommendations by comparing them to
our reference set or to other comparable
services for which work RVUs had
previously been established. We also
considered the relationships among the
new and revised codes for which we
received AMA RUC recommendations
and agreed with the majority of the
relative relationships reflected in the
AMA RUC values. Table 30: AMA RUC
Recommendations and CMS’ Decisions
for New and Revised 2010 CPT Codes
lists the new or revised CPT codes, and
their associated work RVUs, that will be
interim in CY 2010. Table 30 includes
the following information:
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
• A ‘‘#’’ identifies a new code for CY
2010.
• CPT code. This is the CPT code for
a service.
• Modifier. A ‘‘26’’ in this column
indicates that the work RVUs are for the
PC of the code.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
• Description. This is an abbreviated
version of the narrative description of
the code.
• AMA RUC recommendations. This
column identifies the work RVUs
recommended by the AMA RUC.
• CMS decision. This column
indicates whether we agreed or we
disagreed with the AMA RUC
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recommendation. Codes for which we
did not accept the AMA RUC
recommendation are discussed in
greater detail following this table.
• 2010 Work RVUs. This column
establishes the interim 2010 work RVUs
for physician work.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61949
ER25NO09.200
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.201
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61950
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61951
ER25NO09.202
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.203
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61953
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.204
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
61954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
F. Discussion of Codes and AMA RUC
Recommendations
The following is an explanation of our
rationale for not accepting particular
AMA RUC-recommended work RVUs. It
is arranged by type of service in CPT
order and refers only to work RVUs.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Excision of Soft Tissue and Bone
Excision of Soft Tissue and Bone
Tumors
In February 2009, the CPT Editorial
Panel approved the coding proposal
submitted by the Soft Tissue Tumor and
Bone Workgroup, which revised and
expanded the soft tissue tumor and bone
tumor section codes to more accurately
describe the services being provided
and to address the concerns raised by
the AMA RUC during the Third FiveYear Review. For CY 2010, the CPT
Editorial Panel split 31 codes into 62
codes differentiated by the size of the
excised lesion, 18 codes were revised,
and 12 additional codes were created.
These codes were created to fill in
anatomic gaps in the coding convention
for excision of soft tissue tumors.
The survey results for these codes
reflected that the majority of these
services, while previously performed as
outpatient services (based on 2007
Medicare claims data), had now been
valued as inpatient services by the AMA
RUC. We believe the Medicare claims
data are accurate and do not agree with
the inclusion of inpatient services in
these codes, particularly, the smaller
sized tumors. We have concerns about
the additional minutes added to the preservice time for positioning of the
patient. We believe the additional
minutes are excessive and request that
the AMA RUC re-examine the minutes
allocated for positioning of the patient.
We also have concerns about the
projected utilization for these codes. We
understand that the specialty society
had difficulty in estimating the
frequency split for current codes and
frequency estimates for new codes and
for the majority of the codes, estimated
that the smaller sized tumors would be
reported 90 percent of the time, while
the larger tumors would be reported
only 10 percent of the time. The AMA
RUC recommended that these services
should be re-reviewed to determine the
accuracy of these utilization
assumptions once 2 years of frequency
data from Medicare have been obtained.
We agree with the AMA RUC and plan
to monitor the frequency data for these
codes and may propose further changes
to the work RVUs in the future based
upon this data.
Although we have serious concerns
with the valuation of these codes for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
2010, and due to the comments received
on the site of service anomaly codes, we
have agreed to accept the AMA RUCrecommended values for these codes on
an interim basis. However, we will work
with the AMA RUC to address our
concerns about the valuation of these
codes and will consider whether it
would be appropriate to propose further
changes in future rulemaking.
We note that the CPT 2010
instructions regarding the use of the
excision and resection of soft tissue and
bone tumor codes advise that a complex
repair may be separately reported.
Longstanding Medicare policy generally
includes payment for all simple,
intermediate, and complex repairs of
procedural incisions. Therefore,
Medicare will not separately pay for
complex repairs for these codes.
2. Fistula Plug
For CY 2010, the AMA RUCrecommended 6.30 work RVUs for CPT
code 46707, Repair of anorectal fistula
with plug (eg, porcine small intestine
submucosa [SIS]). We disagree with the
AMA RUC-recommended value and
believe it should be valued the same as
the reference code, CPT code 46280,
Surgical treatment of anal fistula
(fistulectomy/fistulotomy); complex or
multiple, with or without placement of
seton, which is assigned 6.28 work
RVUs. Although CPT code 46707 has 2
minutes less pre-service time and 5
minutes less intra- and post-service time
than the reference code, we believe
these two codes are similar and should
be valued the same. While the AMA
RUC noted that the intra-service time
intensity is greater in CPT code 46707
than in the reference code, we do not
believe this rationale justifies a higher
recommended work RVU for CPT code
46707. Therefore, we have assigned 6.28
work RVUs to CPT code 46707.
3. Computed Tomography Colongraphy
For CY 2010 the AMA RUC
recommended 2.40 work RVUs for CPT
code 74261, Computed tomographic
(CT), colonography, diagnostic,
including image postprocessing; without
contrast material. We disagree with the
AMA RUC-recommended value and
believe this code is comparable to CPT
code 74263, Computed tomographic
(CT) colonography, screening, including
image postprocessing, which virtually
has the same description of work, pre-,
intra-, and post-service time for which
the AMA RUC recommended 2.28 work
RVUs. Therefore we have assigned 2.28
work RVUs to CPT code 74261.
CPT code 74263 was previously
reported using Category III code 0066T,
Computed tomographic (CT)
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
colonography (ie, virtual colonoscopy);
screening, which has been deleted and
was a non-covered code. Based on the
descriptors, these CPT codes describe
services that include screening services.
In general, screening services under
Medicare are considered to be those
services provided to beneficiaries in the
absence of signs or symptoms of illness
or injury; therefore, to the extent that
the services described by CPT code
74263 have a screening element, the
screening component would not meet
the statutory requirements for coverage
under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Screening services are not covered by
Medicare without specific statutory
authority, such as has been provided for
mammography, diabetes, and colorectal
cancer screening. Accordingly, we will
not recognize this CPT codes that
incorporates screening for payment
under the PFS.
Although we have accepted the AMA
RUC recommendation for this service,
we have assigned a status indicator of
‘‘N’’ (Non-covered) to CPT code 74263
since the code descriptor describe
services that include screening services.
4. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
For CY 2010 the AMA RUC
recommended 1.40 work RVUs for CPT
code 78451, Myocardial perfusion
imaging; tomographic (SPECT)
(including attenuation correction,
qualitative or quantitative wall motion,
ejection fraction by first pass or gated
technique, additional quantification,
when performed); single study, at rest or
stress (exercise or pharmacologic) and
1.75 work RVUs for CPT code 78452,
Myocardial perfusion imaging;
tomographic (SPECT) (including
attenuation correction, qualitative or
quantitative wall motion, ejection
fraction by first pass or gated technique,
additional quantification, when
performed); multiple studies, at rest
and/or stress (exercise or
pharmacologic) and/or redistribution
and/or rest reinjection.
For CPT code 78451, it was unclear
what methodology the AMA RUC used
to calculate the recommended RVU and,
therefore, we disagree with the AMA
RUC-recommended value. We believe
the work RVU for the 25th percentile is
more appropriate and have assigned
1.38 work RVUs to CPT code 78451.
For CPT code 78452, we disagree with
the reference code used, CPT code
70496, Computed tomographic
angiography, head, with contrast
material(s), including noncontrast
images, if performed, and image
postprocessing, which is assigned 1.75.
We believe CPT code 78452 is
comparable to CPT code 73219,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Magnetic resonance (e.g., proton)
imaging, upper extremity, other than
joint; with contrast material(s), which is
assigned 1.62 work RVUs and the same
pre-, intra-, and post-service time.
Therefore, we have assigned 1.62 work
RVUs to CPT code 78452.
5. Comments Received on New CPT
Codes for CY 2010
We received comments on new CPT
codes for CY 2010. Since these are new
codes for CY 2010, they are subject to
comment as part of this final rule. To
the extent that commenters have
additional concerns, we would
encourage them to submit comments in
response to this rule.
6. Other AMA RUC Recommendations
Received: H1N1 Immunization
Administration
The CPT Editorial Panel created CPT
code 90470, Immunization
administration (intramuscular,
intranasal), including counseling when
performed to assist the public health
effort to vaccinate for H1N1. The AMA
RUC reviewed this service and
recommended 0.20 work RVUs.
However, for Medicare payment
purposes, we will not recognize this
code since we created a specific HCPCS
code (G9141, Influenza A (H1N1)
immunization administration (includes
the physician counseling the patient/
family)) for this service that was
effective September 1, 2009. We have
assigned a status indicator of ‘‘N’’ (Noncovered) to this service and will publish
the AMA RUC-recommended value in
accordance with our practice for noncovered CPT codes.
G. Additional Coding Issues
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Reduction in the Technical
Component (TC) Payment for Imaging
Services Paid Under the PFS to the
Outpatient Department (OPD) Amount
Effective January 1, 2007, section
5102(b)(1) of the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–171) (DRA) capped
the TC of most imaging services paid
under the PFS at the amount paid under
the Outpatient Prospective Payment
System (OPPS) (71 FR 69659).
The list of codes subject to the OPPS
cap has been revised to reflect new and
deleted CPT codes for 2010. The
complete list of codes subject to the
OPPS cap is in Addendum H.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
H. Establishment of Interim PE RVUs for
New and Revised Physician’s Current
Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes
and New Healthcare Common
Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)
Codes for 2010
We have developed a process for
establishing interim PE RVUs for new
and revised codes that is similar to that
used for work RVUs. Under this process,
the AMA RUC recommends the PE
direct inputs (the staff time, supplies
and equipment) associated with each
new code. CMS reviews the
recommendations in a manner similar to
our evaluation of the RUCrecommended work RVUs. The AMA
RUC recommendations on the PE inputs
for the new and revised CY 2010 codes
were submitted to CMS as interim
recommendations.
We have accepted, in the interim, the
PE recommendations submitted by the
RUC for the codes listed in Table 30:
AMA RUC Recommendations and CMS’
Decisions for New and Revised 2010
CPT Codes.
IV. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition:
Annual Update to the List of CPT/
HCPCS Codes
A. General
Section 1877 of the Act prohibits a
physician from referring a Medicare
beneficiary for certain designated health
services (DHS) to a health care entity
with which the physician (or a member
of the physician’s immediate family) has
a financial relationship, unless an
exception applies. Section 1877 of the
Act also prohibits the DHS entity from
submitting claims to Medicare or billing
the beneficiary or any other entity for
Medicare DHS that are furnished as a
result of a prohibited referral.
Section 1877(h)(6) of the Act and
§ 411.351 of our regulations specify that
the following services are DHS:
• Clinical laboratory services.
• Physical therapy services.
• Occupational therapy services.
• Outpatient speech-language
pathology services.
• Radiology services.
• Radiation therapy services and
supplies.
• Durable medical equipment and
supplies.
• Parenteral and enteral nutrients,
equipment, and supplies.
• Prosthetics, orthotics, and
prosthetic devices and supplies.
• Home health services.
• Outpatient prescription drugs.
• Inpatient and outpatient hospital
services.
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61955
B. Annual Update to the Code List
1. Background
In § 411.351, we specify that the
entire scope of four DHS categories is
defined in a list of CPT/HCPCS codes
(the Code List), which is updated
annually to account for changes in the
most recent CPT and HCPCS
publications. The DHS categories
defined and updated in this manner are:
• Clinical laboratory services.
• Physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and outpatient speech-language
pathology services.
• Radiology and certain other imaging
services.
• Radiation therapy services and
supplies.
The Code List also identifies those
items and services that may qualify for
either of the following two exceptions to
the physician self-referral prohibition:
• EPO and other dialysis-related
drugs furnished in or by an ESRD
facility (§ 411.355(g)).
• Preventive screening tests,
immunizations, or vaccines
(§ 411.355(h)).
The Code List was last updated in the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69726) and in a
subsequent correction notice (73 FR
80302).
2. Response to Comments
We received one public comment
relating to the Code List that became
effective January 1, 2009. The comment
involved CPT code 0019T,
Extracorporeal shock wave involving
musculosketal system, not otherwise
specified, low energy.
Comment: A commenter wrote
concerning the classification of CPT
code 0019T as ‘‘physical therapy.’’ The
commenter stated that the use of
extracorporeal shock wave generators is
restricted by Federal law to sale by or
on the order of a physician. The
commenter stated that ‘‘the practice of
extracorporeal shock wave therapy by
non qualified providers poses a
considerable risk to the safety of the
patient and a likely reduction in the
effectiveness in the treatment * * *’’
(emphasis added by commenter).
Response: The commenter seemed to
be objecting to the classification of CPT
code 0019T as physical therapy, not
only for the purpose of the physician
self-referral Code List, but also for
broader Medicare payment purposes.
We believe that the commenter also has
concerns about physical therapists
ordering extracorporeal shock wave
therapy even though a physician must
sign the plan of care. While we
appreciate the commenter’s concerns,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the concerns encompass issues that are
outside the scope of this rule and cannot
be addressed here. The purpose of our
update is to announce changes to the
Code List to account for changes in the
most recent CPT and HCPCS
publications or Medicare policies. We
added CPT 0019T to the physician selfreferral Code List effective January 1,
2006 (see 70 FR 70297 and 70472) under
the category of ‘‘Physical Therapy,
Occupational Therapy, and Speechlanguage Pathology’’ because it was
added to the CY 2006 PFS for payment
purposes, was included as a ‘‘therapy’’
code in Medicare Transmittal 805,
‘‘Annual Update to the Therapy Code
List’’ that was effective January 1, 2006,
and meets the definition of physical
therapy services that is set forth in
§ 411.351. Thus, we believe the code is
properly included as a physical therapy
service on our Code List.
3. Revisions Effective for 2010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
The updated, comprehensive Code
List effective January 1, 2010 appears as
Addendum I in this final rule with
comment period and is available on our
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PhysicianSelfReferral/
11_List_of_Codes.asp#TopOfPage.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Additions and deletions to the Code List
conform the Code List to the most recent
publications of CPT and HCPCS and to
changes in Medicare coverage policy
and payment status.
Tables 31 and 32 identify the
additions and deletions, respectively, to
the comprehensive Code List that was
published in Addendum J of the CY
2009 PFS final rule (73 FR 70214
through 70237) and revised in a
subsequent correction notice (73 FR
80302). Tables 31 and 32 also identify
the additions and deletions to the lists
of codes used to identify the items and
services that may qualify for the
exceptions in § 411.355(g) (regarding
EPO and other dialysis-related
outpatient prescription drugs furnished
in or by an ESRD facility) and in
§ 411.355(h) (regarding preventive
screening tests, immunizations, and
vaccines).
In Table 31, we specify additions that
generally reflect new CPT and HCPCS
codes that become effective January 1,
2010, or that became effective since our
last update. We also are adding HCPCS
codes G0416 through G0419 that
represent pathology codes for prostate
needle saturation biopsy sampling to the
‘‘Clinical Laboratory Services’’ category
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the Code List. These codes became
effective January 1, 2009, and were
discussed in the preamble of the CY
2009 PFS final rule (73 FR 69751). We
inadvertently failed to add them to the
Code List update that was published in
that rule.
Table 32 reflects the deletions
necessary to conform the Code List to
the most recent publications of the CPT
and HCPCS. In addition, we are making
other deletions based on changes in
Medicare coverage and payment status.
We are deleting CPT code 0085T,
representing a breath test for heart
transplant rejection, since this code is
no longer payable by Medicare. We also
are deleting CPT code 95992, a code for
canalith repositioning procedures, as it
will be designated as ‘‘invalid’’ for
Medicare purposes as discussed in
section II.E.1 of this preamble.
We will consider comments regarding
the codes listed in Tables 31 and 32.
Comments will be considered if we
receive them by the date specified in the
‘‘DATES’’ section of this final rule with
comment period. We will not consider
any comment that advocates a
substantive change to any of the DHS
defined in § 411.351.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61957
ER25NO09.205
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61958
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.206
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
V. Physician Fee Schedule Update for
CY 2010
A. Physician Fee Schedule Update
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
The PFS update is determined using
a formula specified in section 1848(d)(4)
of the Act. Section 101 of the MIEA–
TRHCA provided a 1-year increase in
the CY 2007 conversion factor (CF) and
specified that the CF for CY 2008 must
be computed as if the 1-year increase
had never applied. Section 101 of the
MMSEA provided a 6-month increase in
the CY 2008 CF, from January 1, 2008,
through June 30, 2008, and specified
that the CF for the remaining portion of
2008 and the CFs for CY 2009 and
subsequent years must be computed as
if the 6-month increase had never
applied. Section 131 of the MIPPA
extended the 6-month increase that was
applicable to the CF for the first half of
CY 2008 to the entire year, provided for
a 1.1 percent increase to the CY 2009
CF, and specified that the CFs for CY
2010 and subsequent years must be
computed as if the increases for CYs
2007, 2008, and 2009 had never applied.
If section 101 of the MIEA–TRHCA
had not been enacted, the CY 2007 CF
update would have been ¥5.0 percent
(0.94953), as published in the CY 2007
PFS final rule with comment period (71
FR 69760). If section 101 of the MMSEA
had not been enacted, the CY 2008 CF
update would have been ¥10.1 percent
(0.89896), as published in the CY 2008
PFS final rule with comment period (72
FR 66383).
If section 131 of the MIPPA had not
been enacted, the CY 2009 CF update
would have been ¥15.1 percent
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(0.84941), as discussed in the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period (73
FR 69900).
For CY 2010, the Medicare Economic
Index (MEI) is equal to 1.2 percent
(1.012). The update adjustment factor
(UAF) is ¥7.0 percent. Our calculations
of these figures are explained below in
this section.
In order to determine the 2010 PFS CF
update, the CFs for 2007, 2008, and
2009 must be calculated as if the various
legislative changes to the CFs for those
years had not occurred. Consistent with
the formula specified by the statute, the
CY 2010 CF update is ¥21.2 percent
(0.78760). Our calculations are
explained below in this section.
B. The Percentage Change in the
Medicare Economic Index (MEI)
The Medicare Economic Index (MEI)
is authorized by section 1842(b)(3) of
the Act, which states that prevailing
charge levels beginning after June 30,
1973 may not exceed the level from the
previous year except to the extent that
the Secretary finds, on the basis of
appropriate economic index data, that
the higher level is justified by year-toyear economic changes.
The MEI measures the weightedaverage annual price change for various
inputs needed to produce physicians’
services. The MEI is a fixed-weight
input price index, with an adjustment
for the change in economy-wide
multifactor productivity. This index,
which has CY 2000 base year weights,
is comprised of two broad categories: (1)
physician’s own time; and (2)
physician’s practice expense (PE).
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61959
The physician’s own time component
represents the net income portion of
business receipts and primarily reflects
the input of the physician’s own time
into the production of physicians’
services in physicians’ offices. This
category consists of two
subcomponents: (1) wages and salaries;
and (2) fringe benefits.
The physician’s PE category
represents nonphysician inputs used in
the production of services in physicians’
offices. This category consists of wages
and salaries and fringe benefits for
nonphysician staff and other nonlabor
inputs. The physician’s PE component
also includes the following categories of
nonlabor inputs: office expense; medical
materials and supplies; professional
liability insurance; medical equipment;
prescription drugs; and other expenses.
The components are adjusted to reflect
productivity growth in physicians’
offices by the 10-year moving average of
productivity in the private nonfarm
business sector.
Table 33 presents a listing of the MEI
cost categories with associated weights
and percent changes for price proxies
for the 2010 update. For CY 2010, the
increase in the MEI is 1.2 percent,
which includes a 1.3 percent
productivity offset based on the 10-year
moving average of multifactor
productivity. This is the result of a 3.2
percent increase in physician’s own
time and a 1.8 percent increase in
physician’s PE. Within the physician’s
PE, the largest increase occurred in
prescription drugs, which increased 7.1
percent.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.207
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61960
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
C. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
Section 1848(d) of the Act provides
that the PFS update is equal to the
product of the MEI and the UAF. The
UAF is applied to make actual and
target expenditures (referred to in the
statute as ‘‘allowed expenditures’’)
equal. Allowed expenditures are equal
to actual expenditures in a base period
updated each year by the sustainable
growth rate (SGR). The SGR sets the
annual rate of growth in allowed
expenditures and is determined by a
formula specified in section 1848(f) of
the Act.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
1. Calculation under Current Law
Under section 1848(d)(4)(B) of the
Act, the UAF for a year beginning with
CY 2001 is equal to the sum of the
following—
• Prior Year Adjustment Component.
An amount determined by—
+ Computing the difference (which
may be positive or negative) between
the amount of the allowed expenditures
for physicians’ services for the prior
year (the year prior to the year for which
the update is being determined) and the
amount of the actual expenditures for
those services for that year;
+ Dividing that difference by the
amount of the actual expenditures for
those services for that year; and
+ Multiplying that quotient by 0.75.
• Cumulative Adjustment
Component. An amount determined
by—
+ Computing the difference (which
may be positive or negative) between
the amount of the allowed expenditures
for physicians’ services from April 1,
1996, through the end of the prior year
and the amount of the actual
expenditures for those services during
that period;
+ Dividing that difference by actual
expenditures for those services for the
prior year as increased by the SGR for
the year for which the UAF is to be
determined; and
+ Multiplying that quotient by 0.33.
Section 1848(d)(4)(E) of the Act
requires the Secretary to recalculate
allowed expenditures consistent with
section 1848(f)(3) of the Act. Section
1848(f)(3) specifies that the SGR (and, in
turn, allowed expenditures) for the
upcoming CY (CY 2010 in this case), the
current CY (that is, CY 2009) and the
preceding CY (that is, CY 2008) are to
be determined on the basis of the best
data available as of September 1 of the
current year. Allowed expenditures for
a year generally are estimated initially
and subsequently revised twice. The
second revision occurs after the CY has
ended (that is, we are making the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
second revision to 2008 allowed
expenditures in this final rule with
comment).
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33650), we noted that section
1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act provides the
Secretary with clear discretion to
determine what items and services
should be included in the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services’’ for purposes of
determining allowed expenditures and
the SGR. As the statute affords the
Secretary clear discretion to revise the
definition of ‘‘physicians’ services’’, we
proposed to remove physicianadministered drugs from the definition
of ‘‘physicians’ services’’ in section
1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act for purposes of
computing the SGR and levels of
allowed expenditures and actual
expenditures in all future years.
Furthermore, given the past effect of
spending growth for physicianadministered drugs on future PFS
updates, in order to effectuate fully the
Secretary’s policy decision to remove
drugs from the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services’’, we also
indicated that we believed it was
reasonable to remove drugs from the
calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures for all prior years.
In the proposed rule (74 FR 33651),
we noted that the term ‘‘actual
expenditures’’ is not defined in the
statute, nor are there any statutory
limitations on the Secretary’s ability to
recompute actual expenditures to reflect
changes in the amount of actual
expenditures. On several occasions, we
have made revisions to the amount of
actual expenditures to reflect new
information regarding spending on
physicians’ services. In order to
eliminate the disproportionate impact
that the large past increases in the costs
attributable to physician-administered
drugs would otherwise have upon
future PFS updates, we proposed to
remove drugs from the calculation of
allowed and actual expenditures under
sections 1848(d)(3)(C) and 1848(d)(4) of
the Act retrospectively to the 1996/1997
base year. Further, we proposed to
remove drugs from the calculation of the
SGR beginning with 2010.
Comment: Commenters strongly
supported our proposal to remove drugs
from the calculation of allowed and
actual expenditures retrospectively to
the 1996/1997 base year and our
proposal to remove drugs from the
calculation of the SGR beginning with
2010. Many noted that they have been
requesting this change for years.
However, all commenters expressed
concerns about the estimated negative
update for CY 2010 of approximately
¥21 percent, followed by multiple
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61961
years of negative physician updates of
approximately ¥5 percent. Commenters
described how they believe the SGR and
update formulas are flawed, and they
stated their belief that the magnitude of
the 1-year reduction, followed by
multiple years of continued reductions,
will impair beneficiary access to quality
care. Many commenters urged us to
work with Congress to revise or replace
the physician update and SGR formulas.
Some of these commenters suggested
alternative methodologies for updating
physician payments, and a number of
them specifically expressed their
support for the SGR-related provisions
of H.R. 3200. A few commenters
suggested using our administrative
authority to implement additional
changes that would further lessen the
negative impact. The AMA requested
that we publish in our final rule
estimates of the annual updates for 2011
through 2014.
Response: As discussed in the
proposed rule (74 FR 33650), the
magnitude of the estimated 1-year
reduction led us to reexamine
administrative actions that the Secretary
could take to lessen the potential for
repeated further reductions in the PFS
update. We explored the breadth of
options available under current
authority including an assessment of
whether the cost of physicianadministered drugs should continue to
be included in actual expenditures,
allowed expenditures and the SGR. As
the statute affords the Secretary clear
discretion to define ‘‘physicians’
services’’ for purposes of determining
allowed expenditures and the SGR
(section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act), we
proposed to remove physicianadministered drugs from the definition
of ‘‘physicians’ services’’ in section
1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act for purposes of
computing the SGR and the levels of
allowed expenditures and actual
expenditures in all future years.
Moreover, given the past effect of
spending growth for physicianadministered drugs on future PFS
updates, in order to effectuate fully the
Secretary’s policy decision to remove
drugs from the definition of physicians’
services in section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the
Act, we proposed to remove drugs from
the calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures under section
1848(d)(3)(C) and 1848(d)(4) of the Act
retrospectively to the 1996 base year in
order to eliminate the disproportionate
impact that the large past increases in
the costs attributable to physicianadministered drugs would otherwise
have upon future PFS updates. (See 74
FR 33651 for a more detailed
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61962
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
explanation of our legal authority for
this proposal). We received no public
comments that disagreed with these
proposals.
Accordingly, we are removing
physician-administered drugs from the
calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures under sections
1848(d)(3)(C) and 1848(d)(4) of the Act
for CY 2010 and retrospectively to the
1996/1997 base year in this final rule.
We are also finalizing our proposal to
remove drugs from the calculation of the
SGR beginning with 2010.
With respect to the many suggestions
we received in the public comments
asking the Secretary and the Congress to
do more to avert the reduction in PFS
payments for 2010 and future years, all
other options suggested in the
comments would require a change to the
statute. We also received a comment
requesting that we include estimates of
the updates from 2010 through 2014 in
this final rule. We are providing the
2010 update in the final rule, but are not
providing estimates of the updates for
later years as future updates will vary
depending on the baseline used and will
also change as additional information
becomes available.
Our decision to remove drugs from
the allowed and actual expenditures
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
and the SGR will have no effect on the
2010 PFS update of ¥21.3 percent
because removing drugs from allowed
and actual expenditures retroactively to
the base year changes the UAF for CY
2010 from ¥30.9 percent to ¥8.8
percent. As the statute limits the UAF
for a year to ¥7.0 percentage points, the
UAF would be ¥7.0 percent
irrespective of whether drugs are
included or excluded from allowed and
actual expenditures retroactive to the
base year. Although the magnitude of
future updates remains uncertain, as the
following analysis demonstrates, it is
clear that our proposal to remove drugs
from allowed expenditures, actual
expenditures, and the SGR will make a
positive PFS update far more likely.
Removing drugs from allowed and
actual expenditures for all years and
from future SGRs reduces the difference
between cumulative allowed and actual
expenditures from $71.8 billion to $19.4
billion or by over $50 billion. Future
PFS updates will only have to be
reduced by $19.4 billion rather than
$71.8 billion to equate actual and
allowed expenditures. The UAF for
2010 changes from ¥30.9 percent to
¥8.8 percent, but is limited to ¥7.0
percent under either scenario. If
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
physician-administered drugs were to
remain included in allowed and actual
expenditures, the UAF would be
expected to be at the maximum
reduction of ¥7.0 percent for several
years beyond 2010. By excluding these
drugs, far fewer negative UAFs are
expected in future years.
Table 34 shows annual and
cumulative allowed and actual
expenditures for physicians’ services
from April 1, 1996, through the end of
the current CY, including the short
periods in 1999 when we transitioned to
a CY system. As discussed in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33651),
once the Secretary has revised the level
of allowed expenditures during the base
year (as is authorized under the statute),
it is reasonable to carry this revision
through into all subsequent years. Thus,
Table 34 also reflects recomputed
allowed and actual expenditures from
the base year and subsequent years to
remove the costs associated with
physician-administered drugs.
Table 34 also shows the SGR
corresponding with each period. The
calculation of the SGR is discussed in
detail below in this section.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61963
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.208
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
61964
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Consistent with section 1848(d)(4)(E)
of the Act, Table 34 includes our second
revision of allowed expenditures for CY
2008, a recalculation of allowed
expenditures for CY 2009, and our
initial estimate of allowed expenditures
for CY 2010. To determine the UAF for
CY 2010, the statute requires that we
use allowed and actual expenditures
from April 1, 1996 through December
31, 2009 and the CY 2010 SGR.
UAF 10 =
Consistent with section 1848(d)(4)(E) of
the Act, we will be making revisions to
the CY 2009 and CY 2010 SGRs and CY
2009 and CY 2010 allowed
expenditures. Because we have
incomplete actual expenditure data for
CY 2009, we are using an estimate for
this period. Any difference between
current estimates and final figures will
be taken into account in determining the
UAF for future years. In addition, as
discussed above, in order to effectuate
fully the Secretary’s policy decision to
remove drugs from the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services,’’ we are removing
drugs from the calculation of allowed
expenditures for CY 2010, CY 2009, CY
2008, and all prior years.
We are using figures from Table 34 in
the following statutory formula:
Target 09 − Actual 09
Target 4/96−12/09 − Actual 4/96−12/09
× 0.33
× 0.75 +
Actual 09
Actual 09 × SGR10
UAF10 = Update Adjustment Factor for
CY 2010 = ¥8.8 percent
Target09 = Allowed Expenditures for CY
2009 = $89.3 billion
Actual09 = Estimated Actual
Expenditures for CY 2009 = $90.5
billion
Target 4/96–12/09 = Allowed Expenditures
from 4/1/1996–12/31/2009 = $917.5
billion
Actual 4/96–12/09 = Estimated Actual
Expenditures from 4/1/1996—12/
31/2009 = $936.9 billion
SGR10 = ¥8.8 percent (0.912)
$89.3 − $90.5
$917.5 − $936.9
× 0.75 +
× 0.33 = − 8.8%
$90.5
$90.5 × 0.912
If we had not removed the costs
associated with physician-administered
drugs from the calculation of allowed
and actual expenditures retrospectively
to the 1996/1997 base year and from the
calculation of the SGR beginning with
2010 SGR, the UAF determined using
the statutory formula would have been
¥30.9 percent.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
VI. Allowed Expenditures for
Physicians’ Services and the
Sustainable Growth Rate
A. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
The SGR is an annual growth rate that
applies to physicians’ services paid by
Medicare. The use of the SGR is
intended to control growth in aggregate
Medicare expenditures for physicians’
services. Payments for services are not
withheld if the percentage increase in
actual expenditures exceeds the SGR.
Rather, the PFS update, as specified in
section 1848(d)(4) of the Act, is adjusted
based on a comparison of allowed
expenditures (determined using the
SGR) and actual expenditures. If actual
expenditures exceed allowed
expenditures, the update is reduced. If
actual expenditures are less than
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
allowed expenditures, the update is
increased.
Section 1848(f)(2) of the Act specifies
that the SGR for a year (beginning with
CY 2001) is equal to the product of the
following four factors:
(1) The estimated change in fees for
physicians’ services;
(2) The estimated change in the
average number of Medicare fee-forservice beneficiaries;
(3) The estimated projected growth in
real GDP per capita; and
(4) The estimated change in
expenditures due to changes in statute
or regulations.
In general, section 1848(f)(3) of the
Act requires us to publish SGRs for 3
different time periods, no later than
November 1 of each year, using the best
data available as of September 1 of each
year. Under section 1848(f)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act, the SGR is estimated and
subsequently revised twice (beginning
with the FY and CY 2000 SGRs) based
on later data. (The Act also provides for
adjustments to be made to the SGRs for
FY 1998 and FY 1999. See the February
28, 2003 Federal Register (68 FR 9567)
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.211
physician-administered drugs are
included in the levels of allowed and
actual expenditures, removing these
costs from our calculation did not
change the physician payment update
for services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010.
ER25NO09.210
The increase in the UAF reflects the
reduced discrepancy between actual
and target expenditures resulting from
removing the costs of physicianadministered drugs from our
calculations.
Section 1848(d)(4)(D) of the Act
indicates that the UAF determined
under section 1848(d)(4)(B) of the Act
for a year may not be less than ¥0.07
or greater than 0.03. Since ¥0.088 is
less than ¥0.07, the UAF for CY 2010
will be ¥0.07. Moreover, because
¥0.088 and ¥0.309 are both less than
¥0.07, removing the costs of physicianadministered drugs from our
calculations did not change the effective
UAF for CY 2010.
Section 1848(d)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
indicates that 1.0 should be added to the
UAF determined under section
1848(d)(4)(B) of the Act. Thus, adding
1.0 to ¥0.07 makes the UAF equal to
0.93.
Section 1848(d) of the Act provides
that the PFS update is equal to the
product of the MEI and the UAF.
Because the effective UAF for CY 2010
is ¥0.07 whether or not the costs of
ER25NO09.209
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
$958.0 − $1, 029.8
$93.2 − $100.8
× 0.33 = − 30.9%
× 0.75 +
$100.8 × 0.930
$100.8
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
for a discussion of these SGRs). Under
section 1848(f)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act, there
are no further revisions to the SGR once
it has been estimated and subsequently
revised in each of the 2 years following
the preliminary estimate. In this final
rule with comment, we are making our
preliminary estimate of the CY 2010
SGR, a revision to the CY 2009 SGR, and
our final revision to the CY 2008 SGR.
Although we are removing drugs from
the calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures under sections
1848(d)(3)(C) and 1848(d)(4) of the Act
retrospectively to the 1996/1997 base
year, we determined that we are only
authorized to remove drugs from the
calculation of the SGR beginning with
2010. Therefore, we will not be
removing drugs from previous years’
SGR calculations, and the revisions to
our estimates of the CY 2009 and CY
2008 SGRs will be limited to revisions
to reflect later data available as of
September 1, 2009, that were not
available when we published our
previous estimates.
B. Physicians’ Services
Section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act
defines the scope of physicians’ services
covered by the SGR. The statute
indicates that ‘‘the term physicians’
services includes other items and
services (such as clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests and radiology services),
specified by the Secretary, that are
commonly performed or furnished by a
physician or in a physician’s office, but
does not include services furnished to a
Medicare+Choice plan enrollee.’’
We published a definition of
physicians’ services for use in the SGR
in the November 1, 2001 Federal
Register (66 FR 55316). We defined
physicians’ services to include many of
the medical and other health services
listed in section 1861(s) of the Act. As
discussed in section VII.C. of this final
rule with comment period, the statute
provides the Secretary with clear
discretion to decide whether physicianadministered drugs should be included
or excluded from the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services.’’ Accordingly, we
are finalizing our proposal to remove
physician-administered drugs from the
definition of ‘‘physicians’ services’’ in
section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act for
purposes of computing the SGR and the
levels of allowed expenditures and
actual expenditures CY 2010 and all
future years. Furthermore, in order to
effectuate fully the Secretary’s policy
decision to remove drugs from the
definition of ‘‘physicians’ services,’’ we
are removing physician-administered
drugs from the calculation of allowed
and actual expenditures for all prior
years.
Thus, for purposes of determining
allowed expenditures, actual
expenditures for all years, and SGRs for
CY 2010 and subsequent years, we are
specifying that physicians’ services
include the following medical and other
health services if bills for the items and
services are processed and paid by
Medicare carriers (and those paid
through intermediaries where specified)
or the equivalent services processed by
the Medicare Administrative
Contractors:
• Physicians’ services.
• Services and supplies furnished
incident to physicians’ services, except
for the expenditures for drugs and
biologicals which are not usually selfadministered by the patient.
• Outpatient physical therapy
services and outpatient occupational
therapy services.
61965
• Services of PAs, certified registered
nurse anesthetists, certified nurse
midwives, clinical psychologists,
clinical social workers, NPs, and
certified nurse specialists.
• Screening tests for prostate cancer,
colorectal cancer, and glaucoma.
• Screening mammography,
screening pap smears, and screening
pelvic exams.
• Diabetes outpatient selfmanagement training (DSMT) services.
• MNT services.
• Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic
laboratory tests, and other diagnostic
tests (including outpatient diagnostic
laboratory tests paid through
intermediaries).
• X-ray, radium, and radioactive
isotope therapy.
• Surgical dressings, splints, casts,
and other devices used for the reduction
of fractures and dislocations.
• Bone mass measurements.
• An initial preventive physical
exam.
• Cardiovascular screening blood
tests.
• Diabetes screening tests.
• Telehealth services.
• Physician work and resources to
establish and document the need for a
power mobility device.
C. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for
2010
Our preliminary estimate of the CY
2010 SGR is ¥8.8 percent. We first
estimated the CY 2010 SGR in March
2009, and we made the estimate
available to the MedPAC and on our
Web site. Table 35 shows the March
2009 estimate and our current estimates
of the factors included in the CY 2010
SGR.
TABLE 35—2010 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
March estimate
Current estimate
Fees .....................................................................................
Enrollment ............................................................................
Real Per Capita GDP ..........................................................
Law and Regulation .............................................................
1.2 percent (1.012) ..............................................................
¥0.3 percent (0.997) ..........................................................
0.8 percent (1.008) ..............................................................
¥9.7 percent (0.903) ..........................................................
0.9 percent (1.009)
1.2 percent (1.012)
0.7 percent (1.007)
¥11.3 percent (0.887)
Total ..............................................................................
¥8.2 percent (0.918) ..........................................................
¥8.8 percent (0.912)
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Note: Consistent with section 1848(f)(2) of the Act, the statutory factors are multiplied, not added, to produce the total (that is, 1.009 × 1.012 ×
1.007 × 0.887 = 0.912). A more detailed explanation of each figure is provided in section VIII.F.1 of this preamble.
D. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for
2009
Our current estimate of the CY 2009
SGR is 6.1 percent. Table 36 shows our
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
preliminary estimate of the CY 2009
SGR that was published in the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period (73
FR 69904) and our current estimate.
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61966
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 36—2009 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
Estimate from CY 2009 final rule
Current estimate
Fees ......................................................................................
Enrollment ............................................................................
Real Per Capita GDP ...........................................................
Law and Regulation .............................................................
2.1 percent (1.021) ...............................................................
¥0.2 percent (0.998) ...........................................................
1.2 percent (1.012) ...............................................................
4.2 percent (1.042) ...............................................................
1.8 percent (1.018)
¥0.8 percent (0.992)
0.9 percent (1.009)
4.1 percent (1.041)
Total ..............................................................................
7.4 percent (1.074) ...............................................................
6.1 percent (1.061)
A more detailed explanation of each figure is provided in section VIII.F.2 of this preamble.
E. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for
2008
The SGR for 2008 is 4.5 percent. Table
37 shows our preliminary estimate of
the 2008 SGR from the CY 2008 PFS
final rule with comment period (72 FR
66379), our revised estimate from the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69904) and the final
figures determined using the best
available data as of September 1, 2009.
TABLE 37—2008 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
Estimate from CY 2008 final rule
Estimate from CY 2009 final rule
Final
Fees .....................................................
Enrollment ............................................
Real Per Capita GDP ...........................
Law and Regulation .............................
1.9 percent (1.019) .............................
¥0.7 percent (0.993) ..........................
1.7 percent (1.017) .............................
¥2.9 percent (0.971) ..........................
1.4 percent (1.014) .............................
¥3.2 percent (0.968) ..........................
1.6 percent (1.016) .............................
3.5 percent (1.035) .............................
1.4 percent (1.014).
¥2.0 percent (0.980).
1.6 percent (1.016).
3.5 percent (1.035).
Total ..............................................
¥0.1 percent (0.999) ..........................
3.2 percent (1.032) .............................
4.5 percent (1.045).
A more detailed explanation of each
figure is provided in section VIII.F.3. of
this final rule.
F. Calculation of 2010, 2009, and 2008
Sustainable Growth Rates
1. Detail on the CY 2010 SGR
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
All of the figures used to determine
the CY 2010 SGR are estimates that will
be revised based on subsequent data.
Any differences between these estimates
and the actual measurement of these
figures will be included in future
revisions of the SGR and allowed
expenditures and incorporated into
subsequent PFS updates.
• Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for CY 2010
This factor is calculated as a
weighted-average of the CY 2010
changes in fees for the different types of
services included in the definition of
physicians’ services for the SGR.
Medical and other health services paid
using the PFS are estimated to account
for approximately 90.8 percent of total
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2010 and are updated using the MEI.
The MEI for CY 2010 is 1.2 percent.
Diagnostic laboratory tests are estimated
to represent approximately 9.2 percent
of Medicare allowed charges included
in the SGR for CY 2010. Medicare
payments for these tests are updated by
the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Areas (CPI–U), which is ¥1.4 percent
for CY 2010. However, section 145 of
the MIPPA reduces the update applied
to clinical laboratory tests by 0.5 percent
for CY 2009 through CY 2013.
Therefore, for CY 2010, diagnostic
laboratory tests will receive an update of
¥1.9 percent. As noted in Section VII.C.
of this final rule with comment period,
we are finalizing our proposal to remove
physician-administered drugs from the
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2010 and in all future years.
Therefore, drugs represent 0.0 percent of
Medicare allowed charges included in
the SGR in CY 2010.
Table 38 shows the weighted-average
of the MEI and laboratory price changes
for CY 2010.
TABLE 38—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF
THE MEI AND LABORATORY PRICE
CHANGES FOR CY 2010
Weight
Physician ......................
Laboratory .....................
Weighted-average ........
Update
0.908
0.092
1.000
1.2
¥1.9
0.9
We estimate that the weighted-average
increase in fees for physicians’ services
in CY 2010 under the SGR (before
applying any legislative adjustments)
will be 0.9 percent.
• Factor 2—The Percentage Change
in the Average Number of Part B
Enrollees from CY 2009 to CY 2010
This factor is our estimate of the
percent change in the average number of
fee-for-service enrollees from CY 2009
to CY 2010. Services provided to
Medicare Advantage (MA) plan
enrollees are outside the scope of the
SGR and are excluded from this
estimate. We estimate that the average
number of Medicare Part B fee-forservice enrollees will increase by 1.2
percent from CY 2009 to CY 2010. Table
39 illustrates how this figure was
determined.
TABLE 39—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FEE-FOR-SERVICE ENROLLEES FROM CY 2009 TO CY 2010
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2009
Overall ........................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) .........................................................
Net .............................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00230
2010
42.431 million ............................................................................
10.926 million ............................................................................
31.506 million ............................................................................
43.164 million.
11.271 million.
31.893 million.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61967
TABLE 39—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FEE-FOR-SERVICE ENROLLEES FROM CY 2009 TO CY 2010—
Continued
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2009
Percent Increase ................................................................
An important factor affecting fee-forservice enrollment is beneficiary
enrollment in MA plans. Because it is
difficult to estimate the size of the MA
enrollee population before the start of a
CY, at this time we do not know how
actual enrollment in MA plans will
compare to current estimates. For this
reason, the estimate may change
substantially as actual Medicare fee-forservice enrollment for CY 2010 becomes
known.
• Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
2010
We estimate that the growth in real
GDP per capita from CY 2009 to CY
2010 will be 0.7 percent (based on the
10-year average GDP over the 10 years
of 2001 through 2010). Our past
experience indicates that there have also
been changes in estimates of real per
capita GDP growth made before the year
begins and the actual change in GDP
computed after the year is complete.
Thus, it is possible that this figure will
change as actual information on
economic performance becomes
available to us in 2010.
• Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2010 Compared With
CY 2009
The statutory and regulatory
provisions that will affect expenditures
in CY 2010 relative to CY 2009 are
estimated to have an impact on
expenditures of ¥11.3 percent. These
include the MIPPA provisions regarding
2010
...............................................................................................
the physician update, e-prescribing
bonuses, the expiration of the work
GPCI floor, and the expiration of
payment provisions related to certain
pathology services.
2. Detail on the 2009 SGR
A more detailed discussion of our
revised estimates of the four elements of
the 2009 SGR follows.
• Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for 2009
This factor was calculated as a
weighted-average of the 2009 changes in
fees that apply for the different types of
services included in the definition of
physicians’ services for the SGR in
2009.
We estimate that services paid using
the PFS account for approximately 82.4
percent of total allowed charges
included in the SGR in CY 2009. These
services were updated using the CY
2009 MEI of 1.6 percent. We estimate
that diagnostic laboratory tests represent
approximately 8.0 percent of total
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2009. Medicare payments for these
tests are updated by the CPI–U, which
is 5.0 percent for CY 2009. However,
section 145 of the MIPPA reduces the
update applied to clinical laboratory
tests by 0.5 percent for CY 2009 through
CY 2013. Therefore, for CY 2009,
diagnostic laboratory tests will receive
an update of 4.5 percent. We estimate
that drugs represent 9.7 percent of
Medicare-allowed charges included in
the SGR in CY 2009. We estimate a
1.2 percent.
weighted-average change in fees for
drugs included in the SGR (using the
ASP+6 percent pricing method) of 1.6
percent for CY 2009.
Table 40 shows the weightedaverage of the MEI, laboratory, and drug
price changes for CY 2009.
TABLE 40—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF
THE MEI, LABORATORY, AND DRUG
PRICE CHANGES FOR CY 2009
Weight
Physician ......................
Laboratory .....................
Drugs ............................
Weighted-average ........
Update
0.824
0.080
0.097
1.000
1.6
4.5
1.6
1.8
After considering the elements
described in Table 40, we estimate that
the weighted-average increase in fees for
physicians’ services in 2009 under the
SGR (before applying any legislative
adjustments) will be 1.8 percent. Our
estimate of this factor in the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period was
2.1 percent (73 FR 69905). The decrease
in the estimate is due to the availability
of some actual data.
• Factor 2—The Percentage Change
in the Average Number of Part B
Enrollees from CY 2008 to CY 2009
We estimate that the average number
of Medicare Part B fee-for-service
enrollees (excluding beneficiaries
enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans)
decreased by 0.8 percent in CY 2009.
Table 41 illustrates how we determined
this figure.
TABLE 41—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FEE-FOR-SERVICE ENROLLEES FROM CY 2008 TO CY 2009
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2008
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Overall ........................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) .........................................................
Net .............................................................................................
Percent Increase ................................................................
Our estimate of the ¥ 0.8 percent
change in the number of fee-for-service
enrollees, net of Medicare Advantage
enrollment for CY 2009 compared to CY
2008, is a larger change than our
original estimate of ¥ 0.2 percent in the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
41.747 million ...........................................................................
9.999 million .............................................................................
31.748 million ...........................................................................
...................................................................................................
period (73 FR 69905). While our current
projection based on data from 8 months
of 2009 differs from our original
estimate of ¥ 0.2 percent when we had
no actual data, it is still possible that
our final estimate of this figure will be
different once we have complete
PO 00000
Frm 00231
2009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42.431 million.
10.926 million.
31.506 million.
¥ 0.8 percent.
information on CY 2009 fee-for-service
enrollment.
• Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
CY 2009
We estimate that the growth in real
GDP per capita will be 0.9 percent for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61968
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
CY 2009 (based on the 10-year average
GDP over the 10 years of CY 2000
through CY 2009). Our past experience
indicates that there have also been
differences between our estimates of
real per capita GDP growth made prior
to the year’s end and the actual change
in this factor. Thus, it is possible that
this figure will change further as
complete actual information on CY 2009
economic performance becomes
available to us in 2010.
• Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2009 Compared With
CY 2008
The statutory and regulatory
provisions that will affect expenditures
in CY 2009 relative to CY 2008 are
estimated to have an impact on
expenditures of 4.1 percent. These
include the DRA provision reducing
payments for imaging services, the
MMSEA provision regarding the PQRI
bonuses payable in 2009, and the
MIPPA provisions regarding the change
in cost sharing for mental health
services, the physician update, and the
change in application of BN to the CF.
3. Detail on the CY 2008 SGR
A more detailed discussion of our
final revised estimates of the four
elements of the CY 2008 SGR follows.
• Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for 2008
This factor was calculated as a
weighted-average of the CY 2008
changes in fees that apply for the
different types of services included in
the definition of physicians’ services for
the SGR in 2008.
Services paid using the PFS
accounted for approximately 82.7
percent of total Medicare-allowed
charges included in the SGR for CY
2008 and are updated using the MEI.
The MEI for CY 2008 was 1.8 percent.
Diagnostic laboratory tests represented
approximately 7.7 percent of total CY
2008 Medicare allowed charges
included in the SGR and are updated by
the CPI–U. However, section 628 of the
MMA specifies that diagnostic
laboratory tests will receive an update of
0.0 percent from CY 2004 through CY
2008. Drugs represented approximately
9.7 percent of total Medicare-allowed
charges included in the SGR for CY
2008. We estimate a weighted-average
change in fees for drugs included in the
SGR of ¥ 0.7 percent for 2007. Table 42
shows the weighted-average of the MEI,
laboratory, and drug price changes for
CY 2008.
TABLE 42—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF
THE MEI, LABORATORY, AND DRUG
PRICE CHANGES FOR CY 2008
Weight
Physician ......................
Laboratory .....................
Drugs ............................
Weighted-average ........
0.827
0.077
0.097
1.000
Update
1.8
0.0
¥ 0.7
1.4
After considering the elements
described in Table 42, we estimate that
the weighted-average increase in fees for
physicians’ services in CY 2008 under
the SGR (before applying any legislative
adjustments) was 1.4 percent. This
figure is a final one based on complete
data for CY 2008.
• Factor 2—The Percentage Change
in the Average Number of Part B
Enrollees from CY 2008 to CY 2007
We estimate the decrease in the
number of fee-for-service enrollees
(excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA
plans) from CY 2007 to CY 2008 was
¥ 2.0 percent. Our calculation of this
factor is based on complete data from
CY 2008. Table 43 illustrates the
calculation of this factor.
TABLE 43—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FROM CY 2007 TO CY 2008
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2007
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Overall ........................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) .........................................................
Net .............................................................................................
Percent Increase ................................................................
• Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
2008
We estimate that the growth in real
per capita GDP was 1.6 percent in 2008
(based on the 10-year average GDP over
the 10 years of CY 1999 through CY
2008). This figure is a final one based on
complete data for CY 2008.
• Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2008 Compared With
CY 2007
Our final estimate for the net impact
on expenditures from the statutory and
regulatory provisions that affect
expenditures in CY 2008 relative to CY
2007 is 3.5 percent. These include the
DRA provision reducing payments for
imaging services, the MIEA TRHCA
provisions regarding the 2007 PQRI
reporting bonuses payable in 2008, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
2008
41.055 million ............................................................................
8.661 million ..............................................................................
32.394 million ............................................................................
....................................................................................................
41.747 million.
9.999 million.
31.748 million.
¥ 2.0 percent.
the MIPPA provisions regarding the
physician update and bonus payments
for mental health services.
VII. Anesthesia and Physician Fee
Schedule Conversion Factors for CY
2010
The CY 2010 PFS CF is $28.4061. The
CY 2010 national average anesthesia CF
is $16.6191.
A. Physician Fee Schedule Conversion
Factor
The PFS CF for a year is calculated in
accordance with section 1848(d)(1)(A)
of the Act by multiplying the previous
year’s CF by the PFS update. The
formula for calculating the PFS update
is set forth in section 1848(d)(4)(A) of
the Act. In general, the PFS update is
determined by multiplying the CF for
the previous year by the percentage
increase in the MEI times the UAF,
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which is calculated as specified under
section 1848(d)(4)(B) of the Act.
However, Section 101 of the MIEA–
TRHCA provided a 1-year increase in
the CY 2007 CF and specified that the
CF for CY 2008 must be computed as if
the 1-year increase had never applied.
Section 101 of the MMSEA provided a
6-month increase in the CY 2008 CF,
from January 1, 2008, through June 30,
2008, and specified that the CF for the
remaining portion of 2008 and the CFs
for CY 2009 and subsequent years must
be computed as if the 6-month increase
had never applied. Section 131 of the
MIPPA extended the increase in the CY
2008 CF that applied during the first
half of the year to the entire year,
provided for a 1.1 percent increase to
the CY 2009 CF, and specified that the
CFs for CY 2010 and subsequent years
must be computed as if the increases for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61969
RVUs may not cause the amount of
expenditures for the year to differ more
than $20 million from what would have
been in the absence of these changes. If
this threshold is exceeded, we must
make adjustments to preserve BN. We
estimate that CY 2010 RVU changes
would result in a decrease in Medicare
physician expenditures of more than
$20 million. Therefore, we are
increasing the CF by 1.00103 to offset
this estimated decrease in Medicare
physician expenditures due to the CY
2010 RVU changes.
We illustrate the calculation of the CY
2010 PFS CF in Table 44.
Payment for services under the PFS
will be calculated as follows:
Payment = [(RVU work × GPCI work) +
(RVU PE × GPCI PE) + (RVU
malpractice × GPCI malpractice)] ×
CF.
As explained above, section 101 of the
MIEA–TRHCA provided a 1-year
increase in the CY 2007 CF and
specified that the CF for CY 2008 must
be computed as if the 1-year increase
had never applied. Section 101 of the
MMSEA provided a 6-month increase in
the CY 2008 CF, from January 1, 2008,
through June 30, 2008, and specified
that the CF for the remaining portion of
2008 and the CFs for CY 2009 and
subsequent years must be computed as
if the 6-month increase had never
applied. Section 131 of the MIPPA
extended the increase in the CY 2008 CF
from the first half of the year to the
entire year, provided for a 1.1 percent
increase to the CY 2009 CF, and
specified that the CFs for CY 2010 and
subsequent years must be computed as
if the increases for CYs 2007, 2008, and
2009 had never applied.
In order to determine the 2010 PFS CF
update, the CFs for 2007, 2008, and
2009 must be calculated as if the various
legislative changes to the CFs for those
years had not occurred. Also, section
133(b) of the MIPPA provided for the
application of the 2007–2008 5-Year
work review BN adjuster to the CF for
years beginning with 2009. To make this
change for the anesthesia CF, we
recalculated the adjustments to the
anesthesia CF for CY 2007 and CY 2008
by removing the BN adjuster for work
which had been applied to calculate the
CF for each of these years. (See the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69909) for more
information on this calculation.) Table
45 also includes the CY 2010
adjustment to the anesthesia CF due to
changes in CY 2010 payment polices for
PE and malpractice RVUs.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
B. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
We calculate the anesthesia CF as
indicated in Table 45. Anesthesia
services do not have RVUs like other
PFS services. Therefore, we account for
any necessay RVU adjustments through
an adjustment tothe anesthesia CF to
simulate changes to RVUs. More
specifically, if there is an adjustment to
thework, PE, or malpractice RVUs, these
adjustments are applied to the
respective shares of the anesthesia CF as
these shares are proxies for the work,
PE, and malpractice RVUs for anesthesia
services.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.212
CYs 2007, 2008, and 2009 had never
applied.
In order to determine the 2010 PFS CF
update, the CFs for 2007, 2008, and
2009 must be calculated as if the various
legislative changes to the CFs for those
years had not occurred.
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
requires that increases or decreases in
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Section 1834(m) of the Act establishes
the payment amount for the Medicare
telehealth originating site facility fee for
telehealth services provided from
October 1, 2001, through December 31
IX. Provisions of the Final Rule
The provisions of this final rule with
comment period restate the provisions
of the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
2002, at $20. For telehealth services
provided on or after January 1 of each
subsequent calendar year, the telehealth
originating site facility fee is increased
by the percentage increase in the MEI as
defined in section 1842(i)(3) of the Act.
The MEI increase for 2010 is 1.2
percent.
Therefore, for CY 2010, the payment
amount for HCPCS code Q3014,
Telehealth originating site facility fee, is
80 percent of the lesser of the actual
charge or $24.00. The Medicare
telehealth originating site facility fee
and MEI increase by the applicable time
period is shown in Table 46.
except as noted elsewhere in the
preamble.
X. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and
Delay in Effective Date
PO 00000
We ordinarily publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and invite public comment on
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.214
VIII. Telehealth Originating Site
Facility Fee Payment Amount Update
ER25NO09.213
61970
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the proposed rule. The notice of
proposed rulemaking includes a
reference to the legal authority under
which the rule is proposed, and the
terms and substance of the proposed
rule or a description of the subjects and
issues involved. This procedure can be
waived, however, if an agency finds
good cause that a notice-and-comment
procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest and incorporates a statement of
the finding and its reasons in the rule
issued.
We utilize HCPCS codes for Medicare
payment purposes. The HCPCS is a
national drug coding system comprised
of Level I (CPT) codes and Level II
(HCPCS National Codes) that are
intended to provide uniformity to
coding procedures, services, and
supplies across all types of medical
providers and suppliers. Level I (CPT)
codes are copyrighted by the AMA and
consist of several categories, including
Category I codes which are 5-digit
numeric codes, and Category III codes
which are temporary codes to track
emerging technology, services, and
procedures.
The AMA issues an annual update of
the CPT code set each Fall, with January
1 as the effective date for implementing
the updated CPT codes. The HCPCS,
including both Level I and Level II
codes, is similarly updated annually on
a CY basis. Annual coding changes are
not available to the public until the Fall
immediately preceding the annual
January update of the PFS. Because of
the timing of the release of these new
codes, it is impracticable for CMS to
provide prior notice and solicit
comment on these codes and the RVUs
assigned to them in advance of
publication of the final rule that
implements the PFS. Yet, it is
imperative that these coding changes be
accounted for and recognized timely
under the PFS for payment because
services represented by these codes will
be provided to Medicare beneficiaries
by physicians during the CY in which
they become effective. Moreover,
regulations implementing HIPAA (42
CFR parts 160 and 162) require that the
HCPCS be used to report health care
services, including services paid under
the PFS. We also assign interim RVUs
to any new codes based on a review of
the RUC recommendations for valuing
these services. By reviewing these RUC
recommendations for the new codes, we
are able to assign RVUs to services
based on input from the medical
community and to establish payment for
them, on an interim basis, that
corresponds to the relative resources
associated with furnishing the services.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
If we did not assign RVUs to new codes
on an interim basis, the alternative
would be to either not pay for these
services during the initial CY or have
each carrier establish a payment rate for
these new codes. We believe both of
these alternatives are contrary to the
public interest, particularly since the
RUC process allows for an assessment of
the valuation of these services by the
medical community prior to our
establishing payment for these codes on
an interim basis. Therefore, we believe
it would be contrary to the public
interest to delay establishment of fee
schedule payment amounts for these
codes.
For the reasons outlined above in this
section, we find good cause to waive the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the
interim RVUs for selected procedure
codes identified in Addendum C and to
establish RVUs for these codes on an
interim final basis. We are providing a
60-day public comment period.
Section II.F. of this final rule with
comment period discusses the
identification and review of potentially
misvalued codes by a workgroup of the
AMA RUC, as well as our review and
decisions regarding the AMA RUC
workgroup’s recommendations. Similar
to the AMA RUC recommendations for
new and revised codes discussed above,
due to the timing of the AMA RUC
workgroup’s recommendations for the
potentially misvalued codes, it was
impracticable for CMS to solicit public
comment regarding specific proposals
for revision prior to this final rule with
comment period. We believe it is in the
public interest to implement the revised
RVUs for the codes that were identified
as misvalued, and that have been
reviewed and re-evaluated by the AMA
RUC workgroup, on an interim final
basis for CY 2010. The revisions of
RVUs for these codes will establish a
more appropriate payment that better
corresponds to the relative resources
associated with furnishing these
services. A delay in implementing
revised values for these misvalued
codes would not only perpetuate the
known misvaluation for these services,
it would also perpetuate a distortion in
the payment for other services under the
PFS. Implementing the changes now
allows for a more equitable distribution
of payments across all PFS services. We
believe a delay in implementation of
these revisions would be contrary to the
public interest, particularly since the
AMA RUC process allows for an
assessment of the valuation of these
services by the medical community
prior to the AMA RUC’s
recommendation to CMS. For the
reasons described above, we find good
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61971
cause to waive notice and comment
procedures with respect to the
misvalued codes identified in Table 5,
and to revise RVUs for these codes on
an interim final basis. We are providing
a 60-day public comment period.
We ordinarily provide a 60-day delay
in the effective date of the provisions of
a rule in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(d)), which requires a 30-day
delayed effective date, and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801(a)(3)), which requires a 60-day
delayed effective date for major rules.
However, we can waive the delay in the
effective date if the Secretary finds, for
good cause, that the delay is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, and incorporates
a statement of the finding and the
reasons in the rule issued (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3); 5 U.S.C. 808(2)).
In section II. G. 6 of this final rule
with comment period, we are finalizing
our proposed criteria for designating
organizations to accredit suppliers
furnishing the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services as specified
in section 1834(e) of the Act. We also
discuss our expectation to publish a
notice the same day that this final rule
is issued to solicit applications from
entities for the purpose of becoming a
designated accreditation organization.
We note that section 1834(e) of the Act
requires us to designate organizations to
accredit suppliers furnishing the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services by
January 1, 2010. Given the statutory
deadline to designate organizations and
the timing of the publication of this
final rule with comment period, we
believe it is impracticable to delay the
effective date of these criteria for
designating organizations to accredit
suppliers furnishing the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services. Therefore,
we believe that we have good cause for
making the imaging accreditation
provisions effective upon publication.
XI. Collection of Information
Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, we are required to provide 60day notice in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment before a
collection of information requirement is
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval. In order to fairly evaluate
whether an information collection
should be approved by OMB, section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61972
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
• The need for the information
collection and its usefulness in carrying
out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the
information collection burden on the
affected public, including automated
collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on
each of these issues for the following
sections of this document that contain
information collection requirements
(ICRs):
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
A. ICRs Regarding Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Program: Conditions for
Coverage (§ 410.47)
Section 410.47(c) lists the
components of a pulmonary
rehabilitation program. Specifically,
§ 410.47(c)(3) through (c)(5) discuss
psychosocial assessments, outcome
assessments and individualized
treatment plans, respectively, and the
role of these tools in pulmonary
rehabilitation programs. The burden
associated with meeting the
requirements for conducting
psychosocial assessments, outcome
assessments, and individualized
treatment plans is the time and effort
necessary for providers to document the
necessary information in the patient
record. While these requirements are
subject the PRA, we believe the
associated burden is exempt as stated
under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Psychosocial
assessments, outcome assessments and
individualized treatment plans are
routine tools used in pulmonary
rehabilitation programs and the practice
of using these tools is generally
recognized as an industry standard as
part of usual and customary business
practices.
B. ICRs Regarding Kidney Disease
Education Services (§ 410.48)
Section 410.48(f) states qualified
persons will develop outcomes
assessments designed to:
• Measure beneficiary knowledge
about chronic kidney disease (CKD) and
its treatment;
• Assess program effectiveness of
preparing the beneficiary to make
informed decisions about their
healthcare options related to CKD; and
• Assess program effectiveness in
meeting the communication needs of
underserved populations, including
persons with disabilities, persons with
limited English proficiency, and persons
with health literacy needs.
The assessment will be administered
to the beneficiary during one of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
kidney disease education (KDE) sessions
prescribed by the referring physician.
The assessments will be made available
to CMS upon request.
The burden associated with these
requirements is the time and effort
necessary to conduct an outcomes
assessment, maintain record of the
assessment, and to make the
documentation available to CMS upon
request. At this time, we are not able to
accurately quantify the burden because
we cannot estimate the number of
entities that must comply with these
requirements. Additionally, we are
trying to determine if the use and
maintenance of outcome assessments in
KDE services is a standard industry
business practice. Our preliminary
research gathered during a CMS Open
Door Forum held on November 6, 2008
and a stakeholders meeting hosted by
the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ) on December 16, 2008
indicates that outcome assessments are
used by most but not all of the entities
bound by the requirements in § 410.48.
We solicited comments pertaining to
this issue in the proposed rule that
published July 13, 2009 (74 FR 33520);
however, we did not receive any
information to assist us in accurately
quantifying the number of entities that
must comply with this requirement. We
will continue to evaluate the issue. If we
find that the number of affected entities
approaches the threshold of 10 as
specified in 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4), we will
submit an information collection
request to OMB for review and
approval.
C. ICRs Regarding Cardiac
Rehabilitation Program and Intensive
Cardiac Rehabilitation Program:
Conditions of Coverage (§ 410.49)
Section 410.49(b)(2) lists the required
components of a cardiac rehabilitation
program. Four of the five required
components, including cardiac risk
factor modification, psychosocial
assessments, outcomes assessments and
individualized treatment plans, impose
information collection burdens. The
burden associated with these
requirements is the time and effort
necessary to providers to customize
each patient’s cardiac risk modification
program. Additionally, there is burden
associated with conducting
psychosocial assessments and outcome
assessments and drafting individualized
treatment plans. Although section
144(a) of the MIPPA sets forth these
information collection requirements, we
believe the associated information
collection burden is exempt as stated
under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Performing
cardiac risk modification, psychosocial
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assessments, outcome assessments, and
individualized treatment plans are
routine tools used in cardiac
rehabilitation programs. As stated
earlier in the preamble of this final rule
with comment period, intensive cardiac
rehabilitation programs typically
involve the same elements as general
cardiac rehabilitation programs, but are
furnished in highly structured
environments in which sessions of the
various components may be combined
for longer periods of cardiac
rehabilitation and also may be more
rigorous. The ICRs and associated
burden are generally recognized as an
industry standard as part of usual and
customary business practices.
Section 410.49(c)(1) states that to be
approved as an intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program, a program in an
approved setting must be approved
through the national coverage
determination (NCD) process which
may be generated internally by CMS or
requested by a non-CMS entity. To be
approved as an intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program, the program
must demonstrate through peerreviewed, published research that it
accomplishes one or more of the
requirements listed in § 410.49(c)(1)(i)
through (iii), as well as statistically
significant reductions in 5 or more of
the measures listed in § 410.49(c)(2)(i)
through (vi). As described in
§ 410.49(c)(4), all prospective intensive
cardiac rehabilitation sites must apply
to enroll as an intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program site using the
designated forms as specified at
§ 424.510.
The burden associated with the
requirements in § 410.49(c) is the time
and effort necessary for a program to
demonstrate through peer-reviewed,
published research that it accomplishes
one or more of the requirements listed
in § 410.49(c)(1)(i) through (iii), as well
as statistically significant reductions in
5 or more of the measures listed in
§ 410.49(c)(2)(i) through (vi) and the
time and effort necessary for intensive
cardiac rehabilitation sites to apply to
enroll using the designated forms as
specified at 424.510. At this time, we
are not able to accurately quantify the
burden because we cannot estimate the
number of entities that will seek
approval as intensive cardiac
rehabilitation programs. We solicited
comments pertaining to this issue in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33520); however, we did not receive any
information to assist us in accurately
quantifying the number of entities that
must comply with this requirement. We
will continue to evaluate the issue. If we
find that the number of affected entities
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
approaches the threshold of 10 as
specified in 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4), we will
submit an information collection
request to OMB for review and
approval.
D. ICRs Regarding Imaging
Accreditation (§ 414.68)
Section 414.68(b) contains the
application and reapplication
procedures for accreditation
organizations. Specifically, an
independent accreditation organization
applying for approval or reapproval of
authority to survey suppliers for
purposes of accrediting suppliers
furnishing the technical component
(TC) of advanced diagnostic imaging
services must furnish CMS with all of
the information listed in § 414.68(b)(1)
through (14). The requirements include
but are not limited to reporting,
notification, documentation, and survey
requirements.
The burden associated with the
collection requirements in § 414.68(b) is
the time and effort necessary to develop,
compile and submit the information
listed in § 414.68(b)(1) through (14). We
believe that 3 entities will choose to
comply with these requirements. We
estimate that it will take each of the 3
entities, 80 hours to submit a complete
application for approval or reapproval
authority to become an accrediting
organization approved by CMS.
Section 414.68(c) contains the
information collection requirements
pertaining to CMS approved accrediting
organizations. An accrediting
organization approved by CMS must
undertake all of the activities listed in
§ 414.68(c)(1) through (6). The burden
associated with the collection
requirements in § 414.68(c) is the time
and effort necessary to develop, compile
and submit the information listed in
§ 414.68(c)(1) through (6). We believe
that 3 entities will choose to comply
with these requirements. We estimate
that it will take each of the 3 entities,
80 hours to submit the required
information on an ongoing basis.
For the aforementioned requirements
in § 414.68(b) and § 414.68(c), we are
aware that the potential respondent
universe is greater than 10 entities;
however, at this time, there are only
three entities committed to the program.
If the number of respondents
approaches the threshold of 10 or more
persons as defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(4), we will develop and
submit an information collection
request to OMB for review and
approval.
Section 414.68(d)(1) states that CMS
or our contractor may conduct an audit
of an accredited supplier, examine the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
results of a CMS-approved accreditation
organization’s survey of a supplier, or
observe a CMS-approved accreditation
organization’s onsite survey of a
supplier, in order to validate the CMSapproved accreditation organizations
accreditation process. The burden
associated with this requirement is the
time and effort necessary for an
accrediting organization to comply with
the components of the validation audit.
While this requirement is subject to the
PRA, we believe the associated burden
is exempt as stated in 5 CFR
1320.3(h)(6). The burden associated
with a request for facts addressed to a
single person, as defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(j), is not subject to the PRA.
As stated in § 414.68(e)(1), an
accreditation organization dissatisfied
with a determination that its
accreditation requirements do not
provide or do not continue to provide
reasonable assurance that the suppliers
accredited by the organization meet the
applicable quality standards is entitled
to a reconsideration. CMS reconsiders
any determination to deny, remove, or
not to renew the approval of deeming
authority to an accreditation
organization if the accrediting
organization files a written request for
reconsideration by our authorized
officials or through its legal
representative. The written request must
be filed within 30 calendar days of the
receipt of CMS’ notice of an adverse
determination or nonrenewal. In
addition, the request must also specify
the findings or issues with which the
accreditation organization disagrees and
the reasons for the disagreement.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for an accrediting
organization to develop and file a
written request for reconsideration.
While this requirement is subject to the
PRA, the associated burden is exempt
under 5 CFR 1320.4. The information in
question is being collected as a result of
an administrative action; accrediting
organizations are submitting requests for
reconsideration after receiving a notice
of an adverse determination or
nonrenewal.
E. ICRs Regarding Payment Rules
(§ 414.408)
Section 414.408(j)(5) contains the
notification requirements for suppliers
electing to become grandfathered
suppliers. Specifically, § 414.408(j)(5)(i)
states that a noncontract supplier that
elects to become a grandfathered
supplier must provide a 30-day written
notification to each Medicare
beneficiary that resides in a competitive
bidding area and is currently renting a
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61973
competitively bid item from that
supplier. The 30-day notification to the
beneficiary must meet the requirements
as listed in § 414.408(j)(5)(i)(A) through
(G).
Subsequent to the initial 30-day
notice to the beneficiary, as required by
§ 414.408(j)(5)(ii), suppliers must also
obtain and maintain a record of the
beneficiary’s election choice, the date
the choice was made, and the manner
through which the beneficiary
communicated his or her choice.
Additionally, § 414.408(j)(5)(iii) states
that if a beneficiary chooses not to
continue to receive a grandfathered
item(s) from his or her current supplier,
the supplier must provide the
beneficiary with two more notices prior
to the supplier picking up its
equipment. The supplier must provide a
10-day notification and a 2-day
notification. These notification
requirements must meet the criteria
listed in § 414.408(j)(5)(iii)(A) though
(C).
Section § 414.408(j)(5)(iv) requires
suppliers that elect to become
grandfathered suppliers to provide a
written notification to CMS of its
election decision. The notification must
meet the requirements as specified in
§ 414.408(j)(5)(iv)(A) through (D).
The burden associated with the
information collection requirements
contained in § 414.408(j)(5) is the time
and effort necessary for a noncontract
supplier to make the aforementioned
notifications to both beneficiaries and
CMS. We estimate that 1,305 suppliers
will elect to become grandfathered
suppliers. Similarly, we estimate that
each grandfathered supplier will need to
make an average of 53 notifications
based on an average of 52 beneficiaries
per supplier and one notice to CMS. We
estimate that it will take 2 hours to
develop the notification to the
beneficiary and 2 hours to develop the
notification to CMS. Similarly, we
estimate that each notification will take
15 minutes to send. The total estimated
burden associated with each of the 1305
suppliers complying with the
requirements in § 414.408(j)(5) is 17.25
hours per supplier for a total of 22,511
hours.
Section 414.408(j)(6) contains the
information collection requirements
pertaining to suppliers that choose not
to become grandfathered suppliers. A
noncontract supplier that elects not to
become a grandfathered supplier is
required to pick up the item it is
currently renting to the beneficiary from
the beneficiary’s home after proper
notification. Proper notification
includes a 30-day, a 10-day, and a 2-day
notice of the supplier’s decision not to
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61974
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
become a grandfathered supplier to its
Medicare beneficiaries who are
currently renting certain DME
competitively bid item(s) and who
reside in a CBA. These notifications
must meet all of the requirements listed
in § 414.408(j)(5)(i) and (ii) for the 30day, 10-day and 2-day notices that must
be sent by suppliers who decide to be
grandfathered suppliers. However, there
are exceptions regarding the 30-day
notice for noncontract suppliers electing
not to become grandfathered suppliers.
The exceptions are listed in
§ 414.408(j)(6)(iii)(A) through (C). In
addition, suppliers must also comply
with the criteria listed in
§ 414.408(j)(6)(iv).
The burden associated with the
information collection requirements in
§ 414.408(j)(6) is the time and effort
necessary for a supplier to make the
required notifications to beneficiaries.
We estimate that 145 suppliers will not
elect to become grandfathered suppliers.
Similarly, we estimate that each
nongrandfathered supplier will need to
make an average of 156 notifications
based on an average of 52 beneficiaries
per supplier. We estimate that it will
take 2 hours to develop the 30-day
notification to the beneficiary and 15
minutes to send out each notification.
The 10-day notification will take
approximately 15 minutes and the 2-day
will take approximately 15 minutes. We
estimate to send out all 3 notifications
it will take a total of approximately 45
minutes. The total burden associated
with the requirements in § 414.408(j)(6)
is approximately 5,945 hours.
F. ICRs Regarding Claims for Damages
(§ 414.425)
Section 414.425(a) states that any
aggrieved supplier, including a member
of a network that was awarded a
contract for the Round 1 Durable
Medical Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies Competitive Bidding Program
(DMEPOS CBP), may file a claim under
this section for certain alleged damages
arising out of MIPPA’s termination of
the Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contracts.
Section 414.425(b) states that a
completed claim, including all
documentation, must be filed within 90
days of the effective date of the final
rule on damages, unless that day is a
holiday or Sunday in which case it will
revert to the next business day. Section
414.425(c) lists the required
documentation for submitting a claim.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary to gather required
documentation as specified in
§ 414.425(c) and submit a claim for
damages. This requirement is for a one-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
time process that will only impact those
suppliers who were awarded a contract
and were potentially damaged by the
termination of their contracts by MIPPA.
We awarded contracts to 329 suppliers.
We expect that it will take
approximately 3 hours for a supplier to
gather the necessary documents and to
file a claim. We anticipate that
anywhere between 5 and 250 suppliers
may submit a claim for damages.
While this requirement is subject to
the PRA, we believe the associated
burden is exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4.
The information in question is being
collected as a result of an administrative
action; suppliers are submitting claims
for damages caused by the termination
of contracts awarded in 2008 under the
DMEPOS CBP that were terminated as a
result of section 154(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the
MIPPA.
G. ICRs Dispute Resolution and Process
for Suspension or Termination of
Approved CAP Contract and
Termination of Physician Participation
Under Exigent Circumstances
(§ 414.917)
As stated in § 414.97, an approved
CAP vendor may appeal that
termination by requesting a
reconsideration. A determination must
be made as to whether the approved
CAP vendor has been meeting the
service and quality obligations of its
CAP contract. The approved CAP
vendor’s contract will remain
suspended during the reconsideration
process.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a CAP vendor to request
a reconsideration of the termination.
While this requirement is subject to the
PRA, we believe the associated burden
is exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4. The
burden associated with collecting
information subsequent to an
administrative action is not subject to
the PRA.
H. ICRs Regarding Compendia for
Determination of Medically-accepted
Indications for Off-label Uses of Drugs
and Biologicals in an Anti-cancer
Chemotherapeutic Regimen (§ 414.930)
As stated in the definition for a
publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies in § 414.930(a), a
compendium must make the following
materials available to the public on its
Web site, coincident with the
compendium’s publication of the
related recommendation:
(i) The internal or external request for
listing of a therapy recommendation
including criteria used to evaluate the
request.
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) A listing of all the evidentiary
materials reviewed or considered by the
compendium pursuant to the request.
(iii) A listing of all individuals who
have substantively participated in the
review or disposition of the request.
(iv) Minutes and voting records of
meetings for the review and disposition
of the request.
The definition for a publicly
transparent process for identifying
conflicts of interests in § 414.930(a),
states that a compendium must make
the following materials available to the
public, coincident with the
compendium’s publication of the
related recommendation:
(i) Direct or indirect financial
relationships that exist between
individuals or the spouse or minor child
of individuals who have substantively
participated in the development or
disposition of compendia
recommendations and the manufacturer
or seller of the drug or biological being
reviewed by the compendium. This may
include, for example, compensation
arrangements such as salary, grant,
contract, or collaboration agreements
between individuals or the spouse or
minor child of individuals who have
substantively participated in the review
and disposition of the request and the
manufacturer or seller of the drug or
biological being reviewed by the
compendium.
(ii) Ownership or investment interests
between individuals or the spouse or
minor child of individuals who have
substantively participated in the
development or disposition of
compendia recommendations and the
manufacturer or seller of the drug or
biological being reviewed by the
compendium.
Based on our estimate, the burden we
derived for all our conflict of interest
and transparency provisions above, the
total burden would range from 1950
hours per compendium with 75
responses to 2600 hours per
compendium with 100 responses. The
variation in responses is due to the
varying size of compendia publications
and different processes used by
compendia publishers to generate a
recommendation. In our estimate we
also found that the total burden from
respondents would range from 30 hours
per compendium with 10 respondents
to 2535 hours per compendium with
845 respondents. The variation in
respondents depends on a
compendium’s use of internal or
external staff to generate compendia
recommendations. Therefore, based on
these burden totals, the total burden
hours per compendium to comply with
our conflict of interest and transparency
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
provisions ranges from 1980 hours (a
compendium with 75 responses and 10
respondents) to 5135 hours (a
compendium with 100 responses and
845 respondents). In order to capture
the maximum burden for an individual
compendium, we are using the highest
total hour estimate, 5135 hours, per
compendium to comply with our
conflict of interest and transparency
provisions. In addition, all these
provisions could be managed by a
qualified administrative assistant at an
hourly rate of $33.51 per hour based on
61975
the average salary of $69,500 obtained
from the Department of Labor.
We are soliciting public comments on
the aforementioned requirements and
the associated burden estimates in an
emergency PRA notice published
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
TABLE 47—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN
Respondents
Burden per
response
(hours)
Responses
Total annual
burden
(hours)
Regulation section(s)
OMB Control No.
§ 414.408(j)(5) ...................................
§ 414.408(j)(6) ...................................
§ 414.930 ...........................................
0938–New ........................................
0938–New ........................................
0938–New ........................................
1305
145
845
69,165
22,620
900
17.25
41
* 1.83
22,511
5,945
5,135
Total ...........................................
...........................................................
........................
........................
........................
33,591
* The average burden for the six tasks associated with the requirements in § 414.930.
If you comment on these information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements, please do either of the
following:
1. Submit your comments
electronically as specified in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule with
comment period; or
2. Submit your comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: CMS Desk Officer,
[CMS–1413–P]. Fax: (202) 395–6974; or
E-mail: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Additional Information Collection
Requirements
This final rule with comment period
imposes collection of information
requirements as outlined in the
regulation text and specified above.
However, this final rule with comment
period also makes reference to several
associated information collections that
are not discussed in the regulation text
contained in this document. The
following is a discussion of these
information collections, some of which
have already received OMB approval.
Part B Drug Payment
The discussion of average sales price
(ASP) issues in section II.H.1 of this
final rule with comment period does not
contain any new information collection
requirements with respect to payment
for Medicare Part B drugs and
biologicals under the ASP methodology.
Drug manufacturers are required to
submit ASP data to us on a quarterly
basis. The ASP reporting requirements
are set forth in section 1927(b) of the
Act. The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
required by manufacturers of Medicare
Part B drugs and biologicals to calculate,
record, and submit the required data to
CMS. While the burden associated with
this requirement is subject to the PRA,
it is currently approved under OMB
control number 0938–0921.
Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP)
Section II.H.2. of this final rule with
comment period discusses issues related
to the competitive acquisition program
for Part B drug payment. There are no
new information collection
requirements associated with the CAP;
however, there are several previously
approved information collection
requests (ICR) associated with the CAP.
TABLE 48—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
Program component
OMB
Control No.
Expiration
date
Medicare Part B Drug and Biological CAP .....................................................................................................................
Medicare Part B Drug and Biological Competitive Acquisition Program Applications 1 .................................................
Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) for Medicare Part B Drugs: CAP Physician Election Agreement ...................
0938–0954
0938–0955
0938–0987
06/30/2011
08/31/2012
12/31/2011
1 An extension of the currently approved ICR is currently in the middle of the mandatory 60-day Federal Register notice and comment period.
The ICR will be submitted to OMB for review and approval prior to the expiration date.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)
Section II.G.2. of this final rule with
comment period discusses the
background of the PQRI, provides
information about the measures to be
available to eligible professionals who
choose to participate in the 2010 PQRI,
and the criteria for satisfactory reporting
in 2010. Beginning on January 1, 2010,
the Secretary is also required by section
1848(m)(3)(C) of the Act, to establish
and have in place a process under
which eligible professionals in a group
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
practice (as defined by the Secretary)
shall be treated as satisfactorily
submitting data on quality measures
under the PQRI.
With respect to satisfactory
submission of data on quality measures
by eligible professionals, eligible
professionals include physicians, other
practitioners as described in section
1842(b)(18)(c) of the Act, physical and
occupational therapists, qualified
speech-language pathologists, and
qualified audiologists. Eligible
professionals may choose whether to
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
participate and, to the extent they
satisfactorily submit data on quality
measures for covered professional
services, they can qualify to receive an
incentive payment. To qualify to receive
an incentive payment for 2010, the
eligible professional must meet one of
the criteria for satisfactory reporting
described in sections II.G.2.e. and
II.G.2.f. of this final rule with comment
period.
For individual eligible professionals,
the burden associated with the
requirements of this voluntary reporting
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61976
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
initiative is the time and effort
associated with eligible professionals
identifying applicable PQRI quality
measures for which they can report the
necessary information and the time and
effort associated with eligible
professionals selecting a reporting
option. We believe it is difficult to
accurately quantify the burden because
it would vary with each eligible
professional by the number of measures
applicable to the eligible professional,
the eligible professional’s familiarity
and understanding of the PQRI, and
experience with participating in the
PQRI. In addition, eligible professionals
may employ different methods for
incorporating quality measures
reporting into the office work flows and
are given flexibility for determining
which reporting option best fits their
needs.
We believe the burden associated
with participating in PQRI has declined
for those familiar with the program and
who have satisfactorily participated in
the 2007 PQRI and/or the 2008 PQRI.
However, because we anticipate even
greater participation in the 2010 PQRI,
including participation by eligible
professionals who are participating in
PQRI for the first time in 2010, we will
assign 5 hours as the amount of time
needed for eligible professionals to
review the list of PQRI quality
measures, identify the applicable
measures for which they can report the
necessary information, review the
measure specifications for those
measures applicable to the eligible
professional, incorporate reporting of
the measures selected by the eligible
professional into the office work flows,
and select a 2010 PQRI reporting option.
Information from the Physician
Voluntary Reporting Program (PVRP),
which was a predecessor to the PQRI,
indicated an average labor cost of $50
per hour per practice. To account for
salary increases over time, we will use
an average practice labor cost of $55 per
hour in our estimates based on an
assumption of an average annual
increase of approximately 3 percent.
Thus, we estimate the cost for an
eligible professional to review the list of
PQRI quality measures, identify the
applicable measures for which they can
report the necessary information, review
the measure specifications for those
measures applicable to the eligible
professional, incorporate reporting of
the selected measures into the office
work flows, and select a 2010 PQRI
reporting option to be approximately
$275 per eligible professional ($55 per
hour × 5 hours).
We continue to expect the ongoing
costs associated with PQRI participation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
to decline based on an eligible
professional’s familiarity with and
understanding of the PQRI, experience
with participating in the PQRI, and
increased efforts by CMS and
stakeholders to disseminate useful
educational resources and best
practices.
In addition, for claims-based
reporting, eligible professionals must
gather the required information, select
the appropriate quality data codes, and
include the appropriate quality data
codes on the claims they submit for
payment. The PQRI will collect quality
data codes as additional (optional) line
items on the existing HIPAA transaction
837–P and/or CMS Form 1500. We do
not anticipate any new forms or
modifications to the existing transaction
or form. We also do not anticipate
changes to the 837–P or CMS Form 1500
for CY 2010.
Because this is a voluntary program,
it is difficult to accurately estimate how
many eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the PQRI in CY 2010.
Information from the ‘‘PQRI 2007
Reporting Experience Report,’’ which is
available on the PQRI section of the
CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI, indicates that
nearly 110,000 unique TIN/NPI
combinations attempted to submit PQRI
quality measures data via claims for the
2007 PQRI. Therefore, for purposes of
conducting a burden analysis for the
2010 PQRI, we will assume that all
eligible professionals who attempted to
participate in the 2007 PQRI will also
attempt to participate in the 2010 PQRI.
Moreover, the time needed for an
eligible professional to review the
quality measures and other information,
select measures applicable to his or her
patients and the services he or she
furnishes to them, incorporate reporting
of the selected measures into the office
work flows, and select a 2010 PQRI
reporting option is expected to vary
along with the number of measures that
are potentially applicable to a given
professional’s practice. Since eligible
professionals are generally required to
report on at least 3 measures to earn a
PQRI incentive, we will assume that
each eligible professional who attempts
to submit PQRI quality measures data is
attempting to earn a PQRI incentive
payment and that each eligible
professional reports on an average of 3
measures for this burden analysis.
Based on our experience with the
PVRP, we continue to estimate that the
time needed to perform all the steps
necessary to report each measure (that
is, reporting the relevant quality data
code(s) for a measure) on claims ranges
from 15 seconds (0.25 minutes) to over
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
12 minutes for complicated cases and/
or measures, with the median time
being 1.75 minutes. With an average
practice labor cost of $55 per hour, the
cost associated with this burden ranges
from $0.23 in labor time to about $11.00
in labor time for more complicated cases
and/or measures, with the cost for the
median practice being $1.44.
The total estimated annual burden for
this requirement will also vary along
with the volume of claims on which
quality data is reported. Results from
the 2007 PQRI indicate that eligible
professionals reported on 1 to 3,331
eligible instances per measure. For all
2007 PQRI measures, the median
number of eligible instances reported on
per measure was less than 60. On
average the median number of eligible
instances reported on per measure was
about 9. Therefore, for this burden
analysis we estimate that for each
measure, an eligible professional reports
the quality data on 9 cases. The actual
number of cases on which an eligible
professional will be required to report
quality measures data will vary,
however, with the eligible professional’s
patient population and the types of
measures on which the eligible
professional chooses to report (each
measure’s specifications includes a
required reporting frequency).
Based on the assumptions discussed
above, we estimate the total annual
burden per eligible professional
associated with claims-based reporting
to range from 306.75 minutes, or 5.1125
hours [(0.25 minutes per measure × 3
measures × 9 cases per measure) + 5
hours] to 624 minutes, or 10.4 hours
[(12 minutes per measure × 3 measures
× 9 cases per measure) + 5 hours]. We
estimate the total annual cost per
eligible professional associated with
claims-based reporting to range from
$281.21 [($0.23 per measure × 3
measures × 9 cases per measure) + $275]
to $572 [($11.00 per measure × 3
measures × 9 cases per measure) +
$275].
For registry-based reporting, we are
estimating that it would cost an eligible
professional approximately $1,000 to
participate in a registry based on input
we received from commenters (these
comments are addressed in the section
II.G.2.a. of the preamble). This takes into
account the participation fee charged by
registries and the fact that this fee often
includes services above and beyond
what is required for PQRI. However,
registries vary in their participation fees
as some registries do not charge a
participation fee at all or charge only
nominal fees. Eligible professionals also
need to authorize or instruct the registry
to submit quality measures results and
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
numerator and denominator data on
quality measures to CMS on their
behalf. We estimate that the time and
effort associated with this would be
approximately 5 minutes for each
eligible professional that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on
quality measures to CMS on their
behalf.
Registries interested in submitting
quality measure results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on their participants’
behalf in 2010 will need to complete a
self-nomination process in order to be
considered ‘‘qualified’’ to submit on
behalf of eligible professionals unless
the registry was qualified to submit on
behalf of eligible professionals for the
2009 PQRI and does so successfully. We
estimate that the self-nomination
process for qualifying additional
registries to submit on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2010 PQRI involves
approximately 1 hour per registry to
draft the letter of intent for selfnomination. It is estimated that each
self-nominated entity will also spend 2
hours for the interview with CMS
officials and 2 hours for the
development of a measure flow.
However, the time it takes to complete
the measure flow could vary depending
on the registry’s experience.
Additionally, part of the selfnomination process involves the
completion of an XML submission by
the registry, which is estimated to take
approximately 5 hours, but may vary
depending on the registry’s experience.
We estimate that the registry staff
involved in the registry self-nomination
process have an average labor cost of
$50 per hour. Therefore, assuming the
total burden hours per registry
associated with the registry selfnomination process is 10 hours, we
estimate the total cost to a registry
associated with the registry selfnomination process to be approximately
$500 ($50 per hour × 10 hours per
registry).
The burden associated with the
registry-based reporting requirements of
this voluntary reporting initiative is the
time and effort associated with the
registry calculating quality measure
results from the data submitted to the
registry by its participants and
submitting the quality measure results
and numerator and denominator data on
quality measures to CMS on behalf of
their participants. The time needed for
a registry to review the quality measures
and other information, calculate the
measure results, and submit the
measure results and numerator and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
denominator data on the quality
measures on their participants’ behalf is
expected to vary along with the number
of eligible professionals reporting data
to the registry and the number of
applicable measures. However, since it
is customary for most registries to
provide their participants with
information that can be used for the
participants’ internal quality
improvement efforts, we believe that
registries already perform many of these
activities for their participants. The
number of measures that the registry
intends to report to CMS and how
similar the registry’s measures are to
CMS’ PQRI measures will determine the
time burden to the registry.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must review the quality
measures on which we will be accepting
PQRI data extracted from EHRs, select
the appropriate quality measures,
extract the necessary clinical data from
his or her EHR, and submit the
necessary data to the CMS-designated
clinical data warehouse. Because this
manner of reporting quality data to CMS
will be new to PQRI for 2010 and
participation in this reporting initiative
is voluntary, we believe it is difficult to
estimate with any degree of accuracy
how many eligible professionals will
opt to participate in the PQRI through
the EHR mechanism in CY 2010. The
time needed for an eligible professional
to review the quality measures and
other information, select measures
applicable to his or her patients and the
services he or she furnishes to them is
expected to be similar for EHR-based
reporting and claims-based reporting.
Once the EHR is programmed by the
vendor to allow data submission to
CMS, the burden to the eligible
professional associated with submission
of data on PQRI quality measures
should be minimal.
An EHR vendor interested in having
their product(s) be used by eligible
professionals to submit PQRI quality
measures data to CMS were required to
complete a self-nomination process in
order for the vendor’s product(s) to be
considered ‘‘qualified’’ for 2010. It is
difficult for us to accurately quantify the
burden associated with the EHR selfnomination process as there is variation
regarding the technical capabilities and
experience among vendors. For
purposes of this burden analysis,
however, we estimate that the time
required for an EHR vendor to complete
the self-nomination process will be
similar to the time required for registries
to self-nominate, that is, approximately
10 hours at $50 per hour for a total of
$500 per EHR vendor ($50 per hour ×
10 hours per EHR vendor).
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61977
The burden associated with the EHRbased reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative is the time
and effort associated with the EHR
vendor programming its EHR product(s)
to extract the clinical data that the
eligible professional needs to submit to
CMS for purposes of reporting 2010
PQRI quality measures. The time
needed for an EHR vendor to review the
quality measures and other information
and program each qualified EHR
product to enable eligible professionals
to submit PQRI quality measures data to
the CMS-designated clinical data
warehouse will be dependent on the
EHR vendor’s familiarity with PQRI, the
vendor’s system capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
Some vendors already have these
necessary capabilities and for such
vendors, we estimate the total burden
hours to be 40 hours at a rate of $50 per
hour for a total burden estimate of
$2,000 ($50 per hour × 40 hours per
vendor). However, given the variability
in the capabilities of the vendors, we
believe a more conservative estimate for
those vendors with minimal experience
would be approximately 200 hours at
$50 per hour, for a total estimate of
$10,000 per vendor ($50 per hour × 200
hours per EHR vendor).
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as satisfactorily
submitting quality measures data under
the 2010 PQRI discussed in section
II.G.2. of this final rule with comment
period, group practices interested in
participating in the 2010 PQRI through
the group practice reporting option must
complete a self-nomination process
similar to the self-nomination process
required of registries and EHR vendors.
Therefore, we estimate that the selfnomination process for the group
practices for the 2010 PQRI involves
approximately 2 hours per group
practice to review the 2010 PQRI
reporting option and make the decision
to participate as a group rather than
individually and an additional 2 hours
per group practice to draft the letter of
intent for self-nomination, gather the
requested TIN and NPI information, and
provide this requested information. It is
estimated that each self-nominated
entity will also spend 2 hours
undergoing the vetting process with
CMS officials. We assume that the group
practice staff involved in the group
practice self-nomination process have
an average practice labor cost of $55 per
hour. Therefore, assuming the total
burden hours per group practice
associated with the group practice selfnomination process is 6 hours, we
estimate the total cost to a group
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61978
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
practice associated with the group
practice self-nomination process to be
approximately $330 ($55 per hour × 6
hours per group practice).
The burden associated with the group
practice reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative is the time
and effort associated with the group
practice submitting the quality measures
data. For group practices, this would be
the time associated with the group
practice completing the data collection
tool. The information collection
components of this data collection tool
have been reviewed by OMB and are
currently approved under OMB control
number 0938–0941, with an expiration
date of December 31, 2011, for use in
the Physician Group Practice, Medicare
Care Management Performance (MCMP),
and EHR demonstrations. Based on
burden estimates for the PGP
demonstration, which uses the same
data submission methods as what we
will be using for PQRI, we estimate the
burden associated with a group practice
completing the data collection tool will
be approximately 79 hours per
physician group. Therefore, we estimate
the total annual burden hours per
physician group would be
approximately 85 hours (2 hours for
decision-making + 4 hours for selfnomination + 79 hours for data
submission). Based on an average labor
cost of $55 per physician group, we
estimate the cost per physician group
associated with participating in the
PQRI group practice reporting option
would be $4,675 ($55 per hour × 85
hours per group practice).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
The Electronic Prescribing (EPrescribing) Incentive Program
We believe it is difficult to accurately
estimate how many eligible
professionals will opt to participate in
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program in
CY 2010. Information from the ‘‘PQRI
2007 Reporting Experience Report,’’
which is available on the PQRI section
of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI, indicates that
nearly 110,000 unique TIN/NPI
combinations attempted to submit PQRI
quality measures data via claims for the
2007 PQRI. Therefore, for purposes of
conducting a burden analysis for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program,
we will assume that as many eligible
professionals who attempted to
participate in the 2007 PQRI will
attempt to participate in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program. As such,
we can estimate that nearly 110,000
unique TIN/NPI combinations will
participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Section II.G.5. of the preamble
discusses the background of the EPrescribing Incentive Program. Section
II.G.5.c. of the preamble provides
information on how eligible
professionals can qualify to be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber in 2010 in order to earn an
incentive payment. Similar to the PQRI,
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program is a
voluntary initiative. Eligible
professionals may choose whether to
participate and, to the extent they meet
(1) certain thresholds with respect to the
volume of covered professional services
furnished and (2) the criteria to be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber described in section II.G.5.c.
of this final rule with comment period,
they can qualify to receive an incentive
payment for 2010.
For the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program, as discussed in section II.G.5.
of the preamble, each eligible
professional will need to report the 2010
electronic prescribing measure, which
indicates that at least 1 prescription
created during an eligible encounter was
generated and transmitted electronically
using a qualified electronic prescribing
system. Similar to PQRI, this measure
will be reportable through claims, a
qualified registry, or a qualified EHR.
Similar to claims-based reporting for
the PQRI, we estimate that the burden
associated with the requirements of this
incentive program is the time and effort
associated with eligible professionals
determining whether the electronic
prescribing quality measure applies to
them, gathering the required
information, selecting the appropriate
quality data codes, and including the
appropriate quality data codes on the
claims they submit for payment. We
expect the ongoing costs associated with
participation in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program to decline based on
an eligible professional’s familiarity
with and understanding of the EPrescribing Incentive Program,
experience with participating in the EPrescribing Incentive Program, and
increased efforts by CMS and
stakeholders to disseminate useful
educational resources and best
practices. Since the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program consists of only 1
quality measure, we will assign 1 hour
as the amount of time needed for
eligible professionals to review the
electronic prescribing measure and
incorporate reporting of the measure
into their office work flows and an
additional hour as the amount of time
needed for eligible professionals to
select an appropriate reporting
mechanism for them. At an average cost
of approximately $55 per hour (see
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
section XIII.E.2. above for a discussion
of how we arrived at this figure), we
estimate the total cost to eligible
professionals for reviewing the eprescribing measure, incorporating the
reporting of the measure into the office
work flows, and selecting an
appropriate reporting mechanism to be
approximately $110 ($55 per hour × 2
hours).
For claims-based reporting, the
quality data codes will be collected as
additional (optional) line items on the
existing HIPAA transaction 837–P and/
or CMS Form 1500. We do not
anticipate any new forms or
modifications to the existing transaction
or form. We also do not anticipate
changes to the 837–P or CMS Form 1500
for CY 2010.
Based on our experience with the
PVRP described in section II.G.5., we
estimate that the time needed to perform
all the steps necessary to report the
electronic prescribing measure via
claims to be 1.75 minutes. We also
estimate the cost to perform all the steps
necessary to report the electronic
prescribing measure to be $1.44 based
on the experience with the PVRP
described above.
Based on the 2010 criteria for
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber, we estimate that each
eligible professional will report the
electronic prescribing measure in 25
instances during the reporting period.
Therefore, we estimate the total
annual burden per eligible professional
who chooses to participate in the 2010
E-Prescribing Incentive Program through
claims-based reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure to be 163.75
minutes, or 2.73 hours [(1.75 minutes
per measure × 1 measure × 25 cases per
measure) + 2 hours]. The total estimated
cost per eligible professional to report
the electronic prescribing measure is
estimated to be $146 [($1.44 per
measure × 1 measure × 25 cases per
measure) + $110].
Because registry-based reporting of
the electronic prescribing measure to
CMS will be new for 2010 and
participation in this reporting initiative
is voluntary, it is impossible to estimate
with any degree of accuracy how many
eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program through the registrybased reporting mechanism in CY 2010.
We do not anticipate, however, any
additional burden for eligible
professionals to report data to a registry
as eligible professionals opting for
registry-based reporting would more
than likely already be reporting data to
the registry for other purposes
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(particularly eligible professionals who
are already participating in PQRI via the
registry-based reporting mechanism).
Little, if any, additional data would
need to be reported to the registry for
purposes of participation in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program.
However, in addition to the 2 hours
estimated for the time needed by
eligible professionals to review the
applicability of the electronic
prescribing measure, incorporate
reporting of the measure in their
practice work flows, and review the
available reporting mechanisms to select
the registry reporting mechanism,
eligible professionals will need to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf. We estimate that the
time and effort associated with this
would be approximately 5 minutes for
each eligible professional that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf.
Based on our policy to consider only
registries qualified to submit quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on quality measures
to CMS on their participants’ behalf for
the 2010 PQRI to be qualified to submit
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program, there will be no need
for a registry to undergo a separate selfnomination process for the EPrescribing Incentive Program other
than to indicate to us its desire to
become a qualified registry for the EPrescribing Incentive Program at the
time that it does so for PQRI. Therefore,
we estimate that any additional
associated with the registry selfnomination process would be minimal.
The burden associated with the
registry-based reporting requirements of
this voluntary reporting initiative is the
time and effort associated with the
registry calculating results for the
electronic prescribing measure from the
data submitted to the registry by its
participants and submitting the quality
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
prescribing quality measure to CMS on
behalf of their participants. The time
needed for a registry to review the
electronic prescribing measure and
other information, calculate the
measure’s results, and submit the
measure’s results and numerator and
denominator data on the measure on
their participants’ behalf is expected to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
vary along with the number of eligible
professionals reporting data to the
registry. However, we believe that
registries already perform many of these
activities for their participants. Since
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
consists of only one measure, we believe
that the burden associated with the
registry reporting the measure’s results
and numerator and denominator to CMS
on behalf of their participants would be
minimal.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must review the electronic
prescribing measure, extract the
necessary clinical data from his or her
EHR, and submit the necessary data to
the CMS-designated clinical data
warehouse. Because this manner of
reporting quality data to CMS will be
new for 2010 and participation in this
reporting initiative is voluntary, it is
difficult to accurately estimate how
many eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program through the EHRbased reporting mechanism in CY 2010.
The time needed for an eligible
professional to review the electronic
prescribing measure and other
information to determine whether the
measure is applicable to his or her
patients and the services he or she
furnishes to them and to review the
available reporting mechanisms to select
the EHR reporting mechanism is
expected to be similar for EHR-based
reporting and claims-based reporting.
Once the EHR is programmed by the
vendor to allow data submission to
CMS, the burden to the eligible
professional associated with submission
of data on the electronic prescribing
measure should be minimal.
Based on our policy to consider only
EHR products qualified for the 2010
PQRI to be qualified for the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program, there
will be no need for EHR vendors to
undergo a separate self-nomination
process for the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program and therefore, no additional
burden associated with the selfnomination process.
The burden associated with the EHRbased reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative is the time
and effort associated with the EHR
vendor programming its EHR product(s)
to extract the clinical data that the
eligible professional needs to submit to
CMS for purposes of reporting the 2010
electronic prescribing measure. The
time needed for an EHR vendor to
review the measure and other
information and program each qualified
EHR product to enable eligible
professionals to submit data on the
measure to the CMS-designated clinical
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61979
data warehouse will be dependent on
the EHR vendor’s familiarity with the
electronic prescribing measure, the
vendor’s system capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
Since only EHR products qualified for
the 2010 PQRI will be qualified for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
and the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
consists of only one measure, we believe
that any burden associated with the
EHR vendor to program its product(s) to
enable eligible professionals to submit
data on the electronic prescribing
measure to the CMS-designated clinical
data warehouse would be minimal.
Finally, with respect to the process for
group practices to be treated as
successful electronic prescribers under
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program discussed in section II.G.5., a
group practice will be required to report
the electronic prescribing measure in at
least 2,500 instances. Group practices
have the same options as individual
eligible professionals in terms of the
form and manner for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure (that is,
group practices have the option of
reporting the measure through claims, a
qualified registry, or a qualified EHR
product). The only difference between
an individual eligible professional and
group practice reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure is the
number of times that a group practice is
required to report the electronic
prescribing measure. Reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure can
continue to occur at the individual
eligible professional level under the
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option. In our analysis of the
information, however, we will aggregate
all of the information reported by the
eligible professionals within the group
practice to determine whether the group
practice reported the measure a
sufficient number of times. For group
practices that are selected to participate
in the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program group practice reporting option
and choose to do so through claimsbased reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure, we estimate the
total annual burden to be 74.92 hours
[(1.75 minutes per measure × 1 measure
× 2,500 cases per measure) + 2 hours].
The total estimated cost per group
practice to report the electronic
prescribing measure through claimsbased reporting is estimated to be
$3,710 [($1.44 per measure × 1 measure
× 2,500 cases per measure) + $110].
For group practices that are selected
to participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option and choose to do so
through registry-based reporting of the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61980
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
electronic prescribing measure, we do
not anticipate any additional burden to
report data to a registry as group
practices opting for registry-based
reporting would more than likely
already be reporting data to the registry
for other purposes, such as for the PQRI.
Little, if any, additional data would
need to be reported to the registry for
purposes of participation in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program.
However, in addition to the 2 hours
estimated for the time needed by group
practices to review the electronic
prescribing measure to determine its
applicability to the practice, incorporate
reporting of the electronic prescribing
measure into the practice’s work flows,
and review available reporting
mechanisms to select group practice
reporting of the measure through a
qualified registry, the group practices
will need to authorize or instruct the
registry to submit the measure results
and numerator and denominator data on
the electronic prescribing measure to
CMS on their behalf. We estimate that
the time and effort associated with this
would be approximately 5 minutes for
each group practice that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measure results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on its behalf.
For group practices that are selected
to participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option and choose to do so
through EHR-based reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure, once the
EHR is programmed by the vendor to
allow data submission to CMS, the
burden to the group practice associated
with submission of data on the
electronic prescribing measure should
be minimal.
In addition to the burden associated
with group practices reporting the
electronic prescribing measure, group
practices will also be required to selfnominate in order to participate in the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
under the group practice reporting
option. Since we are limiting
participation in the electronic
prescribing group practice reporting
option to those group practices selected
to participate in the PQRI group practice
reporting option, there will not be a
separate group practice self-nomination
process for the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program and, thus, no additional
burden.
We invite comments on this burden
analysis, including the underlying
assumptions used in developing our
burden estimates.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
XII. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public
comments we normally receive on
Federal Register documents, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them
individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and
time specified in the DATES section of
this preamble, and, when we proceed
with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the
preamble to that document.
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impacts of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 on Regulatory Planning and
Review (September 30, 1993), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354),
section 1102(b) of the Social Security
Act, section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), Executive Order 13132 on
Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 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). We estimate, as
discussed below in this section, that the
PFS provisions included in this final
rule with comment period will
redistribute more than $100 million in
1 year. Therefore, we estimate that this
rulemaking is ‘‘economically
significant’’ as measured by the $100
million threshold, and hence also a
major rule under the Congressional
Review Act. Accordingly, we have
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis
that to the best of our ability presents
the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
businesses, if a rule has a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, we
estimate that most hospitals and most
other providers are small entities as that
term is used in the RFA (including
small businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The great majority of
hospitals and most other health care
providers and suppliers are small
entities, either by being nonprofit
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
organizations or by meeting the Small
Business Administration (SBA)
definition of a small business (having
revenues of less than $7.0 million to
$34.5 million in any 1 year) (for details
see the SBA’s Web site at https://sba.gov/
idc/groups/public/documents/
sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf
(refer to the 620000 series). Individuals
and States are not included in the
definition of a small entity.
The RFA requires that we analyze
regulatory options for small businesses
and other entities. We prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis unless we
certify that a rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The analysis must include a justification
concerning the reason action is being
taken, the kinds and number of small
entities the rule affects, and an
explanation of any meaningful options
that achieve the objectives with less
significant adverse economic impact on
the small entities.
For purposes of the RFA, physicians,
NPPs, and suppliers including IDTFs
are considered small businesses if they
generate revenues of $7 million or less
based on SBA size standards.
Approximately 95 percent of physicians
are considered to be small entities.
There are over 1 million physicians,
other practitioners, and medical
suppliers that receive Medicare
payment under the PFS.
For purposes of the RFA,
approximately 85 percent of suppliers of
durable medical equipment, prosthetics,
orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) are
considered small businesses according
to the SBA size standards. We estimate
that approximately 105,000 DMEPOS
suppliers are enrolled in Medicare
currently and bill Medicare for
DMEPOS each year. Total annual
estimated Medicare revenues for
DMEPOS suppliers are approximately
$11.7 billion in 2008 for which $8.7
billion was for fee-for-service (FFS) and
$3.0 billion was for managed care.
For purposes of the RFA,
approximately 80 percent of clinical
diagnostic laboratories are considered
small businesses according to the SBA
size standards.
Ambulance providers and suppliers
for purposes of the RFA are also
considered to be small entities.
In addition, most ESRD facilities are
considered small entities for purposes of
the RFA, either based on nonprofit
status or by having revenues of $7
million to $34.5 million or less in any
year. We note that a considerable
number of ESRD facilities are owned
and operated by large dialysis
organizations (LDOs) or regional chains,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
which would have total revenues more
than $34.5 million in any year if
revenues from all locations are
combined. However, the claims data we
use to estimate payments for this RFA
and RIA does not identify which
dialysis facilities are parts of an LDO,
regional chain, or other type of
ownership. Each individual dialysis
facility has its own provider number
and bills Medicare using this number.
Therefore, we consider each ESRD to be
a small entity for purposes of the RFA.
We consider a substantial number of
entities to be significantly affected if the
final rule with comment period has an
annual average impact on small entities
of 3 to 5 percent or more. The majority
of ESRD facilities will experience
impacts of less than 2 percent of total
revenues. There are 946 nonprofit ESRD
facilities with a combined increase of
0.9 percent in overall payments relative
to current overall payments. We note
that although the overall effect of the
wage index changes is budget neutral,
there are increases and decreases based
on the location of individual facilities.
The analysis and discussion provided in
this section and elsewhere in this final
rule with comment period complies
with the RFA requirements.
Because we acknowledge that many of
the affected entities are small entities,
the analysis discussed throughout the
preamble of this final rule with
comment period constitutes our
regulatory flexibility analysis for the
remaining provisions and addresses
comments received on these issues.
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. Any such regulatory impact
analysis must conform to the provisions
of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes
of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define
a small rural hospital as a hospital that
is located outside of a metropolitan
statistical area and has fewer than 100
beds. We do not believe this final rule
with comment period has impact on
significant operations of a substantial
number of small rural hospitals because
most dialysis facilities are freestanding.
While there are 176 rural hospital-based
dialysis facilities, we do not know how
many of them are based at hospitals
with fewer than 100 beds. However,
overall, the 176 rural hospital-based
dialysis facilities will experience an
estimated 1.1 percent increase in
payments. As a result, this rule will not
have a significant impact on small rural
hospitals. Therefore, the Secretary has
determined that this final rule with
comment period will not have a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 2009, that
threshold is approximately $133
million. This final rule with comment
period will not mandate any
requirements for State, local, or tribal
governments. Medicare beneficiaries are
considered to be part of the private
sector and as a result a more detailed
discussion is presented on the Impact of
Beneficiaries in section V. of this
regulatory impact analysis. Rather, it
focuses on certain categories of cost,
mainly those ‘‘Federal mandate’’ costs
resulting from (A) imposing enforceable
duties on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector, or
(B) increasing the stringency of
conditions in, or decreasing the funding
of, State, local, or tribal governments
under entitlement programs.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
We have examined this final rule with
comment period in accordance with
Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that this regulation would
not have any substantial direct effect on
State or local governments, would not
preempt States, or otherwise have a
Federalism implication.
We have prepared the following
analysis, which together with the
information provided in the rest of this
preamble, meets all assessment
requirements. The analysis explains the
rationale for and purposes of this final
rule with comment period; details the
costs and benefits of the rule; analyzes
alternatives; and presents the measures
we will use to minimize the burden on
small entities. As indicated elsewhere in
this rule, we are implementing a variety
of changes to our regulations, payments,
or payment policies to ensure that our
payment systems reflect changes in
medical practice and the relative value
of services. We provide information for
each of the policy changes in the
relevant sections of this final rule with
comment period. We are unaware of any
relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this final rule
with comment period. The relevant
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61981
sections of this rule contain a
description of significant alternatives if
applicable.
Comment: We received comments on
the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule stating
that we failed to address the impact of
the changes on small businesses and did
not propose any measures for mitigating
the negative impact the proposals might
have on such businesses. One
commenter stated that most portable xray suppliers are small businesses and
that the policy changes will adversely
affect them. Another commenter,
representing providers of integrated
cancer care, also expressed concern
about the negative impact the proposed
changes would have on small
businesses that furnish radiation
therapy services. The commenters
outlined specific concerns with respect
to the proposals concerning practice
expense, including the change with
respect to assumption for equipment
utilization, the changes to malpractice
RVUs, as well as application of the
projected ¥21.5 update adjustment
under the SGR.
Response: In Addendum B of the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule, we provided
the proposed payment rates for the
HCPCS codes paid under the PFS. Any
physician or supplier of PFS services
can determine the impact of the
proposed Medicare payment rates using
their own mix of services. In addition,
we publish average impacts by Medicare
specialty to assist the public in
commenting on the proposed rule. The
methodology that we use to develop the
RVUs is publicly available as are the
data files that we use in the calculations
and impact analyses.
We did review the potential impact of
our revised policies in the regulatory
impact analysis. In light of the
comments received on the proposed
rule, we have revised many of the
proposals made in the proposed rule
such that we estimate that the impact on
portable x-ray suppliers and providers
of radiation therapy services in this final
rule with comment period will be
significantly different than in the
proposed rule, as shown in Table 49.
However, the PFS update, which is
based in part on the SGR, is required by
law, affects all PFS services, and we
have no discretion to waive this
provision for small businesses.
B. RVU Impacts
1. Resource-Based Work, PE, and MP
RVUs
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act
requires that increases or decreases in
RVUs may not cause the amount of
expenditures for the year to differ by
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61982
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
more than $20 million from what
expenditures would have been in the
absence of these changes. If this
threshold is exceeded, we make
adjustments to preserve BN.
Our estimates of changes in Medicare
revenues for PFS services compare
payment rates for CY 2009 with
payment rates for CY 2010 using CY
2008 Medicare utilization for all years.
To the extent that there are year-to-year
changes in the volume and mix of
services provided by physicians, the
actual impact on total Medicare
revenues will be different than those
shown in Table 49. The payment
impacts reflect averages for each
specialty based on Medicare utilization.
The payment impact for an individual
physician would be different from the
average, based on the mix of services the
physician provides. The average change
in total revenues would be less than the
impact displayed here because
physicians furnish services to both
Medicare and non-Medicare patients
and specialties may receive substantial
Medicare revenues for services that are
not paid under the PFS. For instance,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
independent laboratories receive
approximately 80 percent of their
Medicare revenues from clinical
laboratory services that are not paid
under the PFS.
Table 49 shows only the payment
impact on PFS services. The following
is an explanation of the information
represented in Table 49:
• Specialty: The physician specialty
or type of practitioner/supplier.
• Allowed charges: Allowed charges
are the PFS amounts for covered
services and include coinsurance and
deductibles (which are the financial
responsibility of the beneficiary). These
amounts have been summed across all
services furnished by physicians,
practitioners, or suppliers within a
specialty to arrive at the total allowed
charges for the specialty.
• Impact of Work RVU changes for
the CY 2010 PFS.
• Impact of PE RVU changes (Full) if
these changes were fully implemented
in CY 2010 PFS. These are not the
estimated CY 2010 impacts since we
have implemented a 4-year transition to
the new PE RVUs for existing codes.
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Impact of the CY 2010 PE RVU
changes under the 4-year transition
(Tran) adopted in this final rule with
comment period. These are the
estimated CY 2010 impacts. Note that
the transition does not apply to new and
significantly revised codes.
• Impact of MP RVU changes for the
CY 2010 PFS.
• Combined impact of all RVU
changes (Full) if these changes were
fully implemented in CY 2010 PFS.
These are not the estimated CY 2010
impacts since we have implemented a 4year transition to the new PE RVUs for
existing codes. These impacts are prior
to the application of the CY 2010
negative PFS CF update under the
current statute.
• Combined impact of all of the
estimated CY 2010 RVU changes under
the 4-year transition (Tran) adopted in
this final rule with comment period for
the PE changes. These are the estimated
CY 2010 impacts, prior to the
application of the CY 2010 negative PFS
CF update under the current statute.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61983
ER25NO09.215
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
changes, see section III.F.4. of this final
rule with comment period.
b. PE RVUs Impacts
2. Resource-Based Work, PE, and MP
RVUs Impacts
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
a. Work RVU Impacts
The average work RVU impacts are
primarily attributable to the changes for
consultation services. As described
earlier in this final rule with comment
period, we are proposing to no longer
recognize the billing codes for
consultation services so we are budget
neutrally eliminating the use of all
consultation codes (except for
telehealth) and have allocated the work
RVUs that were allotted to these
services to the work RVUs for new and
established office visit services, initial
hospital visits, and initial nursing
facility visits to reflect this change.
In addition, the impacts reflect the
work done by the AMA RUC related to
the Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup’s Codes Reported Together
screen. Based upon the AMA RUCs
review of the myocardial perfusion
imaging family of services, it was
determined that some of the existing
codes for these services are performed
together more than 95 percent of the
time and were thus referred to CPT for
creation of new bundled services. In
recognition of the efficiencies associated
with the services being performed
together, there are less aggregate RVUs
under the new bundled 2010 CPT
coding structure and pricing than there
are under the current 2009 CPT coding
structure and pricing. These fewer
aggregate RVUs will be offset by an
adjustment to the CF in order to
maintain overall BN. For further
information on the myocardial
perfusion imaging family coding
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
the fully implemented RVUs or the 4year transition RVUs.
c. Malpractice RVU Impacts
The PE RVU impacts are primarily
attributable to the incorporation of PE
data from the Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS). For a
discussion of the use of this updated
survey data, see section II.A.2. of this
final rule with comment period. The
impacts are shown both as if they were
fully implemented in CY 2010 and
under our 4-year transition policy to the
new PE RVUs for existing codes that
have not been substantially revised.
For IDTFs, the impact of our change
in the utilization rate for expensive
diagnostic equipment is also significant.
We estimate that for IDTFs, the
utilization rate change will result in a
fully implemented impact of
approximately ¥2 percent after taking
into account the OPPS payment cap.
This ¥2 percent impact is included in
the ¥29 percent fully implemented PE
RVU impact shown in Table 49 for
IDTFs. The change in the utilization rate
for expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment does not significantly impact
overall payments for other specialties
after taking into account the OPPS
payment cap.
The impacts also reflect the reduced
utilization for the myocardial perfusion
imaging family of services stemming
from the AMA RUC’s review of these
services as described above.
The payment impact for an individual
physician may be different from the
average, based on the mix of services the
physician provides. Using the RVU
information contained in Appendix B,
an impact can be calculated for any
particular mix of services either under
The average MP RVU impacts are
attributable to the changes adopted for
the Five-Year Review of MP RVUs
described earlier in this final rule with
comment period. Of particular note are
the impacts on the specialties of
Audiology (¥7 percent), and IDTFs (¥4
percent). These impacts are primarily
driven by the expansion of the MP
premium data collection and the
changes to the methodology for TC
services.
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
d. Combined Impact
Column E of Table 49 displays the
combined average impact of all RVU
changes by specialty. The impacts are
shown both as if the new PE RVUs were
fully implemented in CY 2010 and
under our 4-year transition policy to the
new PE RVUs for existing codes that
have not been significantly revised.
The estimated CY 2010 transition
impacts range from increases of +5
percent for ophthalmology to decreases
of ¥18 percent for nuclear medicine.
The effect of our policies on primary
care specialties such as General
Practice, Family Practice, Internal
Medicine, and Geriatrics are positive
with CY 2010 transition increases
ranging from +2 percent to +4 percent.
Again, these impacts are prior to the
application of the negative CY 2010 CF
update under the current statute.
Table 49 shows the estimated
transition impact on total payments for
selected high-volume procedures of all
of the changes discussed previously,
including the effect of the CY 2010
negative PFS CF update. We selected
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.216
61984
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
change in the facility rates and the nonfacility rates. For an explanation of
facility and non-facility PE, refer to
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Addendum A of this final rule with
comment period.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.217
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
these procedures because they are the
most commonly furnished by a broad
spectrum of physician specialties. There
are separate columns that show the
61985
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.218
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61986
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
As discussed in section II.B. of this
final rule with comment period, the
application of the 1.000 work GPCI
floor, as extended by section 134(a) of
the MIPPA, expires effective January 1,
2010. As a result, 54 (out of 89) PFS
localities will receive a decrease in their
work GPCI. Puerto Rico receives the
largest decrease (¥9.6 percent),
followed by South Dakota (¥5.8
percent), North Dakota (¥5.3 percent),
Rest of Missouri (¥5.1 percent), and
Montana (¥5.0 percent).
D. Medicare Telehealth Services
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
In section II.D. of this final rule with
comment period, we are adding
individual health behavior and
assessment services (as described by
HCPCS codes 96150 through 96152) to
the list of telehealth services. We are
also revising § 410.78 to specify that the
G-codes for follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultations (as described by
HCPCS codes G0406 through G0408)
include follow-up telehealth
consultations furnished to beneficiaries
in hospitals and skilled nursing
facilities.
The total annual Medicare payment
amount for telehealth services
(including the originating site facility
fee) is approximately $2 million.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Previous additions to the list of
telehealth services have not resulted in
a significant increase in Medicare
program expenditures. While we believe
that these proposals will provide more
beneficiaries with access to these
services, we do not anticipate that these
changes will have a significant
budgetary impact on the Medicare
program.
E. MIPPA Provisions
1. Section 102: Elimination of
Discriminatory Copayment Rates for
Medicare Outpatient Psychiatric
Services
This section of the MIPPA will have
a positive impact on Medicare patients
because coinsurance payment
percentages for outpatient mental health
services will be gradually reduced from
January 1, 2010 through January 1, 2014.
At the conclusion of this 5-year period,
Medicare patients will pay the same
coinsurance payment percentage for
outpatient mental health services as
they currently pay for most other health
services under the Medicare Part B
program.
Since the inception of the Medicare
Part B program, Medicare patients have
been required to pay for a greater
percentage of the cost of outpatient
mental health treatment services than
for other health services because of the
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Medicare payment limitation (the
outpatient mental health treatment
limitation). While a dollar cap that
previously applied to mental health
services was eliminated January 1, 1991,
the statute maintained the 621⁄2 percent
limitation on the recognition of incurred
expenses for these services. This
limitation of 621⁄2 percent effectively
reduces the program’s payment for
mental health services to 50 percent,
leaving a Medicare patient responsible
for paying the other half of these
expenses through coinsurance. The 621⁄2
percent limitation will remain in effect
until December 31, 2009.
During the transition, the Medicare
Part B program will incur increased
expenditures as Medicare patients pay
less out-of-pocket for outpatient mental
health services until, in 2014, patients
will pay only the deductible (if
applicable) and 20 percent coinsurance.
Section 102 of the MIPPA will shift
cost-sharing for mental health services
from Medicare patients to the program.
This provision will result in a cost
impact to the Medicare program of
approximately $100 million for CY
2010. As section 102 of the MIPPA is
implemented, the impact of the changes
to the coinsurance payment percentages
(that is, recognized incurred expenses)
for Medicare patients and the program
is as shown in Table 51.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.219
C. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs)
61987
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61988
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2. Section 131(b): Physician Payment,
Efficiency, and Quality Improvements—
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)
As discussed in section II.G.2. of this
final rule with comment period, the
2010 PQRI measures satisfy the
requirement of section 1848(k)(2)(D) of
the Act that the Secretary shall ensure
that eligible professionals have the
opportunity to provide input during the
development, endorsement, or selection
of measures applicable to services they
furnish. As discussed in section II.G.2.d.
of this final rule with comment period,
we are also offering options in 2010 for
reporting the 2010 PQRI measures via
submission of data to a qualified clinical
registry, options for reporting some of
the 2010 PQRI measures via submission
of data extracted from a qualified EHR,
options for reporting on measures
groups rather than individual measures,
and options for group practices to be
treated as satisfactorily submitting
quality data under the PQRI. We
received some comments regarding the
cost estimates for PQRI included in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33655 through 33657). These comments
have been addressed in section II.G.2. of
this final rule with comment period or
by revisions to our cost estimates below,
where appropriate.
Although there may be some cost
incurred for maintaining the measures
used in the PQRI and their associated
code sets, and for expanding an existing
clinical data warehouse to accommodate
registry-based reporting and EHR-based
reporting for the PQRI, we do not
anticipate a significant cost impact on
the Medicare program.
Participation in the PQRI by eligible
professionals is voluntary and eligible
professionals and group practices may
have different processes for integrating
the PQRI into their practices’ work
flows. Therefore, it is difficult to
accurately estimate the impact of the
PQRI on providers. We note also that for
eligible professionals who satisfactorily
submit PQRI quality measures, some (if
not all) of the costs incurred by the
professional to participate in PQRI may
be offset by the PQRI incentive payment
amount earned.
With respect to satisfactory
submission of data on quality measures
by eligible professionals, one factor that
influences the cost to eligible
professionals is the time and effort
associated with eligible professionals
identifying applicable PQRI quality
measures for which they can report the
necessary information. We have no way
to accurately quantify the burden
because it would vary with each eligible
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
professional by the number of measures
applicable to the eligible professional,
the eligible professional’s familiarity,
understanding of the PQRI, and
experience with participating in the
PQRI, and the reporting option selected
by the eligible professional. In addition,
eligible professionals may employ
different methods for incorporating
reporting of their selected measures into
the office work flows. Therefore, based
on an assumption that eligible
professionals will select 3 measures on
average and our own estimates that it
takes at least 1 hour to read and
understand each measure, we will
assign 3 hours as the amount of time
needed for eligible professionals to
review the PQRI quality measures,
identify the applicable measures for
which they can report the necessary
information, and incorporate reporting
of the selected measures into the office
work flows. After considering the
comments received, that indicated that
we need to include time for eligible
professionals to review all of the
reporting options, and our own
estimates of the amount of time it takes
to read and digest the reporting options,
we will also assign an additional 2
hours as the amount of time needed for
eligible professionals to review the 2010
PQRI reporting options and select the
option most appropriate for their
practice. Information from the Physician
Voluntary Reporting Program (PVRP),
which was a predecessor to the PQRI,
indicated an average practice labor cost
of approximately $50 per hour. To
account for salary increases over time,
we will use an average practice labor
cost of $55 per hour for our estimates
based on an assumption of an average
annual increase of approximately 3
percent. Thus, we estimate the cost for
an eligible professional to review the
PQRI quality measures, identify the
applicable measures for which they can
report the necessary information,
incorporate reporting of the selected
measures into the office work flows,
review, and select an appropriate
reporting option to be approximately
$275 per eligible professional ($55 per
hour × 5 hours).
For claims-based PQRI reporting, one
factor in the cost to eligible
professionals is the time and effort
associated with gathering the required
information, selecting the appropriate
quality data codes, and including the
appropriate quality data codes on the
Medicare Part B claims an eligible
professional submits for payment.
Information from the PVRP estimates
that the time needed to perform all the
steps necessary to report each measure
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1 time (that is, reporting the relevant
quality data code(s) for a measure on 1
case) on claims ranges from 15 seconds
(0.25 minutes) to over 12 minutes for
complicated cases and/or measures,
with the median time being 1.75
minutes. With an average practice labor
cost of $55 per hour, the cost to eligible
professionals to perform all the steps
necessary to report 1 quality measure 1
time ranges from $0.23 in labor time to
about $11.00 in labor time for more
complicated cases and/or measures. For
the median practice, the cost is about
$1.44 in labor time per measure per
reporting instance. Eligible
professionals generally are required to
report at least 3 measures to
satisfactorily report PQRI quality
measures data. Therefore, for purposes
of this impact analysis we will assume
that eligible professionals participating
in the 2010 PQRI will report an average
of 3 measures each.
The cost of implementing claimsbased reporting of PQRI quality
measures data will vary with the
volume of claims on which quality data
is reported. Results from the 2007 PQRI
indicate that eligible professionals
reported on 1 to 3,331 eligible instances
per measure. For all 2007 PQRI
measures, the median number of eligible
instances reported on per measure was
less than 60. On average the median
number of eligible instances reported on
per measure was about 9. Therefore, for
this analysis we estimate that for each
measure, an eligible professional reports
the quality data on 9 cases. The actual
number of cases on which an eligible
professional will be required to report
quality measures data will vary,
however, with the eligible professional’s
patient population and the types of
measures on which the eligible
professional chooses to report (each
measure’s specifications include a
required reporting frequency).
Based on the assumptions discussed
above, we estimate the total annual cost
per eligible professional associated with
claims-based reporting to range from
$281.21 [($0.23 per measure × 3
measures × 9 cases per measure) + $275]
to $572.00 [($11.00 per measure × 3
measures × 9 cases per measure) +
$275].
For registry-based reporting, eligible
professionals must generally incur a
cost to submit data to registries.
Estimated fees for using a qualified
registry range from no charge, or a
nominal charge, for an eligible
professional to use the registry to
costing eligible professionals several
thousand dollars, with a majority of
registries charging fees ranging from
$500–$1,000. Registries also often
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
provide services above and beyond what
is required for PQRI though and our
impact analysis is limited to the
incremental costs associated with
participation in PQRI. Nevertheless,
after considering the information above
with respect to the qualified registries
and the comments received, which
offered anecdotal information that the
annual cost to one practice of
participating in a specific registry is
approximately $3,000, we will estimate
the cost incurred by an eligible
professional to participate in PQRI via
registry-based reporting to be
approximately $1,000 per eligible
professional.
In addition, an eligible professional
who chooses to submit PQRI quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on quality measures
through a registry more than likely is
already reporting data to the registry for
other purposes. Little, if any, additional
data needs to be reported to the registry
for purposes of participation in the 2010
PQRI. Therefore, there should be little
additional cost to the eligible
professional associated with submitting
data to the registry.
Registries interested in submitting
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on their participants’
behalf must complete a self-nomination
process in order to be considered
‘‘qualified’’ to submit on behalf of
eligible professionals. We estimate the
registry self-nomination process to cost
approximately $500 per registry ($50
per hour × 10 hours per registry). This
cost estimate includes the cost of
submitting the self-nomination letter to
CMS and completing the CMS vetting
process. Our estimate of a $50 per hour
average labor cost for registries is based
on the assumption that registry staff
include IT professionals whose average
hourly rates range from $36 to $84 per
hour depending on experience, with an
average rate of nearly $50 per hour for
a mid-level programmer.
The cost to the registry associated
with the registry-based reporting
requirements of this voluntary reporting
initiative is the time and effort
associated with the registry calculating
quality measure results from the data
submitted to the registry by its
participants and submitting the quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on quality measures
to CMS on behalf of their participants.
The time needed for a registry to review
the quality measures and other
information, calculate the measures
results, and submit the measures results
and numerator and denominator data on
the quality measures on their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
participants’ behalf is expected to vary
along with the number of eligible
professionals reporting data to the
registry and the number of applicable
measures. However, since it is
customary for most registries to provide
their participants with information that
can be used for the participants’ internal
quality improvement efforts, we believe
that registries already perform many of
these activities for their participants.
For EHR-based reporting, an eligible
professional generally would incur a
cost associated with purchasing an EHR
product. The cost of purchasing an EHR
product can range anywhere from as
low as $500 to well over $50,000. After
considering the information above and
the comments received, we estimate
that, on average, it costs between
$15,000 and $25,000 to purchase an
EHR product. An EHR vendor interested
in having their product(s) be used by
eligible professionals to submit PQRI
quality measures data to CMS were
required to complete a self-nomination
process in order for the vendor’s
product(s) to be considered ‘‘qualified’’
for 2010. Therefore, one factor in the
cost to EHR vendors is the cost
associated with completing the selfnomination process in order for the
vendor’s EHR product(s) to be
considered ‘‘qualified.’’ Similar to the
estimated cost to the registry associated
with the registry self-nomination
process, the estimated cost for an EHR
vendor to complete the self-nomination
process, including the vetting process
with CMS officials, is conservatively
estimated to be $500 ($50 per hour × 10
hours per EHR vendor). Our estimate of
a $50 per hour average labor cost for
EHR vendors is based on the
assumption that EHR vendor staff
include IT professionals whose average
hourly rates range from $36 to $84 per
hour depending on experience, with an
average rate of nearly $50 per hour for
a mid-level programmer.
Another factor in the cost to EHR
vendors is the time and effort associated
with the EHR vendor programming its
EHR product(s) to extract the clinical
data that the eligible professional needs
to submit to CMS for purposes of
reporting 2010 PQRI quality measures.
The cost associated with the time and
effort needed for an EHR vendor to
review the quality measures and other
information and program each qualified
EHR product to enable eligible
professionals to submit PQRI quality
measures data to the CMS-designated
clinical warehouse will be dependent
on the EHR vendor’s familiarity with
PQRI, the vendor’s system capabilities,
as well as the vendor’s programming
capabilities. Some vendors already have
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61989
these necessary capabilities and for such
vendors, we estimate the total cost to be
approximately $2,000 ($50 per hour ×
40 hours per vendor). However, given
the variability in the capabilities of the
vendors, we believe a more conservative
estimate for those vendors with minimal
experience would be approximately
$10,000 per vendor ($50 per hour × 200
hours per EHR vendor).
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as satisfactorily
submitting quality measures data under
the 2010 PQRI discussed in section
II.G.2.g. of this final rule with comment
period, group practices interested in
participating in the 2010 PQRI through
the group practice reporting option must
complete a self-nomination process
similar to the self-nomination process
required of registries and EHR vendors.
We estimate that the group practice staff
involved in the group practice selfnomination process have an average
labor cost of $55 per hour. Therefore,
assuming the total burden hours per
group practice associated with the group
practice self-nomination process is 4
hours, we estimate the total cost to a
group practice associated with the group
practice self-nomination process to be
approximately $220 ($55 per hour × 4
hours per group practice). After
considering the comments received, we
will also assign an additional 2 hours as
the time needed by group practices to
review the 2010 PQRI reporting options
and make the decision to participate as
a group rather than individually. The
total costs associated with the decisionmaking process is estimated to be $110
($55 per hour × 2 hours per group
practice)
The cost associated with the group
practice reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative is the time
and effort associated with the group
practice submitting the quality measures
data. For physician group practices, this
would be the time associated with the
physician group completing the data
collection tool. The information
collection components of this data
collection tool have been reviewed by
OMB and are currently approved under
OMB control number 0938–0941, with
an expiration date of December 31,
2011. Based on cost estimates for the
Physician Group Practice (PGP)
demonstration, we estimate the cost
associated with a physician group
completing the data collection tool will
be approximately 79 hours per
physician group. Therefore, we estimate
the total annual burden hours per
physician group to be approximately 85
hours (2 hours for decision-making
process + 4 hours for self-nomination +
79 hours for data submission). Based on
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61990
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
an average labor cost of $55 per
physician group, we estimate the cost
per physician group associated with
participating in the PQRI group practice
reporting option would be $4,675 ($55
per hour × 85 hours per group practice).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
3. Section 131(c): Physician Resource
Use Measurement and Reporting
Program
As discussed in section II.G.3. of this
final rule with comment period, section
131(c) of the MIPPA amends section
1848 of the Act by adding subsection
(n), which requires the Secretary to
establish and implement by January 1,
2009, a Physician Feedback Program
using Medicare claims data and other
data to provide confidential feedback
reports to physicians (and as
determined appropriate by the
Secretary, to groups of physicians) that
measure the resources involved in
furnishing care to Medicare
beneficiaries. If determined appropriate
by the Secretary, the Secretary may also
include information on quality of care
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by
the physician (or group of physicians) in
the reports. We anticipate the impact of
this section to be negligible for the work
completed in the Program to date.
4. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (E-Prescribing)—The EPrescribing Incentive Program
Section II.G.5. of this final rule with
comment period describes the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program. To be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber in 2010, an eligible
professional must meet the
requirements in section II.G.5.c. of this
final rule with comment period.
We anticipate that the cost impact of
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program on
the Medicare program will be the cost
incurred for maintaining the electronic
prescribing measure and its associated
code set, and for expanding an existing
clinical data warehouse to accommodate
registry-based reporting and,
potentially, EHR-based reporting for the
electronic prescribing measure. We,
however, do not anticipate a significant
cost impact on the Medicare program
since much of this infrastructure had
already been established for the PQRI.
Participation in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program by eligible
professionals is voluntary and eligible
professionals may have different
processes for integrating the EPrescribing Incentive Program into their
practices’ work flows. Therefore, it is
difficult to accurately estimate the
impact of the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program on eligible professionals. In
addition, for eligible professionals who
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
are successful electronic prescribers,
some (if not all) of the cost of
participating in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program may be offset by the
incentive payment earned.
Similar to claims-based reporting for
PQRI, one factor in the cost to eligible
professionals, for those eligible
professionals who choose to report the
electronic prescribing measure through
claims, is the time and effort associated
with eligible professionals determining
whether the quality measure is
applicable to them, gathering the
required information, selecting the
appropriate quality data codes, and
including the appropriate quality data
codes on the claims they submit for
payment. Since the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program consists of only 1
quality measure, we will assign 1 hour
as the amount of time needed for
eligible professionals to review the
electronic prescribing measure and
incorporate reporting of the selected
measures into their office work flows
and an additional hour as the amount of
time needed for eligible professionals to
select an appropriate reporting
mechanism for them. At an average cost
of approximately $55 per hour (see
section XIII.E.2. above for a discussion
of how we arrived at this figure), we
estimate the total cost to eligible
professionals for reviewing the
electronic prescribing measure,
incorporating reporting of the selected
measures into the office work flows, and
selecting an appropriate reporting
mechanism to be approximately $110
($55 per hour × 2 hours).
Another factor in the cost to eligible
professionals is the time and effort
associated with gathering the required
information, selecting the appropriate
quality data codes, and including the
appropriate quality data codes on the
claims an eligible professional submits
for payment. Information from the PVRP
estimates that the time needed to
perform all the steps necessary to report
1 measure 1 time (that is, reporting the
relevant quality data code(s) for the
measure for 1 case) on claims ranges
from 15 seconds (0.25 minutes) to over
12 minutes for complicated cases and/
or measures, with the median time
being 1.75 minutes. With an average
practice labor cost of $55 per hour, the
cost to eligible professionals to perform
all of the steps necessary to report 1
quality measure 1 time on claims ranges
from $0.23 in labor time to about $11.00
in labor time for more complicated cases
and/or measures. For the median
practice, the cost is about $1.44 in labor
time per measure. Therefore, we
estimate the costs to eligible
professionals to perform all the steps
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
necessary to report the electronic
prescribing measure once on a claim to
be approximately $1.44.
The cost for this requirement will also
vary along with the volume of claims on
which quality data is reported. Based on
our proposal to require an eligible
professional to report the electronic
prescribing measure for at least 25
instances, we estimate the total annual
estimated cost per eligible professional
to report the electronic prescribing
measure to be $146.00 [($1.44 per
measure × 1 measure × 25 cases per
measure) + $110].
Because registry-based reporting of
the electronic prescribing measure to
CMS will be new for 2010 and
participation in this reporting initiative
is voluntary, it is difficult to accurately
estimate how many eligible
professionals will opt to participate in
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
through the registry-based reporting
mechanism in CY 2010. We do not
anticipate, however, any additional cost
for eligible professionals to report data
to a registry as we believe that most
eligible professionals opting for registrybased reporting would more than likely
already be reporting data to the registry
for other purposes, such reporting data
to the registry for the PQRI. Little, if
any, additional data would need to be
reported to the registry for purposes of
participation in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program. Furthermore, the
same information has to be reported for
the E-Prescribing Incentive Program and
for the same number of instances
regardless of the reporting mechanism
selected by the eligible professional.
That is, the eligible professional must
report that he or she generated and
transmitted at least one prescription
electronically for at least 25 eligible
patient encounters during the reporting
period.
One potential cost to some eligible
professionals associated with either
claims-based reporting or registry-based
reporting would be the cost of
purchasing and using an electronic
prescribing system. There are currently
many commercial packages available for
electronic prescribing. The cost to an
eligible professional of obtaining and
utilizing an electronic prescribing
system varies not only by the
commercial software package selected
but also by the level at which the
professional currently employs
information technology in his or her
practice and the level of training
needed. One study indicated that a midrange complete electronic medical
record with electronic prescribing
functionality costs $2500 per license
with an annual fee of $90 per license for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
quarterly updates of the drug database
after setup costs while a standalone
prescribing, messaging, and problem list
system costs $1200 per physician per
year after setup costs. Hardware costs
and setup fees substantially add to the
final cost of any software package.
(Corley, S.T. (2003). ‘‘Electronic
prescribing: a review of costs and
benefits.’’ Topics in Health Information
Management 24(1): 29–38.). Thus, for
the purpose of this impact analysis, we
estimate that eligible professionals who
opt to purchase a standalone electronic
prescribing system would incur an
average cost of $1200 per physician per
year. Eligible professionals who opt to
purchase an EHR with electronic
prescribing functionality would incur
an average cost of $2500 per license
with an annual fee of $90 per license for
quarterly updates of the drug database.
Based on our policy to consider only
registries qualified to submit quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on quality measures
to CMS on their participants’ behalf for
the 2010 PQRI to be qualified to submit
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure for the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program, we do not anticipate
any cost to the registry associated with
becoming a registry qualified to submit
the electronic prescribing measure for
2010.
The cost associated with the registrybased reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative for the
registry will be the time and effort
associated with the registry calculating
results for the electronic prescribing
measure from the data submitted to the
registry by its participants and
submitting the quality measures results
and numerator and denominator data on
the electronic prescribing quality
measure to CMS on behalf of their
participants. The time needed for a
registry to review the electronic
prescribing measure and other
information, calculate the measure’s
results, and submit the measure’s results
and numerator and denominator data on
the measure on their participants’ behalf
is expected to vary along with the
number of eligible professionals
reporting data to whom the measure
applies. However, we believe that
registries already perform many of these
activities for their participants since the
registries are already required to
perform these activities for the PQRI.
Since the E-Prescribing Incentive
Program consists of only one measure,
we believe that the cost associated with
the registry reporting the measure’s
results and numerator and denominator
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
to CMS on behalf of their participants
would be minimal.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must review the electronic
prescribing measure, extract the
necessary clinical data from his or her
qualified EHR, and submit the necessary
data to the CMS-designated clinical data
warehouse. Because this manner of
reporting quality data to CMS will be
new for 2010 and participation in this
reporting initiative is voluntary, it is
difficult to accurately estimate how
many eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program through the EHRbased reporting mechanism in CY 2010.
The cost associated with an eligible
professional reviewing the electronic
prescribing measure and other
information to determine whether the
measure is applicable to his or her
patients and the services he or she
furnishes to them and to review the
available reporting mechanisms to select
the EHR reporting mechanism is
expected to be similar for EHR-based
reporting and claims-based reporting
(that is, $110 at a rate of $55 per hour).
Once the EHR is programmed by the
vendor to allow data submission to
CMS, the cost to the eligible
professional associated with the time
and effort to submit data on the
electronic prescribing measure should
be minimal.
Based on our policy to consider only
EHR products qualified for the 2010
PQRI to be qualified to submit results
and numerator and denominator data on
the electronic prescribing measure for
the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program, there will be no need for EHR
vendors to undergo a separate selfnomination process for the EPrescribing Incentive Program and
therefore, no additional cost associated
with the self-nomination process.
The cost to the EHR vendor associated
with the EHR-based reporting
requirements of this voluntary reporting
initiative is the time and effort
associated with the EHR vendor
programming its EHR product(s) to
extract the clinical data that the eligible
professional needs to submit to CMS for
purposes of reporting the 2010
electronic prescribing measure. The
time needed for an EHR vendor to
review the measure and other
information and program each qualified
EHR product to enable eligible
professionals to submit data on the
measure to the CMS-designated clinical
data warehouse will be dependent on
the EHR vendor’s familiarity with the
electronic prescribing measure, the
vendor’s system capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61991
Since only EHR products qualified for
the 2010 PQRI will be qualified for the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
and the E-Prescribing Incentive Program
consists of only one measure, we believe
that any burden associated with the
EHR vendor to program its product(s) to
enable eligible professionals to submit
data on the electronic prescribing
measure to the CMS-designated clinical
data warehouse would be minimal.
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as successful
electronic prescribers under the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program discussed
in section II.G.5.e. of this final rule with
comment period, a group practice will
be required to report the electronic
prescribing measure in at least 2,500
instances. Group practices have the
same options as individual eligible
professionals in terms of the form and
manner for reporting the electronic
prescribing measure (that is, group
practices have the option of reporting
the measure through claims, a qualified
registry, or a qualified EHR product).
The only difference between an
individual eligible professional and
group practice reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure is the
number of times a group practice is
required to report the electronic
prescribing measure. Reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure can
continue to occur at the individual
eligible professional level under the
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option. In our analysis of the
information, however, we will aggregate
all of the information reported by the
eligible professionals within the group
practice to determine whether the group
practice reported the measure a
sufficient number of times. For group
practices that are selected to participate
in the 2010 E-Prescribing Incentive
Program group practice reporting option
and choose to do so through claimsbased reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure, we estimate the
total annual estimated cost per group
practice to be $3,710 [($1.44 per
measure × 1 measure × 2,500 cases per
measure) + $110].
For group practices that are selected
to participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option and choose to do so
through registry-based reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure, we do
not anticipate any additional burden to
report data to a registry as group
practices opting for registry-based
reporting would more than likely
already be reporting data to the registry
for other purposes, such as the PQRI.
Little, if any, additional data would
need to be reported to the registry for
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61992
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
purposes of participation in the 2010 EPrescribing Incentive Program.
However, in addition to the 2 hours
estimated for the group practice to
review the electronic prescribing
measure to determine whether it is
applicable to their practice and to
review the available reporting
mechanisms to select the group practice
reporting option, group practices will
need to authorize or instruct the registry
to submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf. We estimate that the
time and effort associated with this
would be approximately 5 minutes for
each group practice that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf.
For group practices that are selected
to participate in the 2010 E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option and choose to do so
through EHR-based reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure, once the
EHR is programmed by the vendor to
allow data submission to CMS, the
burden to the group practice associated
with submission of data on the
electronic prescribing measure should
be minimal.
In addition to the burden associated
with group practices reporting the
electronic prescribing measure, group
practices will also be required to selfnominate in order to participate in the
2010 E-Prescribing Incentive Program
under the group practice reporting
option. Since we are limiting
participation in the E-Prescribing
Incentive Program group practice
reporting option to those group
practices selected to participate in the
PQRI group practice reporting option,
there will be no additional burden
associated with the group practice selfnomination process for the EPrescribing Incentive Program.
5. Section 135: Implementation of
Accreditation Standards for Suppliers
Furnishing the Technical Component
(TC) of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
Services.
As discussed in section II.G.6. of this
final rule with comment period,
suppliers that provide the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services
will have to be accredited by an
approved accreditation organization in
order to receive Medicare payment for
advanced diagnostic imaging services
described in section 1848(b)(4)(B)
furnished to beneficiaries. This section
of the rule will impact the suppliers that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
provide the TC of advanced diagnostic
imaging services and the organizations
that accredit suppliers of such services.
Suppliers that provide the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services
will incur costs for becoming
accredited. Accreditation organizations
will incur costs to accredit suppliers. To
estimate the impact on suppliers, we
calculate the total cost of accreditation
as the sum of accreditation fees and
other accreditation costs, and we
multiply this cost by the number of
providers of care requiring
accreditation.
a. Factors Affecting the Cost Impact
According to our Services Tracking
and Reporting System (STARS) database
for 2008, there are a total of 1,131,115
physicians, IDTFs, and others billing
Part B for the TC of advanced diagnostic
imaging. This total includes both
suppliers and providers that furnish
items under Medicare Part B as
suppliers.
Currently, there are suppliers
accredited by one of three of the
nationally recognized accreditation. We
anticipate that the following
accreditation organizations will seek
approval from CMS to accredit suppliers
that provide the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services:
• American College of Radiology;
• Intersocietal Accreditation
Commission; and
• The Joint Commission.
b. Accreditation Fees
Fees vary between accreditation
organizations and, in general, currently
cover all of the following items:
application fee, manuals, initial
accreditation fee, onsite surveys or other
auditing (generally once every 3 years),
and travel, when necessary for survey
personnel. Accreditation costs also vary
by the size of the supplier seeking
accreditation, its number of locations,
and the number of services it provides.
Because of these factors, it is sometimes
difficult to compare fees across
accreditation organizations. We
obtained information on total
accreditation fees from the three
accreditation organizations that
currently accredit suppliers who
provide the TC of advanced diagnostic
imaging services. Based on all
information we obtained, we estimate
accreditation fees for each review cycle
and modality will be approximately
$5,000 for an advanced diagnostic
imaging supplier. Because accreditation
is for a 3-year period, the estimated
average cost per year would be
approximately $1,666 per modality.
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We recognize that becoming
accredited may impose a burden on
suppliers that provide the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services,
especially small suppliers. We have
attempted to minimize that burden. We
have implemented the following options
to minimize the burden of accreditation
on suppliers, including small
businesses:
• Multiple accreditation
organizations: We expect that more than
one accrediting organization will apply
to become and be designated as an
advanced diagnostic imaging
accrediting organization. We believe
that selection of more than one
accreditation organization will
introduce competition resulting in
reductions in accreditation costs.
• Required plan for small businesses:
During the application process we will
require accreditation organizations to
include a plan that details their
methodology to reduce accreditation
fees and burden for small or specialty
suppliers. This will need to include that
the accreditation organization’s fees are
based on the size of the organization.
• Reasonable quality standards: The
quality standards that will be used to
evaluate the services rendered for each
imaging modality are industry
standards. Many suppliers that provide
the TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
services already comply with the
standards and have incorporated these
practices into their daily operations. We
have been told that that those suppliers
with private insurance contracts must
be accredited, thus our requirements
would not be duplicative. It is our belief
and has been stated by those suppliers
already accredited that compliance with
the quality standards will result in more
efficient and effective business practices
and will assist suppliers in reducing
overall costs.
c. Other Accreditation Costs
It is difficult to precisely estimate the
costs of preparing for accreditation. We
do recognize there is cost to the supplier
in order to come into compliance
initially and thus prepare for the
accreditation survey. This should result
in minimal preparation and cost.
d. Additional Considerations
There are at least two important
sources of uncertainty in estimating the
impact of accreditation on suppliers that
provide the TC of advanced diagnostic
imaging services. First, our estimates
assume that all current suppliers with
positive Medicare payments will seek
accreditation. We assume that suppliers
who currently receive no Medicare
allowed charges will choose not to seek
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
accreditation. It is also possible that
many of the suppliers with allowed
charges between $1 and $10,000 may
decide not to incur the costs of
accreditation.
Second, it is unclear what
accreditation fees will be in the future.
However, we are requiring the
accreditation organization to submit
their fees that are based on the size of
the supplier, or on the amount billed.
Our experience with another
accreditation program has lead us to
believe that the accreditation rates will
go up, although minimally, if travel
costs continue to rise.
In summary, suppliers of the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services
for which payment is made under the
fee schedule established under section
1848(b) of the Act must become
accredited by an accreditation
organization designated by the Secretary
beginning January 1, 2012. In these
options, we have attempted to minimize
the burden of accreditation on
suppliers, which include approving
multiple accreditation organizations
that consider the small suppliers. Also,
the fact that the surveys will be either
performed as a desk review or
unannounced deletes the time and cost
for the accreditation organization in
travel, if required.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
6. Section 139: Improvements for
Medicare Anesthesia Teaching Programs
As discussed in section II.G.7., this
final rule with comment period would
provide for increased payments under
the Medicare PFS for certain cases
involving teaching anesthesiologists
with anesthesia residents or for teaching
CRNAs with student nurse anesthetists.
This provision of the MIPPA is
anticipated to have a minimal budgetary
impact.
7. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients With Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions: Cardiac
Rehabilitation Services
As described in section II.G.8. of this
final rule with comment period, current
levels of coverage for CR programs are
expected to continue under this rule,
and new ICR programs will likely
develop and request approval by CMS to
receive Medicare payments. Because the
payment amount for ICR services under
section 144(a) of the MIPPA is higher
than for CR services, this expansion of
coverage will result in greater costs to
the Medicare program. The
requirements for ICR programs, also
specified in section 144(a) of the
MIPPA, are extensive and will likely
limit the number of individual ICR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
program sites that request approval. As
a result, significantly fewer ICR
programs and ICR program sites than CR
programs will function throughout the
country; however, we currently do not
know how many ICR programs may
request approval or how many
individual sites may furnish ICR
services under an approved program.
We believe that the expansion of
coverage for ICR programs will enable
beneficiaries to take advantage of more
focused and rigorous programs that will
more quickly lead to improved
cardiovascular health. Having the
choice of CR and ICR programs,
beneficiaries eligible for coverage will
be able to determine the best manner in
which to achieve improved
cardiovascular health, through
traditional CR or more rigorous ICR
program. We also expect this expansion
of coverage to bring more attention to
the importance of cardiac rehabilitation
and the extensive benefits these
programs provide to beneficiaries. As a
result, the number of beneficiaries
participating in CR programs may
increase. We estimate that the
provisions for establishing coverage of
cardiac rehabilitation and intensive
cardiac rehabilitation programs, as
discussed in section II.G.8. of this final
rule with comment period, will have a
minimal budgetary impact on the
Medicare program.
8. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage
Improvements for Patients With Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Other Conditions: Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Services
As discussed in section II.G.9. of this
final rule with comment period, the
implementation of the Medicare
pulmonary rehabilitation program will
allow Medicare, for the first time, to
provide for payment for exercise and
other services as part of a
comprehensive treatment plan for
beneficiaries with moderate to very
severe COPD. We believe this program
has the potential of not only improving
the quality of life for beneficiaries who
engage in it, but also reducing Medicare
costs in the long range by decreasing the
chances of exacerbations and further
rehabilitation related to their chronic
respiratory disease. We estimate this
provision will have a minimal
budgetary impact on the Medicare
program.
9. Section 144(b): Repeal of Transfer of
Title for Oxygen Equipment—Repeal of
Transfer of Title for Oxygen Equipment
The revisions pertaining to oxygen
and oxygen equipment in section
II.G.10. of this final rule reflect changes
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61993
made by the MIPPA of 2008. Section
1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act limited monthly
payments to suppliers furnishing
oxygen equipment to 36 months of
continuous use. Prior to the MIPPA, at
the end of this 36-month period,
suppliers were required to transfer title
to oxygen equipment to the beneficiary.
Section 144(b) of the MIPPA repealed
the transfer of title requirement. In its
place, section 144(b) amends section
1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act by adding
additional payment rules and supplier
responsibilities discussed previously in
this preamble that apply after the 36
month rental cap.
Based on data from the Small
Business Administration (SBA), we
estimate that 85 percent of suppliers of
the items and services affected by this
rule would be defined as small entities
with total revenues of $7 million or less
in any 1 year. In the case of oxygen and
oxygen equipment, it is difficult to
estimate the impact of section 144(b) of
the MIPPA on small entities and oxygen
and oxygen equipment suppliers in
general. Nevertheless, we do believe
that the net impact on small entities and
other suppliers of oxygen and oxygen
equipment will be positive rather than
negative. This is based on the fact that
this change allows suppliers to retain
ownership of oxygen equipment in all
cases when it is no longer needed by the
beneficiary. Prior to this change,
suppliers were required to relinquish
ownership of oxygen equipment after 36
continuous rental months. While
suppliers will be required to continue
furnishing the equipment after the 36
month rental period for up to 2
additional years in some cases until the
5 year reasonable useful lifetime of the
equipment ends, they will retain
ownership of equipment when it is no
longer needed and can furnish the
equipment to other patients. As
explained in more detail below, we
estimate that suppliers could potentially
receive approximately $58 million per
year in payments for furnishing oxygen
equipment that is returned to them after
the 36 month cap and before the end of
the 5 year reasonable useful lifetime.
Suppliers in these situations are able to
forgo the expense of purchasing new
equipment from manufacturers to
replace equipment they would have
transferred to beneficiaries had the
transfer of title requirement not been
repealed.
Our data indicates that most
beneficiaries who receive stationary
oxygen equipment are furnished with a
stationary oxygen concentrator. As we
have indicated previously, oxygen
concentrators require very minimal
maintenance and servicing if less than
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
61994
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
5 years old, and, as described in more
detail below, suppliers will receive an
annual payment, beginning 6 months
after the end of the 36 month rental cap,
for maintenance and servicing of the
oxygen concentrator. Therefore,
suppliers’ costs for maintaining this
equipment after the cap should be
minimal unless they are furnishing
equipment that is older than 5 years, in
which case they will probably have
received significantly more than 36
monthly rental payments from Medicare
or other payers for rental of the
equipment. In addition, since
approximately 76 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries that need oxygen do not
use the oxygen equipment for more than
36 months, the changes mandated by
section 144(b) of the MIPPA will have
no impact on suppliers or beneficiaries
in the majority of cases. The 76 percent
figure is based on the most recent
Medicare data available (see Table 52).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Again, if a beneficiary discontinues
use of oxygen after the 36-month rental
cap but before the end of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment
(currently 5 years), the supplier will be
able to retrieve the equipment and rent
it to another Medicare beneficiary or
other customer and receive additional
rental payments for the remainder of the
equipment’s reasonable useful lifetime.
It is difficult to estimate the magnitude
of this positive impact on suppliers. If
the equipment is older than 5 years at
the time the 36-month rental cap is
reached, the supplier may have already
received 24 monthly payments or more
from Medicare or other payers for rental
of the equipment prior to the start of the
most recent 36 month rental payment
period for the equipment. Combined
with the 36 monthly payments made by
Medicare in situations where the cap is
reached (24 percent of cases based on
current data), this would equal or
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exceed 60 monthly payments for the
equipment. On the other hand,
assuming the equipment is brand new at
the time it is initially furnished in the
24 percent of cases where the cap is
reached, the supplier will only have
received 36 monthly payments for the
new equipment before the rental cap is
reached. However, since the equipment
will only be 3 years old at this point,
depending on when the beneficiary’s
medical need for or use of the
equipment ends, the supplier will be
able to furnish the equipment to other
patients for any months remaining in
the equipment’s 5 year or 60 month
reasonable useful lifetime. Table 52
illustrates earnings that the supplier
could realize from furnishing oxygen
equipment that they would have been
required to transfer to the beneficiary
prior to the enactment of MIPPA.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
61995
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.220
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
61996
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Again, we understand that oxygen
equipment is very durable and should
need few repairs in the first 5 years.
Therefore, we have determined that any
costs suppliers may incur in repairs and
service visits would be more than offset
by the gains they achieve by retaining
ownership of the equipment they can
then reuse and by payments received for
maintenance and servicing after the cap
that are established as a result of this
final rule with comment period.
Finally, Medicare program
expenditures will increase slightly as a
result of the payments for maintenance
and servicing after the 36 month rental
cap for oxygen concentrators and
transfilling equipment. Medicare will
make maintenance and servicing
payments at 6 month intervals following
the 36th month payment rental cap.
Through June 30, 2010, the payment for
these visits is based on 30 minutes of
labor. After June 30, 2010, the payment
rate is a reasonable fee not to exceed 10
percent of the purchase price for a
stationary oxygen concentrator. The
total cost in terms of allowed charges
per year is calculated to be about $8
million.
10. Section 152(b): Coverage of Kidney
Disease Patient Education Services
The implementation of Medicare
coverage of kidney disease patient
education services as discussed in
section II.G.11. of this final rule with
comment period will allow Medicare to
provide for payment for kidney disease
education services for beneficiaries with
Stage IV chronic kidney disease. We
believe this program can help patients
achieve better understanding of their
illness, dialysis modality options, and
may help delay the need for dialysis.
We believe this program has the
potential of improving the quality of life
for beneficiaries since they will be better
equipped to make informed decisions.
We estimate a cost to the Medicare
program of approximately $10 million
for CY 2010, because the statute limits
the number of kidney disease education
sessions to 6, as a lifetime maximum.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
11. Section 153: Renal Dialysis
Provisions
A discussion of the impact of section
153 of the MIPPA is addressed in
section V.H. of this regulatory impact
analysis in conjunction with the other
ESRD provisions of this rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
12. Section 182(b): Revision of
Definition of Medically-Accepted
Indication for Drugs; Compendia for
Determination of Medically-Accepted
Indications for Off-Label Uses of Drugs
and Biologicals in an Anti-cancer
Chemotherapeutic Regimen
We anticipate that the proposals
related to the compendia discussed in
section II.G.13. of this final rule with
comment period will have a negligible
cost to the Medicare program and to the
public. The information that is required
to be collected and published on the
compendia Web sites is information that
is already collected in the normal course
of business by the compendia
publishers, which all have Web sites.
The changes will enable CMS to
efficiently implement the provisions of
section 182(b) of the MIPPA that require
transparent evaluative and conflict of
interest policies and practices for
current and future listed compendia on
and after January 1, 2010.
G. Payment for Covered Outpatient
Drugs and Biologicals
1. Average Sales Price (ASP) Issues
The changes discussed in section
II.H.1. of this final rule with comment
period with respect to payment for
covered outpatient drugs and
biologicals, are estimated to have no
impact on Medicare expenditures as we
are not making any change to the AMP/
WAMP threshold and the change
concerning the immunosuppressive
drug period of eligibility is a conforming
change to reflect the statute.
2. Competitive Acquisition Program
(CAP) Issues
As discussed in section II.H.2., this
final rule with comment period finalizes
several CAP proposals and updates to
regulations, specifically the frequency of
drug payment amount updates, changes
to the CAP drug list, the geographic area
served by the CAP, CAP drug stock at
the physician’s office, exclusion of CAP
sales from ASP calculations, the annual
CAP payment amount update
mechanism, and updates to proposals
made in the 2009 PFS rule. Our changes
and refinements may improve
compliance, promote program
flexibility, improve the quality, and
maintain the availability of services for
participating CAP physicians. We
anticipate that these changes associated
with the CAP will not result in
significant additional cost savings or
increases relative to the ASP payment
system for two reasons. First, in 2006
through 2008, the dollar volume of
claims paid under the CAP was small
compared to the volume of claims paid
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under section 1847A of the Act, and
although we anticipate that the CAP
will continue to grow, we do not
anticipate a significant change in the
proportion of claims paid under these
payment systems. Second, because CAP
payment amounts are limited to prices
calculated under section 1847A of the
Act, we expect payment rates for the
two programs to remain very similar.
H. Provisions Related to Payment for
Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
Facilities
The ESRD-related provisions are
discussed in sections II.G.11 and II.I. of
this final rule with comment period. To
understand the impact of the changes
affecting payments to different
categories of ESRD facilities, it is
necessary to compare estimated
payments under the current year (CY
2009 payments) to estimated payments
under the revisions to the composite
rate payment system (CY 2010
payments) as discussed in section II.I. of
this final rule with comment period. To
estimate the impact among various
classes of ESRD facilities, it is
imperative that the estimates of current
payments and estimates of payments
contain similar inputs. Therefore, we
simulated payments only for those
ESRD facilities that we are able to
calculate both current 2009 payments
and 2010 payments.
ESRD providers were grouped into the
categories based on characteristics
provided in the Online Survey and
Certification and Reporting (OSCAR)
file and the most recent cost report data
from the Healthcare Cost Report
Information System (HCRIS). We also
used the June 2009 update of CY 2008
National Claims History file as a basis
for Medicare dialysis treatments and
separately billable drugs and
biologicals. Due to data limitations, we
are unable to estimate current and
payments for 42 of the 5186 ESRD
facilities that bill for ESRD dialysis
treatments.
Table 53 shows the impact of this
year’s changes to CY 2010 payments to
hospital-based and independent ESRD
facilities. The first column of Table 53
identifies the type of ESRD provider, the
second column indicates the number of
ESRD facilities for each type, and the
third column indicates the number of
dialysis treatments.
The fourth column shows the effect of
all changes to the ESRD wage index for
CY 2010 as it affects the composite rate
payments to ESRD facilities. The fourth
column compares aggregate ESRD wage
adjusted composite rate payments in CY
2010 to aggregate ESRD wage adjusted
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
composite rate payments in CY 2009. In
CY 2009, ESRD facilities receive 100
percent of the CBSA wage adjusted
composite rate and 0 percent of the
MSA wage adjusted composite rate,
ending a 4-year transition period in
which they had received an increasing
percent of payments based on the CBSA
wage adjusted composite rate. The
overall effect to all ESRD providers in
aggregate is zero because the CY 2010
ESRD wage index has been multiplied
by a wage index BN adjustment factor
to comply with the statutory
requirement that any wage index
revisions be done in a manner that
results in the same aggregate amount of
expenditures as would have been made
without any changes in the wage index.
The fifth column shows the effect of
changes to the ESRD wage index in CY
2010 and the effect of the MIPPA
provisions on ESRD facilities. Section
153(a) of MIPPA amended section
1881(b)(12)(G) of the Act to revise
payments to ESRD facilities. For
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
services furnished on or after January 1,
2010, MIPPA provides a 1 percent
increase to the composite rate
component of the payment system. The
fifth column also reflects the changes in
payment based on changes to the wage
index from CY 2009 to CY 2010.
The sixth column shows the overall
effect of the changes in composite rate
payments to ESRD providers including
the drug add-on. The overall effect is
measured as the percent change
between the CY 2010 payments to ESRD
facilities with all changes as finalized in
this rule and CY 2009 payments to
ESRD facilities under current payment
policies. These payment amounts are
computed by multiplying the wage
adjusted composite rate including the
drug add-on for each provider times the
number of dialysis treatments from the
CY 2008 claims. The CY 2010 payments
are the wage adjusted composite rate for
each provider (with the 15.0 percent
drug add-on) times dialysis treatments
from CY 2008 claims. The CY 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61997
current payments are the wage adjusted
composite rate for each provider (with
the current 15.2 percent drug add-on)
times dialysis treatments from CY 2008
claims.
The overall impact to ESRD providers
in aggregate is 0.8 percent as shown in
Table 53. Most ESRD facilities will see
an increase in payments as a result of
the MIPPA provision. While the MIPPA
provision includes a 1 percent increase
to the ESRD composite rate for services
provided on or after January 1, 2009,
this 1 percent increase does not apply
to the drug add-on to the composite rate.
For this reason, the impact of all
changes in this final rule with comment
period is a 0.8 percent increase for all
ESRD providers. Overall, payments to
independent ESRD facilities will
increase by 0.8 percent and payments to
hospital-based ESRD facilities will
increase by 1.0 percent.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.221
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
61998
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
I. Chiropractic Demonstration—
Application of Budget Neutrality
As discussed in section II.J. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
going to recoup the $50 million in
expenditures from this demonstration
over a 5-year period rather than over a
2-year period. We will recoup $10
million each year through adjustments
to the PFS for all chiropractors in CYs
2010 through 2014.
To implement this required BN
adjustment, we will reduce the payment
amount under the PFS for the
chiropractic CPT codes (that is, CPT
codes 98940, 98941, and 98942) by
approximately 2 percent.
J. Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities (CORF) and
Rehabilitation Agency Issues
The revisions to the conditions of
participation (CoP) discussed in section
II.K. of this final rule with comment
period make technical corrections and
update the regulations to reflect current
industry standards for respiratory
therapists. The revisions to the
regulations will clarify the
qualifications necessary for respiratory
therapists’ to continue to qualify to
furnish respiratory therapy services to
CORF patients. These changes are
similar to prior rules and will have no
impact on CORFs cost.
K. Physician Self-Referral Provisions
In section II N.1. of this final rule with
comment period, we discuss our
clarification of the physician stand in
the shoes provisions at
§ 411.354(c)(3)(i). This revision will
assist designated health services entities
in structuring legitimate compensation
arrangements by clarifying that the
standard for determining compensation
between the parties will be dictated by
the language of the exceptions within
§ 411.355 and § 411.357. Furthermore,
like other physician self-referral
policies, we anticipate that this
clarification will result in savings to the
Medicare program by reducing
overutilization and anti-competitive
business arrangements. However, we
cannot gauge with any degree of
certainty the extent of these savings to
the Medicare program.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
L. Durable Medical Equipment Related
Issues
1. Damages Process
In section II.O.1. of this final rule with
comment period, we establish a onetime process that will only impact those
suppliers who were awarded a contract
and were potentially damaged by the
termination of their supplier contracts
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
by MIPPA. The DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program that was implemented
on July 1st, 2008, awarded contracts to
329 suppliers. The following factors
may be considered by a contract
supplier before deciding to submit a
claim:
• The contract itself stipulated that
the contract is subject to any changes to
the statute or regulations that affect the
Medicare program;
• The contract does not guarantee any
amount of business or profits, therefore,
an efficient business would not be
expected to incur large expenses
without any guaranteed increase in
business and profits;
• The contract stipulates that CMS
shall not pay for any expenses incurred
by the supplier for the work performed
under the contract other than for
payment of Medicare claims authorized
pursuant to the contract;
• Upon termination of the contracts
by MIPPA, payments reverted back to
the fee schedule amount, which was on
average 26 percent higher than under
the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program.
• There is a required responsibility
under contract law for a company to
take action to mitigate expenses to any
stop work order.
• CMS listed the winning suppliers
on the Medicare Web site at https://
www.Medicare.gov in the supplier
locator tool, a supplier is allowed to
keep any new customers they may have
obtained as a result of being listed on
the supplier locator tool.
By mentioning the list above, we are
not suggesting that there would not be
legitimate claims for damages. However,
these are factors that a supplier may
consider when deciding whether to
submit a claim for damages.
Based on these reasons and because
there have been so few inquiries or
responses to the reference in the MIPPA
to damages (fewer than 7 suppliers), we
believe that as few as 1 percent of the
329 winning suppliers may make a
claim for damages. However, as a high
estimate, we would estimate that
approximately 76 percent of the
suppliers (250) may submit a claim. We
anticipate that it will take
approximately 3 hours at $34/hour (3 ×
$34 = $102) for an accountant and a
company official to review and gather
the necessary documents to file a claim
for a total of $25,500 (250 × $102). The
hourly accountant rate was based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics data collected
for June 2006 which was then adjusted
to account for inflation. We estimate
that this regulation will not have a large
budgetary impact. The total cost range
of $408 to $25,500 for potential claims
PO 00000
Frm 00263
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61999
from contract suppliers will not result
in expenditures of $133 million or more
annually. An analysis of the damage
payments that may result would be
dependent upon an evaluation of the
actual claims once they are received.
2. Grandfathering Process
In section II.O.2. of this final rule with
comment period, we are revising the
definition of a grandfathered item to
refer to all rented items within a
competitively bid product category that
the supplier currently rents. The
definition of a grandfathered item
would avoid confusion, on the part of
beneficiaries, regarding rented DME
items for which a noncontract supplier
may choose to be a grandfathered
supplier. Under the revised definition, a
noncontract supplier will have to
choose to be either a grandfathered
supplier for all or for none of the DME
rented items within a product category
that the supplier currently provides. We
believe that it will be easier for
beneficiaries to recognize which items a
supplier is grandfathering or not
grandfathering if the supplier’s election
concerning grandfathering was made by
product category rather than making
separate choices for each individual
HCPCS code.
We also believe the revision of this
definition will have a negligible impact
on suppliers as product categories
consist of related items routinely
provided by suppliers. We are only
requiring a supplier to provide those
rented items within a product category
that the supplier was currently
furnishing at the start of the competitive
bidding program.
While difficult to estimate, we believe
that based on 2008 data, there were
approximately 1,850 suppliers in the 9
CBAs, for which we will be doing the
Round 1 rebid that rented competitively
bid items, on average at different points
in time during 2008. Therefore, we are
using this number to indicate how many
suppliers would be renting a DME
competitively bid item at the start of the
competitive bid program. We believe
some suppliers may decide not to bid
because of the cost of bidding and
accreditation requirements while other
suppliers may not qualify for a contract.
Since not all suppliers will be awarded
contracts and some may not choose to
submit a bid, we estimate that in the
worst case scenario there will be 1,450
suppliers that will not be awarded
contracts, would be renting DME
competitive bid items at the time the
program is implemented.
Based on our experience from the
competitive bidding demonstrations, of
the 1,450 suppliers who are not
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62000
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
awarded a contract, we expect 90
percent or 1,305 of these noncontract
suppliers will offer to be grandfathered
suppliers (0.90 × 1,450 = 1,305) and 10
percent or 145 (0.10 × 1,450 = 145) of
the suppliers will choose not to
grandfather. We believe most suppliers
will not want to pick up their items
before the end of the full rental period.
Based on 2008 data, we estimate that
there will be 96,000 beneficiaries who
reside in a CBA and are renting
competitively bid items from suppliers
at the start of the round 1 rebid. Based
on the 2007 round 1 of the competitive
bidding program, we estimate that there
would be 74,880 (96,000 × 0.78 =
74,880) beneficiaries who would be
renting items from a noncontract
supplier.
a. Notification Requirement for
Suppliers That Choose To Grandfather
(1) Notification to CMS
For those suppliers that choose to
grandfather (1,305), we estimate that it
would take the supplier on average 2
hours to develop the 30-day notification
that it is required to send to CMS. We
estimate that the cost to the supplier to
develop the 30-day notification to CMS
would be $89.60 for skilled
administrative staff (2 hours × $44.80
per hour). The $44.80 is based on 2009
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
plus an increase for overhead of 40
percent. We estimate that the cost to the
supplier to send the notification to CMS
would be $5.51 for clerical staff (0.25
hour to send the notification × $22.02
per hour = $5.51). The $22.02 is based
on 2009 data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics plus an increase for overhead
of 40 percent. We estimate the cost of
supplies necessary to send the
notification would be $2.00. The total
cost for sending the notification would
be $7.51 which includes the cost of
clerical staff ($5.51) and supplies
($2.00). The individual costs for all
suppliers to notify CMS would be
$97.11 ($89.60 for development of the
letter + $7.51 for preparing and sending
each notification = $97.11). The overall
cost for suppliers to notify CMS would
be approximately $126,728.55 ($97.11
per supplier × 1,305 suppliers =
$126,728.55).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
(2) Notification to the Beneficiary
We estimate based on 2008 data, we
expect that there will be 74,880
beneficiaries who will have been renting
competitive bid items from a
noncontract supplier at the start of the
round 1 rebid of the CBP. Of the 74,880,
we believe that approximately 100
percent of these beneficiaries will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
accept the offer to continue to rent
competitively bid items from the
noncontract supplier that offers to be a
grandfathered supplier. We believe that
the beneficiaries will choose to continue
to rent from a grandfathered supplier if
given the choice because it would be
more convenient, assure continuity of
care, and eliminate the need to have
equipment taken from their home.
Based upon the number of suppliers
and beneficiaries, we estimate that there
will be an average of 52 beneficiaries
per supplier that was not awarded a
contract (74,880 beneficiaries/1,450
suppliers = 52). Therefore, we estimate
that each noncontract supplier that
chooses to grandfather would send the
30-day notification on average to 52
beneficiaries.
We expect that the cost of developing
the 30-day notification to a beneficiary
will be equivalent to the cost of
developing the 30-day notification to
CMS ($89.60 per notification). We also
expect the cost of sending the 30-day
notification per beneficiary to be
equivalent to sending the 30-day
notification to CMS ($7.51 per
notification). The total costs for the 30day notification to beneficiaries for
suppliers that choose the grandfathering
option would be $89.60 for
development of the letter, and $7.51 for
preparing and sending each notification.
To calculate the total cost we multiplied
$7.51 × 52 beneficiaries and added the
development cost for the letter of $89.60
for a total of $480.12 per supplier. The
overall cost for these suppliers to
provide the 30-day notification to their
beneficiaries will be approximately
$626,556.60 ($480.12 per supplier ×
1,305 suppliers = $626,556.60).
b. Notification Requirement for
Suppliers That Choose Not To
Grandfather
(1) 30-day Notification to the
Beneficiary
We expect that suppliers who choose
not to grandfather will incur costs
equivalent to the cost of developing and
sending the 30-day notification to a
beneficiary by those suppliers that
choose to grandfather. The overall cost
for all suppliers who choose not to
grandfather to provide the 30-day
notification to the beneficiary is
approximately $69,617.40 ($480.12 total
cost per supplier × 145 nongrandfathered suppliers = $69,617.40).
The estimate of 145 suppliers not
choosing to be grandfathered suppliers
represents 10 percent of the total
number of noncontract suppliers.
While the cost for the 30-day
notification to beneficiaries will be
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exactly the same for all suppliers, those
who choose not to become a
grandfathered supplier will also incur
the cost of the 10-day and 2-day
notification.
(2) 10-day and 2-day Notification
For the 10-day notification to a
beneficiary, we estimate the supplier
will make at least 1 phone call that
would take an average of 15 minutes to
discuss that the beneficiary must switch
to a contract supplier, the schedule for
picking up the current equipment by the
noncontract supplier, and the delivery
of new equipment by the contract
supplier. For the 2-day notification to
the beneficiary, we estimate that the
supplier will make at least 1 phone call
that would take an average of 15
minutes to ensure that all of the
arrangements are finalized and to
answer any last minute questions. We
anticipate that clerical staff will perform
both of these tasks.
The estimated cost of the 10-day
notification totals $5.51 (.25 of an hour
× $22.02 per hour for clerical staff based
on the 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics
including overhead = $5.51). The
estimated cost of the 2-day notification
totals $5.51 (.25 of an hour × $22.02 per
hour for clerical staff based on the 2009
Bureau of Labor Statistics including
overhead = $5.51). Therefore, the 10-day
and 2-day notifications for each supplier
will cost approximately $11.02. The
total cost for each supplier would be
approximately $573.04 ($11.02 × 52
beneficiaries = $573.04). The overall
impact for all suppliers to make the 10day and 2-day notifications will be
approximately $83,090.80 (145
suppliers × $573.04 per supplier =
$83,090.80).
We anticipate that this process will
not place a greater burden on the overall
small supplier community. This process
is only going to affect those small
suppliers that were renting items when
the competitive bidding program begins
and who did not win a contract. The
burden on these suppliers will generally
be less because small suppliers will
have fewer beneficiaries to furnish
notifications to.
As an alternative, we considered
relying on suppliers to develop their
own schedule for informing
beneficiaries regarding grandfathering.
This alternative would have left the
beneficiaries vulnerable to having
equipment removed from the home
before new equipment was delivered.
The process finalized in this regulation
ensures the beneficiaries can make an
informed decision about the transition
policy that works best for them. The
alternative we selected ensures the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
beneficiaries will have continued access
to medically necessary items and be
properly informed about the steps they
must take so that their services will not
be interrupted.
M. Changes to Allowed and Actual
Expenditures for Calculating the
Physician Fee Schedule Update
In sections V. and VI. of this final rule
with comment period, we described our
decision to remove drugs from the
calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures since the 1996/1997 base
year and the SGR rate of increase for
future years. While removing physicianadministered drugs from allowed and
actual expenditures will not change the
¥21.3 percent physician payment rate
update (the ¥21.2 percent change to the
CF accounts for an additional 0.1
percent BN adjustment for changes to
the RVUs) for services furnished on or
after January 1, 2010, this change
reduces the discrepancy between actual
and target expenditures. Based on the
President’s budget, we estimate this
proposal will cost $45.4 billion from
2010 to 2014 and $122 billion for 2010
to 2019.
N. Alternatives Considered
This final rule with comment period
contains a range of policies, including
some provisions related to specific
MIPPA provisions. The preceding
preamble provides descriptions of the
statutory provisions that are addressed,
identifies those policies when discretion
has been exercised, responds to
comments on our proposals, presents
rationale for our decisions and, where
relevant, alternatives that were
considered.
O. Impact on Beneficiaries
There are a number of changes in this
final rule with comment period that
would have an effect on beneficiaries. In
general, we believe these changes,
including the refinements of the PQRI
with its focus on measuring, submitting,
and analyzing quality data, the coding
provisions related to the IPPE and
consultation services, the changes with
respect to telehealth services, the kidney
disease patient education, pulmonary
rehabilitation and intensive cardiac
rehabilitation proposals will have a
positive impact and improve the quality
and value of care provided to Medicare
beneficiaries. Additionally, the
grandfathering process for DME
suppliers will help ensure that
beneficiaries are contacted and
informed about this process and the
choices they have concerning whether
or not to use a grandfathered supplier.
Moreover, the notice will help to ensure
that beneficiaries do not have necessary
DME equipment taken from them
unexpectedly by a noncontact supplier.
As explained in more detail
subsequently in this section, the
regulatory provisions may affect
beneficiary liability in some cases. Most
changes aggregate in beneficiary liability
due to a particular provision would be
a function of the coinsurance (20
percent if applicable for the particular
provision after the beneficiary has met
the deductible). Beneficiary liability
would also be impacted by the effect of
the aggregate cost (savings) of the
provision on the standard calculation of
62001
the Medicare Part B premium rate
(generally 25 percent of the provision’s
cost or savings). In 2010, total cost
sharing (coinsurance and deductible)
per Part B enrollee associated with PFS
services is estimated to be $399. In
addition, the portion of the 2010
standard monthly Part B premium
attributable to PFS services is estimated
to be $25.70.
To illustrate this point, as shown in
Table 50, the 2009 national payment
amount in the non-facility setting for
CPT code 99203 (Office/outpatient visit,
new), is $91.97 which means that in
2009 a beneficiary is responsible for 20
percent of this amount, or $18.39. Based
on this rule, the 2010 national payment
amount in the non-facility setting for
CPT code 99203, as shown in Table 49,
is $76.98 which means that, in 2010, the
beneficiary coinsurance for this service
would be $15.40.
Policies discussed in this rule, such as
the coding changes with respect to the
RVUs for IPPE and the changes to
consultation services, would similarly
impact beneficiaries’ coinsurance.
P. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4, in
Table 54, we have prepared an
accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures
associated with this final rule with
comment period. This estimate includes
the incurred benefit impact associated
with the estimated CY 2010 PFS update
based on the 2009 Trustees Report
baseline, as well as certain MIPPA
provisions. All estimated impacts are
classified as transfers.
TABLE 54—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES CY 2010
Category
Transfers
Annualized Monetized Transfers ........................
From Whom to Whom? ......................................
Estimated decrease in expenditures (from CY 2009 to CY 2010) of $13.3 Billion.
Federal Government to physicians, other practitioners and providers and suppliers who receive
payment under Medicare.
Estimated increase in expenditures of $110 Million for MIPPA Provisions (sections 102 and
152(b)).
Federal Government to providers.
Annualized Monetized Transfers ........................
From Whom to Whom? ......................................
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this final rule
with comment period was reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
42 CFR Part 410
Health facilities, Health professions,
Kidney diseases, Laboratories,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas, X-rays.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
42 CFR Part 415
Kidney diseases, Medicare, Physician
Referral, Reporting and record keeping
requirements.
Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 414
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 411
42 CFR Part 485
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Kidney diseases, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping.
Grant programs-health, Health
facilities, Medicaid, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62002
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
42 CFR Part 498
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
■ For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR
chapter IV as set forth below:
PART 410—SUPPLEMENTARY
MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI)
BENEFITS
1. The authority citation for part 410
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1834, 1871, and
1893 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302, 1395m, 1395hh, and 1395ddd).
Subpart B—Medical and Other Health
Services
2. Section 410.30 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 410.30 Prescription drugs used in
immunosuppressive therapy.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Eligibility. For drugs furnished on
or after December 21, 2000, coverage is
available only for prescription drugs
used in immunosuppressive therapy,
furnished to an individual who received
an organ or tissue transplant for which
Medicare payment is made, provided
the individual is eligible to receive
Medicare Part B benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 410.47 is added to read as
follows:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
§ 410.47 Pulmonary rehabilitation
program: Conditions for coverage.
(a) Definitions. As used in this
section:
Individualized treatment plan means
a written plan established, reviewed,
and signed by a physician every 30
days, that describes all of the following:
(i) The individual’s diagnosis.
(ii) The type, amount, frequency, and
duration of the items and services under
the plan.
(iii) The goals set for the individual
under the plan.
Medical director means the physician
who oversees or supervises the PR
program.
Outcomes assessment means a written
evaluation of the patient’s progress as it
relates to the individual’s rehabilitation
which includes the following:
(i) Beginning and end evaluations,
based on patient-centered outcomes,
which are conducted by the physician at
the start and end of the program.
(ii) Objective clinical measures of
effectiveness of the PR program for the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
individual patient, including exercise
performance and self-reported measures
of shortness of breath and behavior.
Physician means a doctor of medicine
or osteopathy as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Physician-prescribed exercise means
physical activity, including aerobic
exercise, prescribed and supervised by a
physician that improves or maintains an
individual’s pulmonary functional level.
Psychosocial assessment means a
written evaluation of an individual’s
mental and emotional functioning as it
relates to the individual’s rehabilitation
or respiratory condition.
Pulmonary rehabilitation means a
physician-supervised program for COPD
and certain other chronic respiratory
diseases designed to optimize physical
and social performance and autonomy.
Supervising physician means a
physician that is immediately available
and accessible for medical consultations
and medical emergencies at all times
items and services are being furnished
under the PR program.
(b) Beneficiaries who may be covered.
(1) Medicare covers pulmonary
rehabilitation for beneficiaries with
moderate to very severe COPD (defined
as GOLD classification II, III and IV),
when referred by the physician treating
the chronic respiratory disease.
(2) Additional medical indications for
coverage for pulmonary rehabilitation
program services may be established
through a national coverage
determination (NCD).
(c) Components. Pulmonary
rehabilitation includes all of the
following components:
(1) Physician-prescribed exercise.
This physical activity includes
techniques such as exercise
conditioning, breathing retraining, step,
and strengthening exercises. Some
aerobic exercise must be included in
each pulmonary rehabilitation session.
(2) Education or training. (i)
Education or training closely and clearly
related to the individual’s care and
treatment which is tailored to the
individual’s needs.
(ii) Education includes information on
respiratory problem management and, if
appropriate, brief smoking cessation
counseling.
(iii) Any education or training
prescribed must assist in achievement of
individual goals towards independence
in activities of daily living, adaptation
to limitations and improved quality of
life.
(3) Psychosocial assessment. The
psychosocial assessment must meet the
criteria as defined in paragraph (a) of
this section and includes:
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) An assessment of those aspects of
an individual’s family and home
situation that affects the individual’s
rehabilitation treatment.
(ii) A psychosocial evaluation of the
individual’s response to and rate of
progress under the treatment plan.
(4) Outcomes assessment. The
outcomes assessment must meet the
criteria as defined in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(5) Individualized treatment plan. The
individualized treatment plan must be
established, reviewed, and signed by a
physician, who is involved in the
patient’s care and has knowledge related
to his or her condition, every 30 days.
(d) Settings. (1) Medicare Part B pays
for a pulmonary rehabilitation in the
following settings:
(i) Physician’s offices.
(ii) Hospital outpatient settings.
(2) All settings must have the
following available for immediate use
and accessible at all times:
(i) The necessary cardio-pulmonary,
emergency, diagnostic, and therapeutic
life-saving equipment accepted by the
medical community as medically
necessary (for example, oxygen,
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
equipment, and defibrillator) to treat
chronic respiratory disease.
(ii) A physician must be immediately
available and accessible for medical
consultations and emergencies at all
times when services are being provided
under the program. This provision is
satisfied if the physician meets the
requirements for direct supervision for
physician office services at § 410.26 of
this subpart and for hospital outpatient
services at § 410.27 of this subpart.
(e) Physician standards. Medicare
Part B pays for pulmonary rehabilitation
services for PR programs supervised by
a physician who meets the following
requirements—
(1) Is responsible and accountable for
the pulmonary rehabilitation program,
including oversight of the PR staff.
(2) Is involved substantially, in
consultation with staff, in directing the
progress of the individual in the
program including direct patient contact
related to the periodic review of his or
her treatment plan.
(3) Has expertise in the management
of individuals with respiratory
pathophysiology, and cardiopulmonary
training and/or certification including
basic life support.
(4) Is licensed to practice medicine in
the State in which the pulmonary
rehabilitation program is offered.
(f) Limitations on coverage: Sessions.
Medicare Part B pays for services
provided in connection with a
pulmonary rehabilitation exercise
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
program for up to 36 sessions, no more
than two sessions per day. Up to an
additional 36 sessions may be approved
by the Medicare contractor, based on
medical necessity in accordance with
section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
(g) Effective date. Coverage for
pulmonary rehabilitation program
services is effective January 1, 2010.
■ 4. Section 410.48 is added to read as
follows:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
§ 410.48 Kidney disease education
services.
(a) Definitions. As used in this
section:
Kidney disease patient education
services means face-to-face educational
services provided to patients with Stage
IV chronic kidney disease.
Physician means a physician as
defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Qualified person means either of the
following healthcare entities that meets
the qualifications and requirements
specified in this section to provide
kidney disease patient education
services—
(i) One of the following healthcare
professionals who furnishes services for
which payment may be made under the
physician fee schedule:
(A) Physician (as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act).
(B) Physician assistant as defined in
section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act and
§ 410.74 of this subpart).
(C) Nurse practitioner as defined in
section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act and
§ 410.75 of this subpart).
(D) Clinical nurse specialist (as
defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act
and § 410.76 of this subpart),
(ii)(A) A hospital, critical access
hospital, skilled nursing facility,
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation
facility, home health agency, or hospice
that is located in a rural area as defined
in § 412.64(b)(ii)(C) of this chapter; or
(B) A hospital or critical access
hospital that is treated as being rural
under § 412.103 of this chapter.
Renal dialysis facility means a unit,
which is approved to furnish dialysis
service(s) directly to end-stage renal
disease (ESRD) patients, as defined in
§ 405.2102 of this chapter.
Stage IV chronic kidney disease
means kidney damage with a severe
decrease in glomerular filtration rate
(GFR) quantitatively defined by a GFR
value of 15–29 ml/min/1.73m2, using
the Modification of Diet in Renal
Disease (MDRD) Study formula.
(b) Covered beneficiaries. Medicare
Part B covers outpatient kidney disease
patient education services if the
beneficiary meets all of the conditions
and requirements of this subpart,
including all of the following:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(1) Is diagnosed with Stage IV chronic
kidney disease.
(2) Obtains a referral from the
physician (as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act) managing the
beneficiary’s kidney condition.
(c) Qualified person. (1) Medicare Part
B covers outpatient kidney disease
patient education services provided by
a qualified person as defined in
paragraph (a) of this section and must be
able to properly receive Medicare
payment under part 424 of this chapter.
(2) A qualified person does not
include either of the following:
(i) A hospital, critical access hospital,
skilled nursing facility, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facility, home
health agency or hospice if kidney
disease patient education services are
provided outside of a rural area as
defined in § 412.64(b)(ii)(C) of this
chapter unless the services are
furnished in a hospital or critical access
hospital that is treated as being in a
rural area under § 412.103 of this
chapter.
(ii) A renal dialysis facility, as defined
in § 405.2102 of this chapter.
(d) Standards for content of kidney
disease patient education services. The
content of the kidney disease patient
education services includes the
following:
(1) The management of comorbidities
including for the purpose of delaying
the need for dialysis which includes,
but not limited to, the following topics:
(i) Prevention and treatment of
cardiovascular disease.
(ii) Prevention and treatment of
diabetes.
(iii) Hypertension management.
(iv) Anemia management.
(v) Bone disease and disorders of
calcium and phosphorus metabolism
management.
(vi) Symptomatic neuropathy
management.
(vii) Impairments in functioning and
well-being.
(2) The prevention of uremic
complications which includes, but not
limited to, the following topics:
(i) Information on how the kidneys
work and what happens when the
kidneys fail.
(ii) Understanding if remaining
kidney function can be protected,
preventing disease progression, and
realistic chances of survival.
(iii) Diet and fluid restrictions.
(iv) Medication review, including
how each medication works, possible
side effects and minimization of side
effects, the importance of compliance,
and informed decision-making if the
patient decides not to take a specific
drug.
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62003
(3) Therapeutic options, treatment
modalities, and settings, including a
discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of each treatment option
and how the treatments replace the
kidney, which includes, but not limited
to, the following topics:
(i) Hemodialysis, both at home and infacility.
(ii) Peritoneal dialysis (PD), including
intermittent PD, continuous ambulatory
PD, and continuous cycling PD, both at
home and in-facility.
(iii) All dialysis access options for
hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.
(iv) Transplantation.
(4) Opportunities for beneficiaries to
actively participate in the choice of
therapy and be tailored to meet the
needs of the individual beneficiary
involved which includes, but not
limited to, the following topics:
(i) Physical symptoms.
(ii) Impact on family and social life.
(iii) Exercise.
(iv) The right to refuse treatment.
(v) Impact on work and finances.
(vi) The meaning of test results.
(vii) Psychological impact.
(5) Qualified persons must develop
outcomes assessments designed to
measure beneficiary knowledge about
chronic kidney disease and its
treatment.
(i) The outcomes assessments serve to
assess program effectiveness of
preparing the beneficiary to make
informed decisions about their
healthcare options related to chronic
kidney disease.
(ii) The outcomes assessments serve
to assess the program’s effectiveness in
meeting the communication needs of
underserved populations, including
persons with disabilities, persons with
limited English proficiency, and persons
with health literacy needs.
(iii) The assessment must be
administered to the beneficiary during a
kidney disease education session.
(iv) The outcomes assessments must
be made available to CMS upon request.
(e) Limitations for coverage of kidney
disease education services. (1) Medicare
Part B makes payment for up to 6
sessions of kidney disease patient
education services.
(2) A session is 1 hour long and may
be provided individually or in group
settings of 2 to 20 individuals who need
not all be Medicare beneficiaries.
(f) Effective date. Medicare Part B
covers kidney disease patient education
services for dates of service on or after
January 1, 2010.
■ 5. Section 410.49 is added to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62004
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
§ 410.49 Cardiac rehabilitation program
and intensive cardiac rehabilitation
program: Conditions of coverage.
(a) Definitions. As used in this
section:
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) means a
physician-supervised program that
furnishes physician prescribed exercise,
cardiac risk factor modification,
psychosocial assessment, and outcomes
assessment.
Individualized treatment plan means
a written plan tailored to each
individual patient that includes all of
the following:
(i) A description of the individual’s
diagnosis.
(ii) The type, amount, frequency, and
duration of the items and services
furnished under the plan.
(iii) The goals set for the individual
under the plan.
Intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR)
program means a physician-supervised
program that furnishes cardiac
rehabilitation and has shown, in peerreviewed published research, that it
improves patients’ cardiovascular
disease through specific outcome
measurements described in paragraph
(c) of this section.
Intensive cardiac rehabilitation site
means a hospital outpatient setting or
physician’s office that is providing
intensive cardiac rehabilitation utilizing
an approved ICR program.
Medical director means a physician
that oversees or supervises the cardiac
rehabilitation or intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program at a particular
site.
Outcomes assessment means an
evaluation of progress as it relates to the
individual’s rehabilitation which
includes all of the following:
(i) Minimally, assessments from the
commencement and conclusion of
cardiac rehabilitation and intensive
cardiac rehabilitation, based on patientcentered outcomes which must be
measured by the physician immediately
at the beginning of the program and at
the end of the program.
(ii) Objective clinical measures of
exercise performance and self-reported
measures of exertion and behavior.
Physician means a doctor of medicine
or osteopathy as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Physician-prescribed exercise means
aerobic exercise combined with other
types of exercise (that is, strengthening,
stretching) as determined to be
appropriate for individual patients by a
physician.
Psychosocial assessment means an
evaluation of an individual’s mental and
emotional functioning as it relates to the
individual’s rehabilitation which
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
includes an assessment of those aspects
of an individual’s family and home
situation that affects the individual’s
rehabilitation treatment, and
psychosocial evaluation of the
individual’s response to and rate of
progress under the treatment plan.
Supervising physician means a
physician that is immediately available
and accessible for medical consultations
and medical emergencies at all times
items and services are being furnished
to individuals under cardiac
rehabilitation and intensive cardiac
rehabilitation programs.
(b) General rule. (1) Covered
beneficiary rehabilitation services.
Medicare part B covers cardiac
rehabilitation and intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program services for
beneficiaries who have experienced one
or more of the following:
(i) An acute myocardial infarction
within the preceding 12 months;
(ii) A coronary artery bypass surgery;
(iii) Current stable angina pectoris;
(iv) Heart valve repair or replacement;
(v) Percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or
coronary stenting;
(vi) A heart or heart-lung transplant.
(vii) For cardiac rehabilitation only,
other cardiac conditions as specified
through a national coverage
determination.
(2) Components of a cardiac
rehabilitation program and an intensive
cardiac rehabilitation program. Cardiac
rehabilitation programs and intensive
cardiac rehabilitation programs must
include all of the following:
(i) Physician-prescribed exercise each
day cardiac rehabilitation items and
services are furnished.
(ii) Cardiac risk factor modification,
including education, counseling, and
behavioral intervention, tailored to the
patients’ individual needs.
(iii) Psychosocial assessment.
(iv) Outcomes assessment.
(v) An individualized treatment plan
detailing how components are utilized
for each patient. The individualized
treatment plan must be established,
reviewed, and signed by a physician
every 30 days.
(3) Settings. (i) Medicare Part B pays
for cardiac rehabilitation and intensive
cardiac rehabilitation in one of the
following settings:
(A) A physician’s office.
(B) A hospital outpatient setting.
(ii) All settings must have a physician
immediately available and accessible for
medical consultations and emergencies
at all times when items and services are
being furnished under the program. This
provision is satisfied if the physician
meets the requirements for direct
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supervision for physician office
services, at § 410.26 of this subpart; and
for hospital outpatient services at
§ 410.27 of this subpart.
(c) Standards for an intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program. (1) To be
approved as an intensive cardiac
rehabilitation program, a program must
demonstrate through peer-reviewed,
published research that it has
accomplished one or more of the
following for its patients:
(i) Positively affected the progression
of coronary heart disease.
(ii) Reduced the need for coronary
bypass surgery.
(iii) Reduced the need for
percutaneous coronary interventions;
(2) An intensive cardiac rehabilitation
program must also demonstrate through
peer-reviewed published research that it
accomplished a statistically significant
reduction in 5 or more of the following
measures for patients from their levels
before cardiac rehabilitation services to
after cardiac rehabilitation services:
(i) Low density lipoprotein.
(ii) Triglycerides.
(iii) Body mass index.
(iv) Systolic blood pressure.
(v) Diastolic blood pressure.
(vi) The need for cholesterol, blood
pressure, and diabetes medications.
(3) A list of approved intensive
cardiac rehabilitation programs,
identified through the national coverage
determination process, will be posted to
the CMS Web site and listed in the
Federal Register.
(4) All prospective intensive cardiac
rehabilitation sites must apply to enroll
as an intensive cardiac rehabilitation
program site using the designated forms
as specified at § 424.510 of this chapter.
For purposes of appealing an adverse
determination concerning site approval,
an intensive cardiac rehabilitation site is
considered a supplier (or prospective
supplier) as defined in § 498.2 of this
chapter.
(d) Standards for the physician
responsible for cardiac rehabilitation
program. A physician responsible for a
cardiac rehabilitation program or
intensive cardiac rehabilitation
programs is identified as the medical
directors. The medical director, in
consultation with staff, are involved in
directing the progress of individuals in
the program, must possess all of the
following:
(1) Expertise in the management of
individuals with cardiac
pathophysiology.
(2) Cardiopulmonary training in basic
life support or advanced cardiac life
support.
(3) Be licensed to practice medicine in
the State in which the cardiac
rehabilitation program is offered.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(e) Standards for supervisingphysicians. Physicians acting as the
supervising-physician must possess all
of the following:
(1) Expertise in the management of
individuals with cardiac
pathophysiology.
(2) Cardiopulmonary training in basic
life support or advanced cardiac life
support.
(3) Be licensed to practice medicine in
the State in which the cardiac
rehabilitation program is offered.
(f) Limitations for coverage of cardiac
rehabilitation programs. (1) Cardiac
Rehabilitation: The number of cardiac
rehabilitation program sessions are
limited to a maximum of 2 1-hour
sessions per day for up to 36 sessions
over up to 36 weeks with the option for
an additional 36 sessions over an
extended period of time if approved by
the Medicare contractor under section
1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
(2) Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation:
Intensive cardiac rehabilitation program
sessions are limited to 72 1-hour
sessions (as defined in section
1848(b)(5) of the Act), up to 6 sessions
per day, over a period of up to 18 weeks.
■ 6. Section 410.78 is amended by—
■ A. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b).
■ B. Revising paragraph (e).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 410.78
Telehealth services.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) General rule. Medicare Part B pays
for office and other outpatient visits,
professional consultation, psychiatric
diagnostic interview examination,
individual psychotherapy,
pharmacologic management, end-stage
renal disease-related services included
in the monthly capitation payment
(except for one visit per month to
examine the access site), individual
medical nutrition therapy, the
neurobehavioral status exam, initial and
follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations furnished to beneficiaries
in hospitals and SNFs, and individual
health and behavior assessment and
intervention services furnished by an
interactive telecommunications system
if the following conditions are met:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Limitations. (1) A clinical
psychologist and a clinical social
worker may bill and receive payment for
individual psychotherapy via a
telecommunications system, but may
not seek payment for medical evaluation
and management services.
(2) The physician visits required
under § 483.40(c) of this title may not be
furnished as telehealth services.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—Payment of SMI Benefits
7. Section 410.155 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2)(i),
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v), and (c).
■ B. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
§ 410.155 Outpatient mental health
treatment limitation.
(a) Limitation. For services subject to
the limitation as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, the percentage of the
expenses incurred for such services
during a calendar year that is
considered incurred expenses under
Medicare Part B when determining the
amount of payment and deductible
under § 410.152 and § 410.160 of this
part, respectively, is as follows:
(1) For expenses incurred in years
before 2010, 621⁄2 percent.
(2) For expenses incurred in 2010 and
2011, 683⁄4 percent.
(3) For expenses incurred in 2012, 75
percent.
(4) For expenses incurred in 2013,
811⁄4 percent.
(5) For expenses incurred in CY 2014
and subsequent years, 100 percent.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Services furnished to a hospital
inpatient.
(ii) Brief office visits for the sole
purpose of monitoring or changing drug
prescriptions used in the treatment of
mental, psychoneurotic, or personality
disorders billed under HCPCS code
M0064 (or its successor).
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) Psychiatric diagnostic services
billed under CPT codes 90801 and
90802 (or successor codes) and
diagnostic psychological and
neuropsychological tests billed under
CPT code range 96101 through 96125
(or successor codes) that are performed
to establish a diagnosis.
(v) Medical management such as that
furnished under CPT code 90862 (or its
successor code), as opposed to
psychotherapy, furnished to a patient
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a
related disorder.
(3) Payment amounts. The Medicare
payment amount and the patient
liability amounts for outpatient mental
health services subject to the limitation
for each year during which the
limitation is phased out are as follows:
Recognized
incurred
expenses
Calendar year
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
CY 2009 and prior calendar years ..................................................................................................................
CYs 2010 and 2011 .........................................................................................................................................
CY 2012 ...........................................................................................................................................................
CY 2013 ...........................................................................................................................................................
CY 2014 ...........................................................................................................................................................
(c) General formula. A general
formula for calculating the amount of
Medicare payment and the patient
liability for outpatient mental health
services subject to the limitation is as
follows:
(1) Multiply the Medicare approved
amount by the percentage of incurred
expenses that is recognized as incurred
expenses for Medicare payment
purposes for the year involved;
(2) Subtract from this amount the
amount of any remaining Part B
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
deductible for the patient and year
involved; and,
(3) Multiply this amount by 0.80 (80
percent) to obtain the Medicare payment
amount.
(4) Subtract the Medicare payment
amount from the Medicare-approved
amount to obtain the patient liability
amount.
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62005
62.50%
68.75%
75.00%
81.25%
100.00%
Patient
pays
Medicare
pays
50%
45%
40%
35%
20%
50%
55%
60%
65%
80%
PART 411—EXCLUSIONS FROM
MEDICARE AND LIMITATIONS ON
MEDICARE PAYMENT
8. The authority citation for part 411
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1860D–1 through
1860D–42, 1871, and 1877 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395w–101
through 1395w–152, 1395hh, and 1395nn).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62006
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart J—Financial Relationships
Between Physicians and Entities
Furnishing Designated Health Services
9. Section 411.354 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(3)(i) to read as
follows:
■
§ 411.354 Financial relationship,
compensation, and ownership or
investment interest.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3)(i) For purposes of paragraphs
(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2)(iv) of this section, a
physician who ‘‘stands in the shoes’’ of
his or her physician organization is
deemed to have the same compensation
arrangements (with the same parties and
on the same terms) as the physician
organization. When applying the
exceptions in § 411.355 and § 411.357 of
this part to arrangements in which a
physician stands in the shoes of his or
her physician organization, the relevant
referrals and other business generated
‘‘between the parties’’ are referrals and
other business generated between the
entity furnishing DHS and the physician
organization (including all members,
employees, and independent contractor
physicians).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 414—PAYMENT FOR PART B
MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH
SERVICES
10. The authority citation for part 414
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1881(b)(l)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302,
1395hh, and 1395rr(b)(l)).
Subpart B—Physicians and Other
Practitioners
11. Section 414.46 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to read
as follows:
■
§ 414.46 Additional rules for payment of
anesthesia services.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) The rules for medical direction
differ for certain time periods
depending on the nature of the qualified
individual who is directed by the
physician.
(i) If more than two procedures are
directed on or after January 1, 1994, the
qualified individuals could be AAs,
CRNAs, interns, or residents. The
medical direction rules apply to student
nurse anesthetists only if the physician
directs two concurrent cases, each of
which involves a student nurse
anesthetist or the physician directs one
case involving a student nurse
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
anesthetist and the other involving a
CRNA, AA, intern, or resident.
(ii) For services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010, the medical direction
rules do not apply to a single anesthesia
resident case that is concurrent to
another case which is paid under the
medical direction payment rules as
specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Special payment rule for teaching
anesthesiologist involved in a single
resident case or two concurrent cases.
For physicians’ services furnished on or
after January 1, 2010, if the teaching
anesthesiologist is involved in the
training of physician residents in a
single anesthesia case or two concurrent
anesthesia cases, the fee schedule
amount must be 100 percent of the fee
schedule amount otherwise applicable if
the anesthesia services were personally
performed by the teaching
anesthesiologist and the teaching
anesthesiologist fulfilled the criteria in
§ 415.178 of this chapter. This special
payment rule also applies if the teaching
anesthesiologist is involved in one
resident case that is concurrent to
another case paid under the medical
direction payment rules.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Section 414.61 is added to read as
follows:
§ 414.61 Payment for anesthesia services
furnished by a teaching CRNA.
(a) Basis for payment. Beginning
January 1, 2010, anesthesia services
furnished by a teaching CRNA may be
paid under one of the following
conditions:
(1) The teaching CRNA, who is not
under medical direction of a physician,
is present with the student nurse
anesthetist for the pre and post
anesthesia services included in the
anesthesia base units payment and is
continuously present during anesthesia
time in a single case with a student
nurse anesthetist.
(2) The teaching CRNA, who is not
under the medical direction of a
physician, is involved with two
concurrent anesthesia cases with
student nurse anesthetists. The teaching
CRNA must be present with the student
nurse anesthetist for the pre and post
anesthesia services included in the
anesthesia base unit. For the anesthesia
time of the two concurrent cases, the
teaching CRNA can only be involved
with those two concurrent cases and
may not perform services for other
patients.
(b) Level of payment. The allowance
for the service of the teaching CRNA,
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
furnished under paragraph (a) of this
section, is determined in the same way
as for a physician who personally
performs the anesthesia service alone as
specified in § 414.46(c) of this subpart.
■ 13. Section 414.65 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 414.65
Payment for telehealth services.
(a) * * *
(1) The Medicare payment amount for
office or other outpatient visits,
consultation, individual psychotherapy,
psychiatric diagnostic interview
examination, pharmacologic
management, end-stage renal disease
related services included in the monthly
capitation payment (except for one visit
per month to examine the access site),
individual medical nutrition therapy,
and individual health and behavior
assessment and intervention services
furnished via an interactive
telecommunications system is equal to
the current fee schedule amount
applicable for the service of the
physician or practitioner.
(i) Initial inpatient telehealth
consultations. The Medicare payment
amount for initial inpatient telehealth
consultations furnished via an
interactive telecommunications system
is equal to the current fee schedule
amount applicable to initial hospital
care provided by a physician or
practitioner.
(ii) Follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations. The Medicare payment
amount for follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultations furnished via
an interactive telecommunications
system is equal to the current fee
schedule amount applicable to
subsequent hospital care provided by a
physician or practitioner.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 414.68 is added to subpart
B to read as follows:
§ 414.68
Imaging accreditation.
(a) Scope and purpose. Section
1834(e) of the Act requires the Secretary
to designate and approve independent
accreditation organizations for purposes
of accrediting suppliers furnishing the
technical component (TC) of advanced
diagnostic imaging services and
establish procedures to ensure that the
criteria used by an accreditation
organization is specific to each imaging
modality. Suppliers of the TC of
advanced diagnostic imaging services
for which payment is made under the
fee schedule established in section
1848(b) of the Act must become
accredited by an accreditation
organization designated by the Secretary
beginning January 1, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, the following definitions are
applicable:
Accredited supplier means a supplier
that has been accredited by a CMSdesignated accreditation organization as
specified in this part.
Advanced diagnostic imaging service
means any of the following diagnostic
services:
(i) Magnetic resonance imaging.
(ii) Computed tomography.
(iii) Nuclear medicine.
(iv) Positron emission tomography.
CMS-approved accreditation
organization means an accreditation
organization designated by CMS to
perform the accreditation functions
specified in section 1834(e) of the Act.
(c) Application and reapplication
procedures for accreditation
organizations. An independent
accreditation organization applying for
approval or reapproval of authority to
survey suppliers for purposes of
accrediting suppliers furnishing the TC
of advanced diagnostic imaging services
is required to furnish CMS with all of
the following:
(1) A detailed description of how the
organization’s accreditation criteria
satisfy the statutory standards
authorized by section 1834(e)(3) of the
Act, specifically—
(i) Qualifications of medical
personnel who are not physicians and
who furnish the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services;
(ii) Qualifications and responsibilities
of medical directors and supervising
physicians (who may be the same
person), such as their training in
advanced diagnostic imaging services in
a residency program, expertise obtained
through experience, or continuing
medical education courses;
(iii) Procedures to ensure the
reliability, clarity, and accuracy of the
technical quality of diagnostic images
produced by the supplier, including a
thorough evaluation of equipment
performance and safety;
(iv) Procedures to ensure the safety of
persons who furnish the TC of advanced
diagnostic imaging services and
individuals to whom such services are
furnished;
(v) Procedures to assist the beneficiary
in obtaining the beneficiary’s imaging
records on request; and
(vi) Procedures to notify the
accreditation organization of any
changes to the modalities subsequent to
the organization’s accreditation
decision.
(2) An agreement to conform
accreditation requirements to any
changes in Medicare statutory
requirements authorized by section
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
1834(e) of the Act. The accreditation
organization must maintain or adopt
standards that are equal to, or more
stringent than, those of Medicare.
(3) Information that demonstrates the
accreditation organization’s knowledge
and experience in the advanced
diagnostic imaging arena.
(4) The organization’s proposed fees
for accreditation for each modality in
which the organization intends to offer
accreditation, including any plans for
reducing the burden and cost of
accreditation to small and rural
suppliers.
(5) Any specific documentation
requirements and attestations requested
by CMS as a condition of designation
under this part.
(6) A detailed description of the
organization’s survey process, including
the following:
(i) Type and frequency of the surveys
performed.
(ii) The ability of the organization to
conduct timely reviews of accreditation
applications, to include the
organizations national capacity.
(iii) Description of the organization’s
audit procedures, including random site
visits, site audits, or other strategies for
ensuring suppliers maintain compliance
for the duration of accreditation.
(iv) Procedures for performing
unannounced site surveys.
(v) Copies of the organization’s survey
forms.
(vi) A description of the accreditation
survey review process and the
accreditation status decision-making
process, including the process for
addressing deficiencies identified with
the accreditation requirements, and the
procedures used to monitor the
correction of deficiencies found during
an accreditation survey.
(vii) Procedures for coordinating
surveys with another accrediting
organization if the organization does not
accredit all products the supplier
provides.
(viii) Detailed information about the
individuals who perform evaluations for
the accreditation organization,
including all of the following
information:
(A) The number of professional and
technical staff that are available for
surveys.
(B) The education, employment, and
experience requirements surveyors must
meet.
(C) The content and length of the
orientation program.
(ix) The frequency and types of inservice training provided to survey
personnel.
(x) The evaluation systems used to
monitor the performance of individual
surveyors and survey teams.
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62007
(xi) The policies and procedures
regarding an individual’s participation
in the survey or accreditation decision
process of any organization with which
the individual is professionally or
financially affiliated.
(xii) The policies and procedures used
when an organization has a dispute
regarding survey findings or an adverse
decision.
(7) Detailed information about the size
and composition of survey teams for
each category of advanced medical
imaging service supplier accredited.
(8) A description of the organization’s
data management and analysis system
for its surveys and accreditation
decisions, including the kinds of
reports, tables, and other displays
generated by that system.
(9) The organization’s procedures for
responding to and for the investigation
of complaints against accredited
facilities, including policies and
procedures regarding coordination of
these activities with appropriate
licensing bodies and CMS.
(10) The organization’s policies and
procedures for the withholding or
removal of accreditation status for
facilities that fail to meet the
accreditation organization’s standards or
requirements, and other actions taken
by the organization in response to
noncompliance with its standards and
requirements. These policies and
procedures must include notifying CMS
of Medicare facilities that fail to meet
the requirements of the accrediting
organization.
(11) A list of all currently accredited
suppliers, the type and category of
accreditation currently held by each
supplier, and the expiration date of each
supplier’s current accreditation.
(12) A written presentation that
demonstrates the organization’s ability
to furnish CMS with electronic data in
ASCII comparable code.
(13) A resource analysis that
demonstrates that the organization’s
staffing, funding, and other resources
are adequate to perform the required
surveys and related activities.
(14) A statement acknowledging that,
as a condition for approval of
designation, the organization agrees to
carry out the following activities:
(i) Prioritize surveys for those
suppliers needing to be accredited by
January 1, 2012.
(ii) Notify CMS, in writing, of any
Medicare supplier that had its
accreditation revoked, withdrawn,
revised, or any other remedial or
adverse action taken against it by the
accreditation organization within 30
calendar days of any such action taken.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) Notify all accredited suppliers
within 10 calendar days of the
organization’s removal from the list of
designated accreditation organizations.
(iv) Notify CMS, in writing, at least 30
calendar days in advance of the effective
date of any significant proposed changes
in its accreditation requirements.
(v) Permit its surveyors to serve as
witnesses if CMS takes an adverse
action based on accreditation findings.
(vi) Notify CMS, in writing
(electronically or hard copy), within 2
business days of a deficiency identified
in any accreditation supplier from any
source where the deficiency poses an
immediate jeopardy to the supplier’s
beneficiaries or a hazard to the general
public.
(vii) Provide, on an annual basis,
summary data specified by CMS that
relates to the past year’s accreditations
and trends.
(viii) Attest that the organization will
not perform any accreditation surveys of
Medicare-participating suppliers with
which it has a financial relationship in
which it has an interest.
(ix) Conform accreditation
requirements to changes in Medicare
requirements.
(x) If CMS withdraws an accreditation
organization’s approved status, work
collaboratively with CMS to direct
suppliers to the remaining accreditation
organizations within a reasonable
period of time.
(d) Determination of whether
additional information is needed. If
CMS determines that additional
information is necessary to make a
determination for approval or denial of
the accreditation organization’s
application for designation, the
organization must be notified and
afforded an opportunity to provide the
additional information.
(e) Visits to the organization’s office.
CMS may visit the organization’s offices
to verify representations made by the
organization in its application,
including, but not limited to, reviewing
documents and interviewing the
organization’s staff.
(f) Formal notice from CMS. The
accreditation organization will receive a
formal notice from CMS stating whether
the request for designation has been
approved or denied. If approval was
denied the notice includes the basis for
denial and reconsideration and
reapplication procedures.
(g) Ongoing responsibilities of a CMSapproved accreditation organization.
An accreditation organization approved
by CMS must carry out the following
activities on an ongoing basis:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(1) Provide CMS with all of the
following in written format (either
electronic or hard copy):
(i) Copies of all accreditation surveys,
together with any survey-related
information that CMS may require
(including corrective action plans and
summaries of findings with respect to
unmet CMS requirements).
(ii) Notice of all accreditation
decisions.
(iii) Notice of all complaints related to
suppliers.
(iv) Information about all accredited
suppliers against which the
accreditation organization has taken
remedial or adverse action, including
revocation, withdrawal, or revision of
the supplier’s accreditation.
(v) Notice of any proposed changes in
its accreditation standards or
requirements or survey process. If the
organization implements the changes
before or without CMS’ approval, CMS
may withdraw its approval of the
accreditation organization.
(2) Within 30 calendar days after a
change in CMS requirements, the
accreditation organization must submit
an acknowledgment of receipt of CMS’
notification to CMS.
(3) The accreditation organization
must permit its surveyors to serve as
witnesses if CMS takes an adverse
action based on accreditation findings.
(4) Within 2 business days of
identifying a deficiency of an accredited
supplier that poses immediate jeopardy
to a beneficiary or to the general public,
the accreditation organization must
provide CMS with written notice of the
deficiency and any adverse action
implemented by the accreditation
organization.
(5) Within 10 calendar days after
CMS’ notice to a CMS-approved
accreditation organization that CMS
intends to withdraw approval of the
accreditation organization, the
accreditation organization must provide
written notice of the withdrawal to all
of the organization’s accredited
suppliers.
(6) The organization must provide, on
an annual basis, summary data specified
by CMS that relate to the past year’s
accreditation activities and trends.
(h) Continuing Federal oversight of
approved accreditation organizations.
This paragraph establishes specific
criteria and procedures for continuing
oversight and for withdrawing approval
of a CMS-approved accreditation
organization.
(1) Validation audits. (i) CMS or its
contractor may conduct an audit of an
accredited supplier to validate the
survey accreditation process of
approved accreditation organizations for
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the TC of advanced diagnostic imaging
services.
(ii) The audits must be conducted on
a representative sample of suppliers
who have been accredited by a
particular accrediting organization or in
response to allegations of supplier
noncompliance with the standards.
(A) When conducted on a
representative sample basis, the audit is
comprehensive and addresses all of the
standards, or may focus on a specific
standard in issue.
(B) When conducted in response to an
allegation, CMS audits any standards
that CMS determines are related to the
allegations.
(2) Notice of intent to withdraw
approval. (i) If, during the audit
specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this
section, CMS identifies any
accreditation programs for which
validation audit results indicate—
(A) A 10 percent or greater rate of
disparity between findings by the
accreditation organization and findings
by CMS on standards that do not
constitute immediate jeopardy to patient
health and safety if unmet; or
(B) Any disparity between findings by
the accreditation organization and
findings by CMS on standards that
constitute immediate jeopardy to patient
health and safety if unmet; or,
(C) Irrespective of the rate of
disparity, widespread or systemic
problems in an organization’s
accreditation process such that
accreditation by that accreditation
organization no longer provides CMS
with adequate assurance that suppliers
meet or exceed the Medicare
requirements; then CMS will give the
organization written notice of its intent
to withdraw approval as specified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(ii) CMS may also provide the
organization written notice of its intent
to withdraw approval if an equivalency
review, onsite observation, or CMS’
daily experience with the accreditation
organization suggests that the
accreditation organization is not
meeting the requirements of this
section.
(3) Withdrawal of approval. CMS may
withdraw its approval of an
accreditation organization at any time if
CMS determines that—
(i) Accreditation by the organization
no longer adequately assures that the
suppliers furnishing the technical
component of advanced diagnostic
imaging service are meeting the
established industry standards for each
modality and that failure to meet those
requirements could jeopardize the
health or safety of Medicare
beneficiaries and could constitute a
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
significant hazard to the public health;
or
(ii) The accreditation organization has
failed to meet its obligations with
respect to application or reapplication
procedures.
(i) Reconsideration. An accreditation
organization dissatisfied with a
determination that its accreditation
requirements do not provide or do not
continue to provide reasonable
assurance that the suppliers accredited
by the accreditation organization meet
the applicable quality standards is
entitled to a reconsideration. CMS
reconsiders any determination to deny,
remove, or not renew the approval of
designation to accreditation
organizations if the accreditation
organization files a written request for
reconsideration by its authorized
officials or through its legal
representative.
(1) Filing requirements. (i) The request
must be filed within 30 calendar days of
the receipt of CMS notice of an adverse
determination or non-renewal.
(ii) The request for reconsideration
must specify the findings or issues with
which the accreditation organization
disagrees and the reasons for the
disagreement.
(iii) A requestor may withdraw its
request for reconsideration at any time
before the issuance of a reconsideration
determination.
(2) CMS response to a filing request.
In response to a request for
reconsideration, CMS provides the
accreditation organization with—
(i) The opportunity for an informal
hearing to be conducted by a hearing
officer appointed by the Administrator
of CMS and provide the accreditation
organization the opportunity to present,
in writing and in person, evidence or
documentation to refute the
determination to deny approval, or to
withdraw or not renew designation; and
(ii) Written notice of the time and
place of the informal hearing at least 10
business days before the scheduled date.
(3) Hearing requirements and rules. (i)
The informal reconsideration hearing is
open to all of the following:
(A) CMS.
(B) The organization requesting the
reconsideration including—
(1) Authorized representatives;
(2) Technical advisors (individuals
with knowledge of the facts of the case
or presenting interpretation of the facts);
and
(3) Legal counsel.
(ii) The hearing is conducted by the
hearing officer who receives testimony
and documents related to the proposed
action.
(iii) Testimony and other evidence
may be accepted by the hearing officer
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
even though such evidence may be
inadmissible under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
(iv) The hearing officer does not have
the authority to compel by subpoena the
production of witnesses, papers, or
other evidence.
(v) Within 45 calendar days of the
close of the hearing, the hearing officer
presents the findings and
recommendations to the accreditation
organization that requested the
reconsideration.
(vi) The written report of the hearing
officer includes separate numbered
findings of fact and the legal
conclusions of the hearing officer.
(vii) The hearing officer’s decision is
final.
Subpart D—Payment for Durable
Medical Equipment and Prosthetic and
Orthotic Devices
15. Section 414.210 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
B. Adding paragraph (e)(5).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 414.210
General payment rules.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Maintenance and servicing
payment for certain oxygen equipment
furnished after the 36-month rental
period from January 1, 2009 through
June 30, 2010. The carrier makes a
maintenance and servicing payment for
oxygen equipment other than liquid and
gaseous equipment (stationary and
portable) as follows:
(i) For the first 6-month period
following the date on which the 36month rental period ends in accordance
with § 414.226(a)(1) of this subpart, no
payments are made.
(ii) For each succeeding 6-month
period, payment may be made during
the first month of that period for 30
minutes of labor for routine
maintenance and servicing of the
equipment in the beneficiary’s home
(including an institution used as the
beneficiary’s home).
(iii) The supplier must visit the
beneficiary’s home (including an
institution used as the beneficiary’s
home) to inspect the equipment during
the first month of the 6-month period.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Maintenance and servicing
payment for certain oxygen equipment
furnished after the 36-month rental
period and on or after July 1, 2010. For
oxygen equipment other than liquid and
gaseous equipment (stationary and
portable), the carrier makes payment as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62009
(i) For the first 6-month period
following the date on which the 36month rental period ends in accordance
with § 414.226(a)(1) of this subpart, no
payments are made.
(ii) For each succeeding 6-month
period, payment may be made during
the first month of that period for routine
maintenance and servicing of the
equipment in the beneficiary’s home
(including an institution used as the
beneficiary’s home).
(iii) Payment for maintenance and
servicing is made based on a reasonable
fee not to exceed 10 percent of the
purchase price for a stationary oxygen
concentrator. This payment includes
payment for maintenance and servicing
of all oxygen equipment other than
liquid or gaseous equipment (stationary
or portable).
(iv) The supplier must visit the
beneficiary’s home (including an
institution used as the beneficiary’s
home) to inspect the equipment during
the first month of the 6-month period.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—Competitive Bidding for
Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS)
16. Section 414.402 is amended by
revising the definition ‘‘Grandfathered
item’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 414.402
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Grandfathered item means all rented
items within a product category for
which payment was made prior to the
implementation of a competitive
bidding program to a grandfathered
supplier that chooses to continue to
furnish the items in accordance with
§ 414.408(j) of this subpart and that fall
within the following payment categories
for competitive bidding:
(1) An inexpensive or routinely
purchased item described in § 414.220
of this part.
(2) An item requiring frequent and
substantial servicing, as described in
§ 414.222 of this part.
(3) Oxygen and oxygen equipment
described in § 414.226 of this part.
(4) Other DME described in § 414.229
of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Section 414.408 is amended by—
■ A. Redesignating paragraph (j)(5) as
(j)(7).
■ B. Adding new paragraphs (j)(5) and
(j)(6).
■ C. Revising paragraph (k)(2).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62010
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
§ 414.408
Payment rules.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(5) Notification of beneficiaries and
CMS by suppliers that choose to become
grandfathered suppliers. (i) Notification
of beneficiaries by suppliers. (A)
Requirements of notification. A
noncontract supplier that elects to
become a grandfathered supplier must
provide a 30-day written notification to
each Medicare beneficiary that resides
in a competitive bidding area and is
currently renting a competitively bid
item from that supplier. The 30-day
notification to the beneficiary must meet
the following requirements:
(1) Be sent by the supplier to the
beneficiary at least 30 business days
before the start date of the
implementation of the competitive
bidding program for the CBA in which
the beneficiary resides.
(2) Identify the grandfathered items
that the supplier is willing to continue
to rent to the beneficiary.
(3) Be in writing (for example, by
letter or postcard) and the supplier must
maintain proof of delivery.
(4) State that the supplier is willing to
continue to furnish certain rented
Durable Medical Equipment (DME),
oxygen and oxygen equipment, and
supplies that the supplier is currently
furnishing to the beneficiary (that is,
before the start of the competitive
bidding program) and is willing to
continue to provide these items to the
beneficiary for the remaining rental
months.
(5) State that the beneficiary has the
choice to continue to receive a
grandfathered item(s) from the
grandfathered supplier or may elect to
receive the item(s) from a contract
supplier after the end of the last month
for which a rental payment is made to
the noncontract supplier.
(6) Provide the supplier’s telephone
number and instruct the beneficiary to
call the supplier with any questions and
to notify the supplier of his or her
decision to use or not use the supplier
as a grandfathered supplier.
(7) State that the beneficiary can
obtain information about the
competitive bidding program by calling
1–800–MEDICARE or on the Internet at
https://www.Medicare.gov.
(B) Record of beneficiary’s choice. The
supplier should obtain an election from
the beneficiary regarding whether to use
or not use the supplier as a
grandfathered supplier. The supplier
must maintain a record of its attempts
to communicate with the beneficiary to
obtain the beneficiary’s election
regarding grandfathering. When the
supplier obtains such an election, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
supplier must maintain a record of the
beneficiary decision including the date
the choice was made, and how the
beneficiary communicated his or her
choice to the supplier.
(C) Notification. If the beneficiary
chooses not to continue to receive a
grandfathered item(s) from their current
supplier, the supplier must provide the
beneficiary with 2 more notices in
addition to the 30-day notice prior to
the supplier picking up its equipment.
(1) 10-day notification: Ten business
days prior to picking up the item, the
supplier should have direct contact (for
example, a phone call) with the
beneficiary or the beneficiary’s caregiver
and receive acknowledgement that the
beneficiary understands their
equipment will be picked up. This
should occur on the first anniversary
date after the start of the CBP or on
another date agreed to by the beneficiary
or the beneficiary’s caregiver. The
beneficiary’s anniversary date occurs
every month and is the date of the
month on which the item was first
delivered to the beneficiary by the
current supplier. When a date other
than the anniversary date is chosen by
the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s
caregiver, the noncontract supplier will
still receive payment up to the
anniversary date after the start of the
CBP, and the new contract supplier may
not bill for any period of time before the
anniversary date.
(2) 2-day notification: Two business
days prior to picking up the item the
supplier should contact the beneficiary
or the beneficiary’s caregiver by phone
to notify the beneficiary of the date the
supplier will pick up the item. This date
should not be before the beneficiary’s
first anniversary date that occurs after
the start of the competitive bidding
program unless an alternative
arrangement has been made with the
beneficiary and the new contract
supplier.
(D) Pickup procedures. (1) The pickup
of the noncontract supplier’s equipment
and the delivery of the new contract
supplier’s equipment should occur on
the same date, that is, the first rental
anniversary date of the equipment that
occurs after the start of the competitive
bidding program unless an alternative
arrangement has been made with the
beneficiary and the new contract
supplier.
(2) Under no circumstance should a
supplier pick up a rented item prior to
the supplier’s receiving
acknowledgement from the beneficiary
that the beneficiary is aware of the date
on which the supplier is picking up the
item and the beneficiary has made
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
arrangements to have the item replaced
on that date by a contract supplier.
(3) When a beneficiary chooses to
switch to a new contract supplier, the
current noncontract supplier and the
new contract supplier must make
arrangements that are suitable to the
beneficiary.
(4) The contract supplier may not
submit a claim with a date of delivery
for the new equipment that is prior to
the first anniversary date that occurs
after the beginning of the CBP, and the
contract supplier may not begin billing
until the first anniversary date that
occurs after the beginning of the CBP.
(5) The noncontract supplier must
submit a claim to be paid up to the first
anniversary date that occurs after the
beginning of the CBP. Therefore, they
should not pick up the equipment
before that date unless an alternative
arrangement has been made with the
beneficiary and the new contract
supplier.
(ii) Notification to CMS by suppliers.
A noncontract supplier that elects to
become a grandfathered supplier must
provide a written notification to CMS of
this decision. This notification must
meet the following requirements:
(A) State that the supplier agrees to
continue to furnish certain rented DME,
oxygen and oxygen equipment that it is
currently furnishing to beneficiaries
(that is, before the start of the
competitive bidding program) in a CBA
and will continue to provide these items
to these beneficiaries for the remaining
months of the rental period.
(B) Include the following information:
(1) Name and address of the supplier.
(2) The 6-digit NSC number of the
supplier.
(3) Product category(s) by CBA for
which the supplier is willing to be a
grandfathered supplier.
(C) State that the supplier agrees to
meet all the terms and conditions
pertaining to grandfathered suppliers.
(D) Be provided by the supplier to
CMS in writing at least 30 business days
before the start date of the
implementation of the Medicare
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
(6) Suppliers that choose not to
become grandfathered suppliers. (i)
Requirement for non-grandfathered
supplier. A noncontract supplier that
elects not to become a grandfathered
supplier is required to pick up the item
it is currently renting to the beneficiary
from the beneficiary’s home after proper
notification.
(ii) Notification. Proper notification
includes a 30-day, a 10-day, and a 2-day
notice of the supplier’s decision not to
become a grandfathered supplier to its
Medicare beneficiaries who are
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
currently renting certain DME
competitively bid item(s) and who
reside in a CBA.
(iii) Requirements of notification.
These notifications must meet all of the
requirements listed in paragraph (j)(5)(i)
of this section for the 30-day, 10-day
and 2-day notices that must be sent by
suppliers who decide to be
grandfathered suppliers, with the
following exceptions for the 30-day
notice.
(A) State that, for those items for
which the supplier has decided not to
be a grandfathered supplier, the
supplier will only continue to rent these
competitively bid item(s) to its
beneficiaries up to the first anniversary
date that occurs after the start of the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program.
(B) State that the beneficiary must
select a contract supplier for Medicare
to continue to pay for these items.
(C) Refer the beneficiary to the
contract supplier locator tool on and to
1–800–MEDICARE to obtain
information about the availability of
contract suppliers for the beneficiary’s
area.
(iv) Pickup procedures. (A) The pickup of the noncontract supplier’s
equipment and the delivery of the new
contract supplier’s equipment should
occur on the same date, that is, the first
rental anniversary date of the equipment
that occurs after the start of the
competitive bidding program unless an
alternative arrangement has been made
with the beneficiary and the new
contract supplier.
(B) Under no circumstance should a
supplier pick up a rented item prior to
the supplier’s receiving
acknowledgement from the beneficiary
that the beneficiary is aware of the date
on which the supplier is picking up the
item and the beneficiary has made
arrangements to have the item replaced
on that date by a contract supplier.
(C) When a beneficiary chooses to
switch to a new contract supplier, the
current noncontract supplier and the
new contract supplier must make
arrangements that are agreeable to the
beneficiary.
(D) The contract supplier cannot
submit a claim with a date of delivery
for the new equipment that is prior to
the first anniversary date that occurs
after the beginning of the CBP.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(2) Additional payments are made in
accordance with § 414.210(e)(2), (e)(3)
and (e)(5) of this part for the
maintenance and servicing of oxygen
equipment if performed by a contract
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
supplier or a noncontract supplier
having a valid Medicare billing number.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 18. Section 414.425 is added to read
as follows:
§ 414.425
Claims for damages.
(a) Eligibility for filing a claim for
damages as a result of the termination
of supplier contracts by the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA).
(1) Any aggrieved supplier, including
a member of a network that was
awarded a contract for the Round 1
Durable Medical Prosthetics, Orthotics,
and Supplies Competitive Bidding
Program (DMEPOS CBP) that believes it
has been damaged by the termination of
its competitive bid contract, may file a
claim under this section.
(2) A subcontractor of a contract
supplier is not eligible to submit a claim
under this section.
(b) Timeframe for filing a claim. (1) A
completed claim, including all
documentation, must be filed within 90
days of January 1, 2010 (the effective
date of these damages provisions),
unless that day is a Federal holiday or
Sunday in which case it will fall to the
next business day.
(2) The date of filing is the actual date
of receipt by the CBIC of a completed
claim that includes all the information
required by this rule.
(c) Information that must be included
in a claim. (1) Supplier’s name, name of
authorized official, U.S. Post Office
mailing address, phone number, email
address and bidding number, and
National Supplier Clearinghouse
Number;
(2) A copy of the signed contract
entered into with CMS for the Round 1
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program;
(3) A detailed explanation of the
damages incurred by this supplier as a
direct result of the termination of the
Round 1 competitive bid contract by
MIPPA. The explanation must include
all of the following:
(i) Documentation of the supplier’s
damages through receipts.
(ii) Records that substantiate the
supplier’s damages and demonstrate
that the damages are directly related to
performance of the Round 1 contract
and are consistent with information the
supplier provided as part of their bid.
(4) The supplier must explain how it
would be damaged if not reimbursed.
(5) The claim must document steps
the supplier took to mitigate any
damages they may have incurred due to
the contract termination, including a
detailed explanation of the steps of all
attempts to use for other purposes,
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62011
return or dispose of equipment or other
assets purchased or rented for the use in
the Round 1 DMEPOS CBP contract
performance.
(d) Items that will not be considered
in a claim. The following items will not
be considered in a claim:
(1) The cost of submitting a bid.
(2) Any fees or costs incurred for
consulting or marketing.
(3) Costs associated with accreditation
or licensure.
(4) Costs incurred before March 20,
2008.
(5) Costs incurred for contract
performance after July 14, 2008 except
for costs incurred to mitigate damages.
(6) Any profits a supplier may have
expected from the contract.
(7) Costs that would have occurred
without a contract having been
awarded.
(8) Costs for items such as inventory,
delivery vehicles, office space and
equipment, personnel, which the
supplier did not purchase specifically to
perform the contract.
(9) Costs that the supplier has
recouped by any means, and may
include use of personnel, material,
suppliers, or equipment in the
supplier’s business operations.
(e) Filing a claim. (1) A claim, with all
supporting documentation, must be
filed with the CMS Competitive Bidding
Implementation Contractor (CBIC).
(2) Claims must include a statement
from a supplier’s authorized official
certifying the accuracy of the
information provided on the claim and
all supporting documentation.
(3) The CBIC does not accept
electronic submissions of claims for
damages.
(f) Review of claim. (1) Role of the
CBIC. (i) The CBIC will review the claim
to ensure it is submitted timely,
complete, and by an eligible claimant.
When the CBIC identifies that a claim is
incomplete or not filed timely, it will
make a recommendation to the
Determining Authority not to process
the claim further. Incomplete or
untimely claims may be dismissed by
the Determining Authority without
further processing.
(ii) For complete, timely claims, the
CBIC will review the claim on its merits
to determine if damages are warranted
and may seek further information from
the claimant when making its
recommendation to the Determining
Authority. The CBIC may set a deadline
for receipt of additional information. A
claimant’s failure to respond timely may
result in a denial of the claim.
(iii) The CBIC will make a
recommendation to the Determining
Authority for each claim filed and
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62012
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
include an explanation that supports its
recommendation.
(iv) The recommendation must be
either to award damages for a particular
amount (which may not be the same
amount requested by the claimant) or
that no damages should be awarded.
(A) If the CBIC recommends that
damages are warranted, the CBIC will
calculate a recommended reasonable
amount of damages based on the claim
submitted.
(B) The reasonable amount will
consider both costs incurred and the
contractor’s attempts and action to limit
the damages;
(v) The recommendation will be sent
to the Determining Authority for a final
determination.
(2) CMS’ role as the Determining
Authority. (i) The Determining
Authority shall review the
recommendation of the CBIC.
(ii) The Determining Authority may
seek further information from the
claimant or the CBIC in making a
concurrence or non-concurrence
determination.
(iii) The Determining Authority may
set a deadline for receipt of additional
information. A claimant’s failure to
respond timely may result in a denial of
the claim.
(iv) If the Determining Authority
concurs with the CBIC recommendation,
the Determining Authority shall submit
a final signed decision to the CBIC and
direct the CBIC to notify the claimant of
the decision and the reasons for the
final decision.
(v) If the Determining Authority nonconcurs with the CBIC recommendation,
the Determining Authority may return
the claim for further processing or the
Determining Authority may:
(A) Write a determination granting (in
whole or in part) a claim for damages or
denying a claim in its entirety;
(B) Direct the CBIC to write said
determination for the Determining
Authority’s signature; or
(C) Return the claim to the CBIC with
further instructions.
(vi) The Determining Authority’s
determination is final and not subject to
administrative or judicial review.
(g) Timeframe for determinations. (1)
Every effort will be made to make a
determination within 120 days of initial
receipt of the claim for damages by the
CBIC or the receipt of additional
information that was requested by the
CBIC, whichever is later.
(2) In the case of more complex cases,
or in the event of a large workload, a
decision will be issued as soon as
practicable.
(h) Notification to claimant of damage
determination. The CBIC must mail the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Determining Authority’s determination
to the claimant by certified mail return
receipt requested, at the address
provided in the claim.
■
Subpart H—Fee Schedule for
Ambulance Services
§ 414.906 Competitive acquisition program
as the basis for payment.
19. Section 414.610 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(5)(i) to read as
follows:
■
§ 414.610
Basis of payment.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For ground ambulance services
where the point of pickup is in a rural
area, the mileage rate is increased by 50
percent for each of the first 17 miles
and, for services furnished before
January 1, 2004, by 25 percent for miles
18 through 50. The standard mileage
rate applies to every mile over 50 miles
and, for services furnished after
December 31, 2003, to every mile over
17 miles. For air ambulance services
where the point of pickup is in a rural
area, the total payment is increased by
50 percent; that is, the rural adjustment
factor applies to the sum of the base rate
and the mileage rate.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—Submission of
Manufacturer’s Average Sales Price
Data
20. Section 414.802 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘unit’’ to read
as follows:
■
§ 414.802
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Unit means the product represented
by the 11-digit National Drug Code. The
method of counting units excludes units
of CAP drugs (as defined in § 414.902 of
this part) sold to an approved CAP
vendor (as defined in § 414.902 of this
part) for use under the CAP (as defined
in § 414.902 of this part).
Subpart K—Payment for Drugs and
Biologicals Under Part B
§ 414.904
[Amended]
21. Amend § 414.904(d)(3) by
removing the phrase ‘‘and 2009’’ and
adding in its place the phrase ‘‘2009,
and 2010.’’
■ 22. Section 414.906 is amended by—
■ A. Adding the introductory text to
paragraph (c).
■ B. Revising paragraph (c)(1).
■ C. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as
(c)(3).
■ D. Adding new paragraph (c)(2).
■ E. Adding a paragraph heading to
newly designated paragraph (c)(3).
■
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
F. Adding paragraphs (f)(2)(v),
(f)(3)(iv), and (g).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Computation of payment amount.
Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, payment for CAP drugs
is based on bids submitted as a result of
the bidding process as described in
§ 414.910 of this subpart.
(1) Single payment amount. (i) A
single payment amount for each CAP
drug in the competitive acquisition area
is determined on the basis of the bids
submitted and accepted and updated
from the bidding period to the
beginning of the payment year.
(ii) The single payment amount is
then updated quarterly based on the
approved CAP vendor’s reasonable net
acquisition costs for that category as
determined by CMS, and limited by the
weighted payment amount established
under section 1847A of the Act across
all drugs for which a composite bid is
required in the category.
(iii) The payment amount for each
other drug for which the approved CAP
vendor submits a bid in accordance
with § 414.910 of this subpart and each
other drug that is approved by CMS for
the approved CAP vendor to furnish
under the CAP is also updated quarterly
based on the approved CAP vendor’s
reasonable net acquisition costs for each
HCPCS code and limited by the
payment amount established under
section 1847A of the Act.
(2) Updates to payment amount. (i)
The first update is effective on the first
day of claims processing for the first
quarter of an approved CAP vendor’s
contract. The first quarterly contract
update is based on the reasonable net
acquisition cost (RNAC) data reported to
CMS or its designee for any purchases
of drug before the beginning of CAP
claims processing for the contract
period and reported to CMS no later
than 30 days before the beginning of
CAP claims processing.
(ii) For subsequent quarters, each
approved CAP vendor must report to
CMS or its designee RNAC data for a
quarter of CAP drug purchases within
30 days of the close of that quarter.
(iii) For all quarters, only RNAC data
from approved CAP vendors that are
supplying CAP drugs under their CAP
contract at the time updates are being
calculated must be used to calculate
updated CAP payment amounts.
(iv) CMS excludes such RNAC data
submitted by an approved CAP vendor
if, during the time calculations are being
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
done, CMS knows that the approved
CAP vendor will not be under contract
for the applicable quarterly update.
(v) The payment amount weights
must be calculated based on the more
recent of the following:
(A) Contract bidding weights.
(B) CAP claims data.
(vi) The payment limit must be
determined using the most recent
payment limits available to CMS under
section 1847A of the Act.
(vii) The following payment amount
update calculation must be applied for
the group of all drugs for which a
composite bid is required.
(A) The most recent previous
composite payment amount for the
group is updated by—
(1) Calculating the percent change in
reasonable net acquisition costs for each
approved CAP vendor;
(2) Calculating the median of all
participating approved CAP vendors’
adjusted CAP payment amounts; and
(3) Limiting the payment as described
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(B) The median percent change,
subject to the limit described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must be
the update percentage for that quarter.
(C) The single update percentage must
be applied to the payment amount for
each drug in the group of drugs for
which a composite bid is required in the
category.
(viii) The following payment amount
update calculation must be applied for
each of the following items: Each
HCPCS code not included in the
composite bid list; Each HCPCS code
added to the drug list during the
contract period; and each drug that has
not yet been assigned a HCPCS code,
but for which a HCPCS code will be
established.
(A) The most recent previous payment
amount for each drug must be updated
by calculating the percent change in
reasonable net acquisition costs for each
approved CAP vendor, then calculating
the median of all participating approved
CAP vendors’ adjusted CAP payment
amounts.
(B) The median percent change
calculated for each drug, subject to the
limit described in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, must be applied to the
payment amount for each drug.
(3) Alternative payment amount.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) On or after January 1, 2010, the
proposed addition of drugs with similar
therapeutic uses to drugs already
supplied under the CAP by the
approved CAP vendor(s).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
(3) * * *
(iv) In the case of additions requested
under paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section,
address and document the need for such
an expansion based on demand for the
product(s).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Deletion of drugs on an approved
CAP vendor’s CAP drug list. Deletion of
drugs on an approved CAP vendor’s
CAP drug list due to unavailability
requires a written request and approval
as described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)
through (iii) and (f)(4) of this section.
■ 23. Section 414.908 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(3)(xii) to read as
follows:
§ 414.908
program.
Competitive acquisition
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xii) Agrees not to transport CAP
drugs from one practice location or
place of service to another location
except in accordance with a written
agreement between the participating
CAP physician and the approved CAP
vendor that requires that drugs are not
subjected to conditions that will
jeopardize their integrity, stability, and/
or sterility while being transported.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 24. Section 414.914 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(12) to read as
follows:
§ 414.914
Terms of contract.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(12) Supply CAP drugs upon receipt
of a prescription order to all
participating CAP physicians who have
selected the approved CAP vendor,
except when the conditions of
paragraph (h) of this section or
§ 414.916(b) of this subpart are met;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 25. Section 414.916 is amended by—
■ A. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as
(b)(5).
■ B. Adding new paragraph (b)(4).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 414.916 Dispute resolution for vendors
and beneficiaries.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Upon notification from CMS of a
participating CAP physician’s
suspension from the program, the
approved CAP vendor must cease
delivery of CAP drugs to the suspended
participating CAP physician until the
suspension has been lifted.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 26. Section 414.917 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62013
§ 414.917 Dispute resolution and process
for suspension or termination of approved
CAP contract and termination of physician
participation under exigent circumstances.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) The approved CAP vendor may
appeal that termination by requesting a
reconsideration. A determination must
be made as to whether the approved
CAP vendor has been meeting the
service and quality obligations of its
CAP contract. The approved CAP
vendor’s contract will remain
suspended during the reconsideration
process.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 27. Section 414.930 is amended by—
■ A. Revising paragraph (a).
■ B. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(v) as
paragraph (b)(1)(vi).
■ C. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(v).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 414.930 Compendia for determination of
medically-accepted indications for off-label
uses of drugs and biologicals in an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen.
(a) Definitions. For the purposes of
this section:
Compendium means a comprehensive
listing of FDA-approved drugs and
biologicals or a comprehensive listing of
a specific subset of drugs and
biologicals in a specialty compendium,
for example a compendium of anticancer treatment. A compendium—
(i) Includes a summary of the
pharmacologic characteristics of each
drug or biological and may include
information on dosage, as well as
recommended or endorsed uses in
specific diseases.
(ii) Is indexed by drug or biological.
(iii) Has a publicly transparent
process for evaluating therapies and for
identifying potential conflicts of
interests.
Publicly transparent process for
evaluating therapies means that the
process provides that the following
information from an internal or external
request for inclusion of a therapy in a
compendium are available to the public
for a period of not less than 5 years,
which includes availability on the
compendium’s Web site for a period of
not less than 3 years, coincident with
the compendium’s publication of the
related recommendation:
(i) The internal or external request for
listing of a therapy recommendation
including criteria used to evaluate the
request.
(ii) A listing of all the evidentiary
materials reviewed or considered by the
compendium pursuant to the request.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62014
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) A listing of all individuals who
have substantively participated in the
review or disposition of the request.
(iv) Minutes and voting records of
meetings for the review and disposition
of the request.
Publicly transparent process for
identifying potential conflicts of
interests means that process provides
that the following information is
identified and made timely available in
response to a public request for a period
of not less than 5 years, coincident with
the compendium’s publication of the
related recommendation:
(i) Direct or indirect financial
relationships that exist between
individuals or the spouse or minor child
of individuals who have substantively
participated in the development or
disposition of compendia
recommendations and the manufacturer
or seller of the drug or biological being
reviewed by the compendium. This may
include, for example, compensation
arrangements such as salary, grant,
contract, or collaboration agreements
between individuals or the spouse or
minor child of individuals who have
substantively participated in the review
and disposition of the request and the
manufacturer or seller of the drug or
biological being reviewed by the
compendium.
(ii) Ownership or investment interests
between individuals or the spouse or
minor child of individuals who have
substantively participated in the
development or disposition of
compendia recommendations and the
manufacturer or seller of the drug or
biological being reviewed by the
compendium.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Considers whether the publication
that is the subject of the request meets
the definition of a compendium in this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 415—SERVICES FURNISHED BY
PHYSICIANS IN PROVIDERS,
SUPERVISING PHYSICIANS IN
TEACHING SETTINGS, AND
RESIDENTS IN CERTAIN SETTINGS
§ 415.178
PART 485—CONDITIONS OF
PARTICIPATION: SPECIALIZED
PROVIDERS
30. The authority citation for part 485
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395(hh)).
Subpart B—Conditions of
Participation: Comprehensive
Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities
31. Section 485.70 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
28. The authority citation for part 415
continues to read as follows:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Anesthesia services.
(a) General rule. (1) For services
furnished prior to January 1, 2010, an
unreduced physician fee schedule
payment may be made if a physician is
involved in a single anesthesia
procedure involving an anesthesia
resident. In the case of anesthesia
services, the teaching physician must be
present during all critical portions of the
procedure and immediately available to
furnish services during the entire
service or procedure. The teaching
physician cannot receive an unreduced
fee if he or she performs services
involving other patients during the
period the anesthesia resident is
furnishing services in a single case.
Additional rules for payment of
anesthesia services involving residents
are specified in § 414.46(c)(1)(iii) of this
chapter.
(2) For services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010, payment made under
§ 414.46(e) of this chapter if the teaching
anesthesiologist (or different teaching
anesthesiologists in the same anesthesia
group practice) is present during all
critical or key portions of the anesthesia
service or procedure involved; and the
teaching anesthesiologist (or another
anesthesiologist with whom the
teaching anesthesiologist has entered
into an arrangement) is immediately
available to furnish anesthesia services
during the entire procedure.
(b) Documentation. Documentation
must indicate the teaching physician’s
presence during all critical or key
portions of the anesthesia procedure
and the immediate availability of
another teaching anesthesiologist.
■
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
§ 485.70
29. Section 415.178 is revised to read
as follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
*
*
*
*
(j) A respiratory therapist must
complete one the following criteria:
(1) Criterion 1. All of the following
must be completed:
(i) Be licensed by the State in which
practicing, if applicable.
PART 498—APPEALS PROCEDURES
FOR DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE MEDICARE
PROGRAM AND FOR
DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT THE
PARTICIPATION OF ICFs/MR AND
CERTAIN NFs IN THE MEDICAID
PROGRAM
32. The authority citation for part 498
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
Subpart A—General Provisions
33. Section 498.2 is amended by
adding paragraph (13) to the definition
of ‘‘supplier’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 498.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Supplier * * *
(13) A site approved by CMS to
furnish intensive cardiac rehabilitation
services.
Authority: Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—
Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program.
Dated: October 26, 2009.
Charlene Frizzera,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Approved: October 29, 2009.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
Note: These addenda will not appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations.
*
Subpart D—Physician Services in
Teaching Settings
■
Personnel qualifications.
(ii) Have successfully completed a
nationally-accredited educational
program for respiratory therapists.
(iii)(A) Be eligible to take the registry
examination administered by the
National Board for Respiratory Care for
respiratory therapists; or
(B) Have passed the registry
examination administered by the
National Board for Respiratory Care for
respiratory therapists.
(2) Criterion 2: All of the following
must be completed:
(i) Be licensed by the State in which
practicing, if applicable.
(ii) Have equivalent training and
experience as determined by the
National Board for Respiratory Care.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Addendum A: Explanation and Use of
Addendum B
The addenda on the following pages
provide various data pertaining to the
Medicare fee schedule for physicians’
services furnished in 2010. Addendum
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
B contains the RVUs for work, nonfacility practice expense (PE), facility
PE, and malpractice expense, and other
information for all services included in
the PFS.
In previous years, we have listed
many services in Addendum B that are
not paid under the PFS. To avoid
publishing as many pages of codes for
these services, we are not including
clinical laboratory codes or the
alphanumeric codes (Healthcare
Common Procedure Coding System
(HCPCS) codes not included in CPT) not
paid under the PFS in Addendum B.
Addendum B contains the following
information for each CPT code and
alphanumeric HCPCS code, except for:
alphanumeric codes beginning with B
(enteral and parenteral therapy), E
(durable medical equipment), K
(temporary codes for nonphysicians’
services or items), or L (orthotics); and
codes for anesthesiology. Please also
note the following:
• An ‘‘NA’’ in the ‘‘Non-facility PE
RVUs’’ column of Addendum B means
that CMS has not developed a PE RVU
in the non-facility setting for the service
because it is typically performed in the
hospital (for example, an open heart
surgery is generally performed in the
hospital setting and not a physician’s
office). If there is an ‘‘NA’’ in the nonfacility PE RVU column, and the
contractor determines that this service
can be performed in the non-facility
setting, the service will be paid at the
facility PE RVU rate.
• Services that have an ‘‘NA’’ in the
‘‘Facility PE RVUs’’ column of
Addendum B are typically not paid
using the PFS when provided in a
facility setting. These services (which
include ‘‘incident to’’ services and the
technical portion of diagnostic tests) are
generally paid under either the
outpatient hospital prospective payment
system or bundled into the hospital
inpatient prospective payment system
payment.
1. CPT/HCPCS code. This is the CPT
or alphanumeric HCPCS number for the
service. Alphanumeric HCPCS codes are
included at the end of this addendum.
2. Modifier. A modifier is shown if
there is a technical component (modifier
TC) and a professional component (PC)
(modifier-26) for the service. If there is
a PC and a TC for the service,
Addendum B contains three entries for
the code. A code for: the global values
(both professional and technical);
modifier-26 (PC); and, modifier TC. The
global service is not designated by a
modifier, and physicians must bill using
the code without a modifier if the
physician furnishes both the PC and the
TC of the service.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
Modifier-53 is shown for a
discontinued procedure, for example a
colonoscopy that is not completed.
There will be RVUs for a code with this
modifier.
3. Status indicator. This indicator
shows whether the CPT/HCPCS code is
in the PFS and whether it is separately
payable if the service is covered.
A = Active code. These codes are
separately payable under the PFS if
covered. There will be RVUs for codes
with this status. The presence of an ‘‘A’’
indicator does not mean that Medicare
has made a national coverage
determination regarding the service.
Carriers remain responsible for coverage
decisions in the absence of a national
Medicare policy.
B = Bundled code. Payments for
covered services are always bundled
into payment for other services not
specified. If RVUs are shown, they are
not used for Medicare payment. If these
services are covered, payment for them
is subsumed by the payment for the
services to which they are incident (an
example is a telephone call from a
hospital nurse regarding care of a
patient).
C = Carriers price the code. Carriers
will establish RVUs and payment
amounts for these services, generally on
an individual case basis following
review of documentation, such as an
operative report.
D * = Deleted/discontinued code.
E = Excluded from the PFS by
regulation. These codes are for items
and services that CMS chose to exclude
from the fee schedule payment by
regulation. No RVUs are shown, and no
payment may be made under the PFS
for these codes. Payment for them, when
covered, continues under reasonable
charge procedures.
F = Deleted/discontinued codes.
(Code not subject to a 90-day grace
period.) These codes are deleted
effective with the beginning of the year
and are never subject to a grace period.
This indicator is no longer effective
beginning with the 2005 fee schedule as
of January 1, 2005.
G = Code not valid for Medicare
purposes. Medicare uses another code
for reporting of, and payment for, these
services. (Codes subject to a 90-day
grace period.) This indicator is no
longer effective with the 2005 PFS as of
January 1, 2005.
H * = Deleted modifier. For 2000 and
later years, either the TC or PC
component shown for the code has been
deleted and the deleted component is
* Codes with these indicators had a 90-day grace
period before January 1, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62015
shown in the database with the H status
indicator.
I = Not valid for Medicare purposes.
Medicare uses another code for the
reporting of, and the payment for these
services. (Codes not subject to a 90-day
grace period.)
L = Local codes. Carriers will apply
this status to all local codes in effect on
January 1, 1998 or subsequently
approved by central office for use.
Carriers will complete the RVUs and
payment amounts for these codes.
M = Measurement codes, used for
reporting purposes only. There are no
RVUs and no payment amounts for
these codes. Medicare uses them to aid
with performance measurement. No
separate payment is made. These codes
should be billed with a zero (($0.00)
charge and are denied) on the MPFSDB.
N = Non-covered service. These codes
are noncovered services. Medicare
payment may not be made for these
codes. If RVUs are shown, they are not
used for Medicare payment.
R = Restricted coverage. Special
coverage instructions apply. If the
service is covered and no RVUs are
shown, it is carrier-priced.
T = There are RVUs for these services,
but they are only paid if there are no
other services payable under the PFS
billed on the same date by the same
provider. If any other services payable
under the PFS are billed on the same
date by the same provider, these
services are bundled into the service(s)
for which payment is made.
X = Statutory exclusion. These codes
represent an item or service that is not
within the statutory definition of
‘‘physicians’ services’’ for PFS payment
purposes. No RVUs are shown for these
codes, and no payment may be made
under the PFS. (Examples are
ambulance services and clinical
diagnostic laboratory services.)
4. Description of code. This is an
abbreviated version of the narrative
description of the code.
5. Physician work RVUs. These are the
RVUs for the physician work for this
service in 2010.
6. Fully implemented non-facility PE
RVUs. These are the fully implemented
resource-based practice PE RVUs for
non-facility settings.
7. 2010 Transitional non-facility PE
RVUs. These are the 2010 resourcebased PE RVUs for non-facility settings.
8. Fully implemented facility PE
RVUs. These are the fully implemented
resource-based practice PE RVUs for
facility settings.
9. 2010 Transitional facility PE RVUs.
These are the 2010 resource-based PE
RVUs for facility settings.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62016
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
10. Malpractice expense RVUs. These
are the RVUs for the malpractice
expense for the service for 2010.
Note: The BN reduction resulting from the
chiropractic demonstration is not reflected in
the RVUs for CPT codes 98940, 98941 and
98942. The required reduction will only be
reflected in the files used for Medicare
payment.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
9. Global period. This indicator shows
the number of days in the global period
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
for the code (0, 10, or 90 days). An
explanation of the alpha codes follows:
MMM = Code describes a service
furnished in uncomplicated maternity
cases including antepartum care,
delivery, and postpartum care. The
usual global surgical concept does not
apply. See the 1999 Physicians’ Current
Procedural Terminology for specific
definitions.
XXX = The global concept does not
apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
YYY = The global period is to be set
by the carrier (for example, unlisted
surgery codes).
ZZZ = Code related to another service
that is always included in the global
period of the other service. (Note:
Physician work and PE are associated
with intra service time and in some
instances in the post service time.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62017
ER25NO09.000
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00282
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.001
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62018
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00283
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62019
ER25NO09.002
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00284
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.003
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62020
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00285
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62021
ER25NO09.004
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00286
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.005
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62022
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00287
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62023
ER25NO09.006
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00288
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.007
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62024
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00289
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62025
ER25NO09.008
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00290
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.009
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62026
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00291
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62027
ER25NO09.010
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00292
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.011
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62028
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00293
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62029
ER25NO09.012
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00294
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.013
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62030
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00295
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62031
ER25NO09.014
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00296
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.015
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62032
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00297
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62033
ER25NO09.016
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00298
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.017
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62034
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00299
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62035
ER25NO09.018
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00300
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.019
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62036
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00301
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62037
ER25NO09.020
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00302
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.021
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62038
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00303
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62039
ER25NO09.022
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00304
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.023
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62040
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00305
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62041
ER25NO09.024
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00306
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.025
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62042
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00307
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62043
ER25NO09.026
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00308
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.027
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62044
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00309
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62045
ER25NO09.028
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00310
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.029
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62046
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00311
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62047
ER25NO09.030
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00312
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.031
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62048
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00313
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62049
ER25NO09.032
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00314
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.033
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62050
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00315
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62051
ER25NO09.034
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00316
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.035
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62052
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00317
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62053
ER25NO09.036
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00318
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.037
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62054
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00319
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62055
ER25NO09.038
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00320
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.039
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62056
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00321
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62057
ER25NO09.040
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00322
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.041
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62058
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00323
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62059
ER25NO09.042
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00324
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.043
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62060
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00325
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62061
ER25NO09.044
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00326
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.045
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62062
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00327
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62063
ER25NO09.046
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00328
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.047
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62064
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00329
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62065
ER25NO09.048
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00330
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.049
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62066
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00331
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62067
ER25NO09.050
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00332
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.051
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62068
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00333
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62069
ER25NO09.052
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00334
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.053
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62070
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00335
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62071
ER25NO09.054
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00336
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.055
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62072
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00337
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62073
ER25NO09.056
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00338
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.057
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62074
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00339
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62075
ER25NO09.058
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00340
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.059
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62076
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00341
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62077
ER25NO09.060
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00342
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.061
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62078
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00343
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62079
ER25NO09.062
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00344
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.063
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62080
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00345
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62081
ER25NO09.064
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00346
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.065
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62082
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00347
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62083
ER25NO09.066
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00348
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.067
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62084
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00349
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62085
ER25NO09.068
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00350
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.069
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62086
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00351
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62087
ER25NO09.070
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00352
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.071
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62088
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00353
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62089
ER25NO09.072
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00354
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.073
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62090
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00355
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62091
ER25NO09.074
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00356
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.075
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62092
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00357
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62093
ER25NO09.076
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00358
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.077
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62094
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00359
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62095
ER25NO09.078
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00360
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.079
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62096
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00361
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62097
ER25NO09.080
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00362
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.081
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62098
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00363
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62099
ER25NO09.082
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00364
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.083
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62100
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00365
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62101
ER25NO09.084
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00366
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.085
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62102
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00367
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62103
ER25NO09.086
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00368
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.087
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62104
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00369
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62105
ER25NO09.088
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00370
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.089
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62106
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00371
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62107
ER25NO09.090
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00372
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.091
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62108
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00373
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62109
ER25NO09.092
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00374
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.093
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62110
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00375
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62111
ER25NO09.094
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00376
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.095
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62112
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00377
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62113
ER25NO09.096
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00378
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.097
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62114
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00379
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62115
ER25NO09.098
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00380
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.099
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62116
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00381
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62117
ER25NO09.100
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00382
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.101
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62118
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00383
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62119
ER25NO09.102
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00384
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.103
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62120
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00385
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62121
ER25NO09.104
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00386
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.105
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62122
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00387
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62123
ER25NO09.106
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00388
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.107
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62124
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00389
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62125
ER25NO09.108
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00390
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.109
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62126
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00391
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62127
ER25NO09.110
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00392
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.111
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62128
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00393
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62129
ER25NO09.112
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00394
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.113
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62130
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00395
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62131
ER25NO09.114
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00396
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.115
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62132
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00397
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62133
ER25NO09.116
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00398
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.117
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62134
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00399
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62135
ER25NO09.118
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00400
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.119
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62136
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00401
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62137
ER25NO09.120
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00402
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.121
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62138
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00403
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62139
ER25NO09.122
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00404
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.123
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62140
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00405
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62141
ER25NO09.124
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00406
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.125
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62142
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00407
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62143
ER25NO09.126
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00408
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.127
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62144
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00409
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62145
ER25NO09.128
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00410
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.129
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62146
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00411
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62147
ER25NO09.130
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00412
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.131
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62148
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00413
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62149
ER25NO09.133
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00414
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.134
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62150
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00415
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62151
ER25NO09.135
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00416
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.136
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62152
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00417
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62153
ER25NO09.137
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00418
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.138
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62154
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00419
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62155
ER25NO09.139
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00420
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.140
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62156
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00421
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62157
ER25NO09.141
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00422
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.142
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62158
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00423
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62159
ER25NO09.143
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00424
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.144
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62160
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00425
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62161
ER25NO09.145
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00426
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.146
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62162
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00427
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62163
ER25NO09.147
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00428
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.148
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62164
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00429
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62165
ER25NO09.149
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00430
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.150
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62166
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00431
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62167
ER25NO09.151
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00432
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.152
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62168
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00433
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62169
ER25NO09.153
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00434
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.154
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62170
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00435
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62171
ER25NO09.155
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00436
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.156
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62172
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00437
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62173
ER25NO09.157
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00438
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.158
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62174
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00439
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62175
ER25NO09.159
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00440
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.160
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62176
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00441
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62177
ER25NO09.161
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00442
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.162
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62178
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00443
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62179
ER25NO09.163
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00444
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.164
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62180
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00445
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62181
ER25NO09.165
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00446
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.166
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62182
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00447
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62183
ER25NO09.167
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00448
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.168
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62184
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00449
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62185
ER25NO09.169
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00450
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.170
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62186
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00451
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
62187
ER25NO09.171
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–26502 Filed 10–30–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Nov 24, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00452
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO09.172
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
62188
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61738-62188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26502]
[[Page 61737]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Book 2 of 2 Books
Pages 61737-62206
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 410, 411, 414 et al.
Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and
Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010; Final Rule; Medicare Program;
Solicitation of Independent Accrediting Organizations To Participate in
the Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Supplier Accreditation Program; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 25, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 410, 411, 414, 415, 485, and 498
[CMS-1413-FC]
RINs 0938-AP40
Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee
Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule with comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule with comment period implements changes to the
physician fee schedule and other Medicare Part B payment policies to
ensure that our payment systems are updated to reflect changes in
medical practice and the relative value of services. It also implements
or discusses certain provisions of the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act of 2008. (See the Table of Contents for a
listing of the specific issues addressed in this rule.)
This final rule with comment period also finalizes the calendar
year (CY) 2009 interim relative value units (RVUs) and issues interim
RVUs for new and revised codes for CY 2010. In addition, in accordance
with the statute, it announces that the update to the physician fee
schedule conversion factor is -21.2 percent for CY 2010, the
preliminary estimate for the sustainable growth rate for CY 2010 is -
8.8 percent, and the conversion factor (CF) for CY 2010 is $28.4061.
DATES: Effective Dates: With the exception of the provisions of Sec.
414.68 and Sec. 414.210(e)(5), this final rule is effective on January
1, 2010. The provisions of Sec. 414.68 are effective on October 30,
2009, and the provisions of Sec. 414.210(e)(5) are effective on July
1, 2010.
Comment Date: To be assured consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.
on December 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1413-FC.
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions under
the ``More Search Options'' tab.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1413-FC, P.O. Box 8013,
Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
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 to
the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1413-FC, 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 before the close of the comment period
to either of the following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC--
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey 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.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 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 addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Ensor, (410) 786-5617, for issues
related to practice expense methodology.
Craig Dobyski, (410) 786-4584, for issues related to geographic
practice cost indices and malpractice RVUs.
Ken Marsalek, (410) 786-4502, for issues related to the physician
practice information survey and the multiple procedure payment
reduction.
Regina Walker-Wren, (410) 786-9160, for issues related to the
phasing out of the outpatient mental health treatment limitation.
Diane Stern, (410) 786-1133, for issues related to the physician
quality reporting initiative and incentives for e-prescribing.
Lisa Grabert, (410) 786-6827, for issues related to the Physician
Resource Use Feedback Program.
Colleen Bruce, (410) 786-5529, for issues related to value-based
purchasing.
Sandra Bastinelli, (410) 786-3630, for issues related to the
implementation of accreditation standards.
Jim Menas, (410) 786-4507, for issues related to teaching
anesthesia services.
Sarah McClain, (410) 786-2994, for issues related to the coverage
of cardiac rehabilitation services.
Dorothy Shannon, (410) 786-3396, for issues related to payment for
cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation services.
Roya Lotfi, (410) 786-4072, for issues related to the coverage of
pulmonary rehabilitation.
Jamie Hermansen, (410) 786-2064, for issues related to kidney
disease patient education programs.
Terri Harris, (410) 786-6830, for issues related to payment for
kidney disease patient education.
Brijet Burton, (410) 786-7364, for issues related to the compendia
for determination of medically-accepted indications for off-label uses
of drugs and biologicals in an anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimen.
Henry Richter, (410) 786-4562, or Lisa Hubbard, (410) 786-5472, for
issues related to renal dialysis provisions and payments for end-stage
renal disease facilities.
Cheryl Gilbreath, (410) 786-5919, for issues related to payment for
covered outpatient drugs and biologicals.
Edmund Kasaitis, (410) 786-0477, or Bonny Dahm, (410) 786-4006, for
issues related to the Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) for Part B
drugs.
Pauline Lapin, (410) 786-6883, for issues related to the
chiropractic services demonstration BN issue.
Monique Howard, (410) 786-3869, for issues related to CORF
conditions of coverage.
Roechel Kujawa, (410) 786-9111, for issues related to ambulance
services.
Anne Tayloe Hauswald, (410) 786-4546, for clinical laboratory
issues.
Troy Barsky, (410) 786-8873, or Roy Albert, (410) 786-1872, for
issues related to physician self-referral.
Christopher Molling, (410) 786-6399, or Anita Greenberg, (410) 786-
4601, for issues related to the repeal of transfer of title for oxygen
equipment.
[[Page 61739]]
Michelle Peterman, (410) 786-2591, or Iffat Fatima, (410) 786-6709
for issues related to the grandfathering provisions of the durable
medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS)
Competitive Acquisition Program.
Ralph Goldberg, (410) 786-4870, or Heidi Edmunds, (410) 786-1781,
for issues related to the damages process caused by the termination of
contracts awarded in 2008 under the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding program.
Diane Milstead, (410) 786-3355, or Gaysha Brooks, (410) 786-9649,
for all other issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments: We welcome comments from the public on the
following issues: interim relative value units (RVUs) for selected
codes identified in Addendum C; the physician self-referral designated
health services (DHS) codes listed in Tables 31 and 32; services for
consideration for the Five-Year Review of work RVUs for services as
discussed in section II.P., and information concerning services
provided under arrangement as discussed in section II.N.2.
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.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions 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.
Table of Contents
To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this
preamble, we are providing a table of contents. Some of the issues
discussed in this preamble affect the payment policies, but do not
require changes to the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Information on the regulation's impact appears throughout the
preamble, and therefore, is not discussed exclusively in section XIII.
of this final rule with comment period.
I. Background
A. Development of the Relative Value System
1. Work RVUs
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units (PE RVUs)
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP) RVUs
4. Refinements to the RVUs
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget Neutral
B. Components of the Fee Schedule Payment Amounts
C. Most Recent Changes to the Fee Schedule
II. Provisions of the Final Regulation and Analysis of the Public
Comments
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense (PE) Relative Value Units
(RVUs)
1. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Data Sources for Calculating Practice Expense
b. Allocation of PE to Services
c. Facility and Non-Facility Costs
d. Services With Technical Components (TCs) and Professional
Components (PCs)
e. Transition Period
f. PE RVU Methodology
2. PE Revisions for CY 2010
a. SMS and Supplemental Survey Background
b. Physician Practice Information Survey (PPIS)
c. Equipment Utilization Rate
d. Miscellaneous PE Issues
e. AMA RUC PE Recommendations for Direct PE Inputs
f. Practice Expense for Intranasal Vaccine Administration Codes
(CPT Codes 90467, 90468, 90473, and 90474)
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCIs): Locality Discussion
1. Update--Expiration of 1.0 Work GPCI Floor
2. Payment Localities
C. Malpractice Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Background
2. Methodology for the Revision of Resource-Based Malpractice
RVUs
D. Medicare Telehealth Services
1. Requests for Adding Services to the List of Medicare
Telehealth Services
2. Submitted Requests for Addition to the List of Telehealth
Services
a. Health and Behavior Assessment and Intervention (HBAI)
b. Nursing Facility Services
c. Critical Care Services
d. Other Requests
e. Summary: Result of Evaluation of 2010 Requests
3. Other Issues
E. Specific Coding Issues Related to the Physician Fee Schedule
1. Canalith Repositioning
2. Payment for an Initial Preventive Physical Examination (IPPE)
3. Audiology Codes: Policy Clarification of Existing CPT Codes
4. Consultation Services
F. Potentially Misvalued Codes Under the Physician Fee Schedule
1. Valuing Services Under the Physician Fee Schedule
2. High Cost Supplies
3. Review of Services Often Billed Together and the Possibility
of Expanding the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction (MPPR) to
Additional Nonsurgical Services
4. AMA RUC Review of Potentially Misvalued Services
a. Site of Service
b. ``23-Hour'' Stay
c. AMA RUC Review of Potentially Misvalued Codes for CY 2010
5. PE Issues--Arthoscopy
6. Establishing Appropriate Relative Values for Physician Fee
Schedule Services
G. Issues Related to the Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
1. Section 102: Elimination of Discriminatory Copayment Rates
for Medicare Outpatient Psychiatric Services
2. Section 131(b): Physician Payment, Efficiency, and Quality
Improvements--Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI)
3. Section 131(c): Physician Resource Use Measurement and
Reporting Program
4. Section 131(d): Plan for Transition to Value-Based Purchasing
Program for Physicians and Other Practitioners
5. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic Prescribing (E-
Prescribing)--The E-Prescibing Incentive Program
6. Section 135: Implementation of Accreditation Standards for
Suppliers Furnishing the Technical Component (TC) of Advanced
Diagnostic Imaging Services
7. Section 139: Improvements for Medicare Anesthesia Teaching
Programs
8. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage Improvements for
Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Other
Conditions--Cardiac Rehabilitation Services
9. Section 144(a): Payment and Coverage Improvements for
Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Other
Conditions--Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services
10. Section 144(b): Repeal of Transfer of Title for Oxygen
Equipment
11. Section 152(b): Coverage of Kidney Disease Patient Education
Services
12. Section 153: Renal Dialysis Provisions
13. Section 182(b): Revision of Definition of Medically-Accepted
Indication for Drugs; Compendia for Determination of Medically-
Accepted Indications for Off-Label Uses of Drugs and Biologicals in
an Anti-Cancer Chemotherapeutic Regimen
H. Part B Drug Payment
1. Average Sales Price (ASP) Issues
2. Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) Issues
I. Provisions Related to Payment for Renal Dialysis Services
Furnished by End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities
J. Discussion of Chiropractic Services Demonstration
1. Background
2. Analysis of Demonstration
3. Payment Adjustment
K. Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (CORF) and
Rehabilitation Agency Issues
[[Page 61740]]
L. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Technical Correction to the Rural
Adjustment Factor Regulations (Sec. 414.610)
M. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Signature on Requisition
N. Physician Self-Referral
1. General Background
2. Physician Stand in the Shoes
3. Services Provided ``Under Arrangements'' (Services Performed
by an Entity Other Than the Entity That Submits the Claim):
Solicitation of Comments
O. Durable Medical Equipment-Related Issues
1. Damages to Suppliers Awarded a Contract Under the Acquisition
of Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies (Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program) Caused by the
Delay of the Program
2. Notification to Beneficiaries for Suppliers Regarding
Grandfathering
P. Five-Year Refinement of Relative Value Units
Q. Other Issues--Therapy Caps
III. Refinement of Relative Value Units for Calendar Year 2010 and
Response to Public Comments on Interim Relative Value Units for 2009
A. Summary of Issues Discussed Related to the Adjustment of
Relative Value Units
B. Process for Establishing Work Relative Value Units for the
Physician Fee Schedule
C. Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of Interim Relative
Value Units
D. Interim 2009 Codes
E. Establishment of Interim Work Relative Value Units for New
and Revised Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes
and New Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Codes (HCPCS) for
2010 (Includes Table Titled ``AMA RUC Recommendations and CMS'
Decisions for New and Revised 2010 CPT Codes'')
F. Discussion of Codes and AMA RUC Recommendations
G. Additional Coding Issues
H. Establishment of Interim PE RVUs for New and Revised
Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes and New
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Codes for 2010
IV. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition: Annual Update to the List
of CPT/HCPCS Codes
A. General
B. Annual Update to the Code List
V. Physician Fee Schedule Update for CY 2010
A. Physician Fee Schedule Update
B. The Percentage Change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI)
C. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
VI. Allowed Expenditures for Physicians' Services and the
Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)
A. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
B. Physicians' Services
C. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for 2010
D. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for 2009
E. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for 2008
F. Calculation of 2010, 2009, and 2008 Sustainable Growth Rates
VII. Anesthesia and Physician Fee Schedule Conversion Factors for CY
2010
A. Physician Fee Schedule Conversion Factor
B. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
VIII. Telehealth Originating Site Facility Fee Payment Amount Update
IX. Provisions of the Final Rule
X. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date
XI. Collection of Information Requirements
XII. Response to Comments
XIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Regulation Text
Addendum A--Explanation and Use of Addendum B
Addendum B--Relative Value Units and Related Information Used in
Determining Medicare Payments for CY 2010
Addendum C--Codes With Interim RVUs
Addendum D--2010 Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs)
Addendum E--2010 Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCIs) by State
and Medicare Locality
Addendum F--CY 2010 ESRD Wage Index for Non-Urban Areas Based on
CBSA Labor Market Areas
Addendum G--CY 2010 ESRD Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA
Labor Market Areas
Addendum H--CPT/HCPCS Imaging Codes Defined by Section 5102(b) of
the DRA
Addendum I--List of CPT/HCPCS Codes Used To Define Certain
Designated Health Services Under Section 1877 of the Social Security
Act
Acronyms
In addition, because of the many organizations and terms to which
we refer by acronym in this final rule with comment period, we are
listing these acronyms and their corresponding terms in alphabetical
order below:
AA Anesthesiologist assistant
AACVPR American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary
Rehabilitation
AANA American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
ABMS American Board of Medical Specialties
ABN Advanced Beneficiary Notice
ACC American College of Cardiology
ACGME Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education
ACLS Advanced cardiac life support
ACR American College of Radiology
AED Automated external defibrillator
AFROC Association of Freestanding Radiation Oncology Centers
AHA American Heart Association
AHFS-DI American Hospital Formulary Service--Drug Information
AHRQ [HHS'] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AMA American Medical Association
AMA-DE American Medical Association Drug Evaluations
AMP Average manufacturer price
AO Accreditation organization
AOA American Osteopathic Association
APA American Psychological Association
APTA American Physical Therapy Association
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5)
ASC Ambulatory surgical center
ASP Average sales price
ASRT American Society of Radiologic Technologists
ASTRO American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ATA American Telemedicine Association
AWP Average wholesale price
BBA Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33)
BBRA [Medicare, Medicaid and State Child Health Insurance Program]
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-113)
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement Protection
Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-554)
BLS Basic Life support
BN Budget neutrality
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
CABG Coronary artery bypass graft
CAD Coronary artery disease
CAH Critical access hospital
CAHEA Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation
CAP Competitive acquisition program
CBIC Competitive Bidding Implementation Contractor
CBP Competitive Bidding Program
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CF Conversion factor
CfC Conditions for Coverage
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CKD Chronic kidney disease
CLFS Clinical laboratory fee schedule
CMA California Medical Association
CMHC Community mental health center
CMP Civil money penalty
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CNS Clinical nurse specialist
CoP Condition of participation
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility
COS Cost of service
CPEP Clinical Practice Expert Panel
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPI-U Consumer price index for urban customers
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CPT [Physicians'] Current Procedural Terminology (4th Edition, 2002,
copyrighted by the American Medical Association)
CR Cardiac rehabilitation
CRNA Certified registered nurse anesthetist
CRP Canalith repositioning
CRT Certified respiratory therapist
CSW Clinical social worker
CY Calendar year
DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
DHS Designated health services
DME Durable medical equipment
DMEPOS Durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies
DOQ Doctor's Office Quality
DOS Date of service
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171)
[[Page 61741]]
DSMT Diabetes self-management training
E/M Evaluation and management
EDI Electronic data interchange
EEG Electroencephalogram
EHR Electronic health record
EKG Electrocardiogram
EMG Electromyogram
EMTALA Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
EOG Electro-oculogram
EPO Erythopoeitin
ESRD End-stage renal disease
FAX Facsimile
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FFS Fee-for-service
FR Federal Register
GAF Geographic adjustment factor
GAO General Accounting Office
GEM Generating Medicare [Physician Quality Performance Measurement
Results]
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
GPO Group purchasing organization
GPCI Geographic practice cost index
HAC Hospital-acquired conditions
HBAI Health and behavior assessment and intervention
HCPAC Health Care Professional Advisory Committee
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
HCRIS Healthcare Cost Report Information System
HDRT High dose radiation therapy
HH PPS Home Health Prospective Payment System
HHA Home health agency
HHRG Home health resource group
HHS [Department of] Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-191)
HIT Health information technology
HITECH Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical
Health Act (Title IV of Division B of the Recovery Act, together
with Title XIII of Division A of the Recovery Act)
HITSP Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HOPD Hospital outpatient department
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area
HRSA Health Resources Services Administration (HHS)
IACS Individuals Access to CMS Systems
ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICF Intermediate care facilities
ICR Intensive cardiac rehabilitation
ICR Information collection requirement
IDTF Independent diagnostic testing facility
IFC Interim final rule with comment period
IMRT Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
IPPE Initial preventive physical examination
IPPS Inpatient prospective payment system
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISO Insurance services office
IVD Ischemic Vascular Disease
IVIG Intravenous immune globulin
IWPUT Intra-service work per unit of time
JRCERT Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology
KDE Kidney disease education
LCD Local coverage determination
MA Medicare Advantage
MA-PD Medicare Advantage--Prescription Drug Plans
MAV Measure Applicability Validation
MCMP Medicare Care Management Performance
MDRD Modification of Diet in Renal Disease
MedCAC Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee
(formerly the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC))
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
MEI Medicare Economic Index
MIEA-TRHCA Medicare Improvements and Extension Act of 2006 (that is,
Division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA)
(Pub. L. 109-432)
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110-275)
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)
MMSEA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L.
110-173)
MNT Medical nutrition therapy
MOC Maintenance of certification
MP Malpractice
MPPR Multiple procedure payment reduction
MQSA Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-539)
MRA Magnetic resonance angiography
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging
MSA Metropolitan statistical area
NBRC National Board for Respiratory Care
NCD National Coverage Determination
NCQDIS National Coalition of Quality Diagnostic Imaging Services
NDC National drug code
NF Nursing facility
NISTA National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
NP Nurse practitioner
NPI National Provider Identifier
NPP Nonphysician practitioner
NQF National Quality Forum
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OACT [CMS'] Office of the Actuary
OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
ODF Open door forum
OGPE Oxygen generating portable equipment
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONC [HHS'] Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
OPPS Outpatient prospective payment system
OSCAR Online Survey and Certification and Reporting
PA Physician assistant
PAT Performance assessment tool
PC Professional component
PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention
PDP Prescription drug plan
PE Practice expense
PE/HR Practice expense per hour
PEAC Practice Expense Advisory Committee
PERC Practice Expense Review Committee
PFS Physician Fee Schedule
PGP [Medicare] Physician Group Practice
PHI Protected health information
PHP Partial hospitalization program
PIM [Medicare] Program Integrity Manual
PLI Professional liability insurance
POA Present on admission
POC Plan of care
PPI Producer price index
PPIS Physician Practice Information Survey
PPS Prospective payment system
PPTA Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association
PQRI Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
PR Pulmonary rehabilitation
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSA Physician scarcity areas
PT Physical therapy
PTCA Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
PVBP Physician and Other Health Professional Value-Based Purchasing
Workgroup
RA Radiology assistant
RBMA Radiology Business Management Association
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RHC Rural health clinic
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
RN Registered nurse
RNAC Reasonable net acquisition cost
RPA Radiology practitioner assistant
RRT Registered respiratory therapist
RUC [AMA's Specialty Society] Relative (Value) Update Committee
RVU Relative value unit
SBA Small Business Administration
SGR Sustainable growth rate
SLP Speech-language pathology
SMS [AMA's] Socioeconomic Monitoring System
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SOR System of record
SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery
STARS Services Tracking and Reporting System
TC Technical Component
TIN Tax identification number
TRHCA Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432)
TTO Transtracheal oxygen
UPMC University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
USDE United States Department of Education
USP-DI United States Pharmacopoeia--Drug Information
VBP Value-based purchasing
WAMP Widely available market price
I. Background
Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has paid for physicians' services
under section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act), ``Payment for
Physicians' Services.'' The Act requires that payments under the
physician fee schedule (PFS) are based on national uniform relative
value units (RVUs) based on the relative resources used in furnishing a
service. Section 1848(c) of the Act requires that national RVUs be
established for physician work, practice expense (PE), and malpractice
expense. Before the establishment of the resource-based relative value
system, Medicare payment for physicians'
[[Page 61742]]
services was based on reasonable charges.
A. Development of the Relative Value System
1. Work RVUs
The concepts and methodology underlying the PFS were enacted as
part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1989 (Pub. L.
101-239), and OBRA 1990, (Pub. L. 101-508). The final rule, published
on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59502), set forth the fee schedule for
payment for physicians' services beginning January 1, 1992. Initially,
only the physician work RVUs were resource-based, and the PE and
malpractice RVUs were based on average allowable charges.
The physician work RVUs established for the implementation of the
fee schedule in January 1992 were developed with extensive input from
the physician community. A research team at the Harvard School of
Public Health developed the original physician work RVUs for most codes
in a cooperative agreement with the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). In constructing the code-specific vignettes for the
original physician work RVUs, Harvard worked with panels of experts,
both inside and outside the Federal government, and obtained input from
numerous physician specialty groups.
Section 1848(b)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that the RVUs for
anesthesia services are based on RVUs from a uniform relative value
guide, with appropriate adjustment of the conversion factor (CF), in a
manner to assure that fee schedule amounts for anesthesia services are
consistent with those for other services of comparable value. We
established a separate CF for anesthesia services, and we continue to
utilize time units as a factor in determining payment for these
services. As a result, there is a separate payment methodology for
anesthesia services.
We establish physician work RVUs for new and revised codes based on
our review of recommendations received from the American Medical
Association's (AMA) Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee
(RUC).
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units (PE RVUs)
Section 121 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L.
103-432), enacted on October 31, 1994, amended section
1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act and required us to develop resource-based
PE RVUs for each physician's service beginning in 1998. We were to
consider general categories of expenses (such as office rent and wages
of personnel, but excluding malpractice expenses) comprising PEs.
Section 4505(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L.
105-33), amended section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act to delay
implementation of the resource-based PE RVU system until January 1,
1999. In addition, section 4505(b) of the BBA provided for a 4-year
transition period from charge-based PE RVUs to resource-based RVUs.
We established the resource-based PE RVUs for each physicians'
service in a final rule, published November 2, 1998 (63 FR 58814),
effective for services furnished in 1999. Based on the requirement to
transition to a resource-based system for PE over a 4-year period,
resource-based PE RVUs did not become fully effective until 2002.
This resource-based system was based on two significant sources of
actual PE data: the Clinical Practice Expert Panel (CPEP) data; and the
AMA's Socioeconomic Monitoring System (SMS) data. The CPEP data were
collected from panels of physicians, practice administrators, and
nonphysicians (for example, registered nurses (RNs)) nominated by
physician specialty societies and other groups. The CPEP panels
identified the direct inputs required for each physician's service in
both the office setting and out-of-office setting. We have since
refined and revised these inputs based on recommendations from the RUC.
The AMA's SMS data provided aggregate specialty-specific information on
hours worked and PEs.
Separate PE RVUs are established for procedures that can be
performed in both a nonfacility setting, such as a physician's office,
and a facility setting, such as a hospital outpatient department. The
difference between the facility and nonfacility RVUs reflects the fact
that a facility typically receives separate payment from Medicare for
its costs of providing the service, apart from payment under the PFS.
The nonfacility RVUs reflect all of the direct and indirect PEs of
providing a particular service.
Section 212 of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA)
(Pub. L. 106-113) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(the Secretary) to establish a process under which we accept and use,
to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with sound data
practices, data collected or developed by entities and organizations to
supplement the data we normally collect in determining the PE
component. On May 3, 2000, we published the interim final rule (65 FR
25664) that set forth the criteria for the submission of these
supplemental PE survey data. The criteria were modified in response to
comments received, and published in the Federal Register (65 FR 65376)
as part of a November 1, 2000 final rule. The PFS final rules published
in 2001 and 2003, respectively, (66 FR 55246 and 68 FR 63196) extended
the period during which we would accept these supplemental data through
March 1, 2005.
In the Calendar Year (CY) 2007 PFS final rule with comment period
(71 FR 69624), we revised the methodology for calculating PE RVUs
beginning in CY 2007 and provided for a 4-year transition for the new
PE RVUs under this new methodology.
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP) RVUs
Section 4505(f) of the BBA amended section 1848(c) of the Act
requiring us to implement resource-based malpractice (MP) RVUs for
services furnished on or after 2000. The resource-based MP RVUs were
implemented in the PFS final rule published November 2, 1999 (64 FR
59380). The MP RVUs were based on malpractice insurance premium data
collected from commercial and physician-owned insurers from all the
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
4. Refinements to the RVUs
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires that we review all
RVUs no less often than every 5 years. The first Five-Year Review of
the physician work RVUs was published on November 22, 1996 (61 FR
59489) and was effective in 1997. The second Five-Year Review was
published in the CY 2002 PFS final rule with comment period (66 FR
55246) and was effective in 2002. The third Five-Year Review of
physician work RVUs was published in the CY 2007 PFS final rule with
comment period (71 FR 69624) and was effective on January 1, 2007.
(Note: Additional codes relating to the third Five-Year Review of
physician work RVUs were addressed in the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 66360).)
In 1999, the AMA's RUC established the Practice Expense Advisory
Committee (PEAC) for the purpose of refining the direct PE inputs.
Through March 2004, the PEAC provided recommendations to CMS for over
7,600 codes (all but a few hundred of the codes currently listed in the
AMA's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes). As part of the CY
2007 PFS final rule with comment period (71 FR 69624), we implemented a
new
[[Page 61743]]
methodology for determining resource-based PE RVUs and are
transitioning it over a 4-year period.
In the CY 2005 PFS final rule with comment period (69 FR 66236), we
implemented the first Five-Year Review of the MP RVUs (69 FR 66263).
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget Neutral
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act provides that adjustments
in RVUs for a year may not cause total PFS payments to differ by more
than $20 million from what they would have been if the adjustments were
not made. In accordance with section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act,
if revisions to the RVUs cause expenditures to change by more than $20
million, we make adjustments to ensure that expenditures do not
increase or decrease by more than $20 million.
As explained in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment period
(73FR 69730), as required by section 133(b) of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L.
110-275), the separate budget neutrality (BN) adjustor resulting from
the third Five-Year Review of physician work RVUs is being applied to
the CF beginning with CY 2009 rather than the work RVUs.
B. Components of the Fee Schedule Payment Amounts
To calculate the payment for every physicians' service, the
components of the fee schedule (physician work, PE, and MP RVUs) are
adjusted by a geographic practice cost index (GPCI). The GPCIs reflect
the relative costs of physician work, PE, and malpractice expense in an
area compared to the national average costs for each component.
RVUs are converted to dollar amounts through the application of a
CF, which is calculated by CMS' Office of the Actuary (OACT).
The formula for calculating the Medicare fee schedule payment
amount for a given service and fee schedule area can be expressed as:
Payment = [(RVU work x GPCI work) + (RVU PE x GPCI PE) + (RVU
malpractice x GPCI malpractice)] x CF.
C. Most Recent Changes to the Fee Schedule
The CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment period (73 FR 69726)
implemented changes to the PFS and other Medicare Part B payment
policies. It also finalized the CY 2008 interim RVUs and implemented
interim RVUs for new and revised codes for CY 2009 to ensure that our
payment systems are updated to reflect changes in medical practice and
the relative value of services. The CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period also addressed other policies, as well as certain provisions of
the MIPPA.
As required by the statute, and based on section 131 of the MIPPA,
the CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment period also announced the
following for CY 2009: the PFS update of 1.1 percent, the initial
estimate for the sustainable growth rate of 7.4 percent, and the
conversion factor (CF) of $36.0666.
II. Provisions of the Final Regulation
In response to the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33520) we
received approximately 16,500 timely public comments. These included
comments from concerned citizens, individual physicians, health care
workers, professional associations and societies, manufacturers and
Congressmen. The majority of the comments addressed proposals related
to the MIPPA provisions concerning teaching anesthesiology and cardiac
and pulmonary rehabilitation, the physician practice information survey
(PPIS), and the impact of the proposed rule on specific specialties. To
the extent that comments were outside the scope of the proposed rule,
they are not addressed in this final rule with comment period.
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense (PE) Relative Value Units (RVUs)
Practice expense (PE) is the portion of the resources used in
furnishing the service that reflects the general categories of
physician and practitioner expenses, such as office rent and personnel
wages but excluding malpractice expenses, as specified in section
1848(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Section 121 of the Social Security Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
432), enacted on October 31, 1994, required CMS to develop a
methodology for a resource-based system for determining PE RVUs for
each physician's service. Until that time, PE RVUs were based on
historical allowed charges. This legislation stated that the revised PE
methodology must consider the staff, equipment, and supplies used in
the provision of a variety of medical and surgical services in various
settings beginning in 1998. The Secretary has interpreted this to mean
that Medicare payments for each service would be based on the relative
PE resources typically involved with furnishing the service.
The initial implementation of resource-based PE RVUs was delayed
from January 1, 1998, until January 1, 1999, by section 4505(a) of the
BBA. In addition, section 4505(b) of the BBA required that the new
payment methodology be phased in over 4 years, effective for services
furnished in CY 1999, and fully effective in CY 2002. The first step
toward implementation of the statute was to adjust the PE values for
certain services for CY 1998. Section 4505(d) of the BBA required that,
in developing the resource-based PE RVUs, the Secretary must--
Use, to the maximum extent possible, generally-accepted
cost accounting principles that recognize all staff, equipment,
supplies, and expenses, not solely those that can be linked to specific
procedures and actual data on equipment utilization.
Develop a refinement method to be used during the
transition.
Consider, in the course of notice and comment rulemaking,
impact projections that compare new proposed payment amounts to data on
actual physician PE.
In CY 1999, we began the 4-year transition to resource-based PE
RVUs utilizing a ``top-down'' methodology whereby we allocated
aggregate specialty[dash]specific practice costs to individual
procedures. The specialty[dash]specific PEs were derived from the
American Medical Association's (AMA's) Socioeconomic Monitoring Survey
(SMS). In addition, under section 212 of the BBRA, we established a
process extending through March 2005 to supplement the SMS data with
data submitted by a specialty. The aggregate PEs for a given specialty
were then allocated to the services furnished by that specialty on the
basis of the direct input data (that is, the staff time, equipment, and
supplies) and work RVUs assigned to each CPT code.
For CY 2007, we implemented a new methodology for calculating PE
RVUs. Under this new methodology, we use the same data sources for
calculating PE, but instead of using the ``top-down'' approach to
calculate the direct PE RVUs, under which the aggregate direct and
indirect costs for each specialty are allocated to each individual
service, we now utilize a ``bottom-up'' approach to calculate the
direct costs. Under the ``bottom up'' approach, we determine the direct
PE by adding the costs of the resources (that is, the clinical staff,
equipment, and supplies) typically required to provide each service.
The costs of the resources are calculated using the refined direct PE
inputs assigned to each CPT code in our PE database, which are based on
our review of recommendations received from the AMA's Relative Value
Update Committee (RUC). For a more detailed
[[Page 61744]]
explanation of the PE methodology, see the Five-Year Review of Work
Relative Value Units Under the PFS and Proposed Changes to the Practice
Expense Methodology proposed notice (71 FR 37242) and the CY 2007 PFS
final rule with comment period (71 FR 69629).
Note: In section II.A.1 of this final rule with comment period
rule, we discuss the current methodology used for calculating PE. In
section II.A.2. of this final rule with comment period, which
contains PE proposals for CY 2010, we summarize and respond to
comments on our proposal to use data from the AMA Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS) in place of the AMA's SMS survey data and
supplemental survey data that is currently used in the PE
methodology, as well as our proposal concerning equipment
utilization assumptions.
1. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Data Sources for Calculating Practice Expense
The AMA's SMS survey data and supplemental survey data from the
specialties of cardiothoracic surgery, vascular surgery, physical and
occupational therapy, independent laboratories, allergy/immunology,
cardiology, dermatology, gastroenterology, radiology, independent
diagnostic testing facilities (IDTFs), radiation oncology, and urology
are currently used to develop the PE per hour (PE/HR) for each
specialty. For those specialties for which we do not have PE/HR, the
appropriate PE/HR is obtained from a crosswalk to a similar specialty.
The AMA developed the SMS survey in 1981 and discontinued it in
1999. Beginning in 2002, we incorporated the 1999 SMS survey data into
our calculation of the PE RVUs, using a 5-year average of SMS survey
data. (See the CY 2002 PFS final rule with comment period (66 FR
55246).) The SMS PE survey data are adjusted to a common year, 2005.
The SMS data provide the following six categories of PE costs:
Clinical payroll expenses, which are payroll expenses
(including fringe benefits) for nonphysician clinical personnel.
Administrative payroll expenses, which are payroll
expenses (including fringe benefits) for nonphysician personnel
involved in administrative, secretarial, or clerical activities.
Office expenses, which include expenses for rent, mortgage
interest, depreciation on medical buildings, utilities, and telephones.
Medical material and supply expenses, which include
expenses for drugs, x-ray films, and disposable medical products.
Medical equipment expenses, which include depreciation,
leases, and rent of medical equipment used in the diagnosis or
treatment of patients.
All other expenses, which include expenses for legal
services, accounting, office management, professional association
memberships, and any professional expenses not previously mentioned in
this section.
In accordance with section 212 of the BBRA, we established a
process to supplement the SMS data for a specialty with data collected
by entities and organizations other than the AMA (that is, those
entities and organizations representing the specialty itself). (See the
Criteria for Submitting Supplemental Practice Expense Survey Data
interim final rule with comment period (65 FR 25664).) Originally, the
deadline to submit supplementary survey data was through August 1,
2001. In the CY 2002 PFS final rule (66 FR 55246), the deadline was
extended through August 1, 2003. To ensure maximum opportunity for
specialties to submit supplementary survey data, we extended the
deadline to submit surveys until March 1, 2005 in the Revisions to
Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for CY 2004 final
rule with comment period (68 FR 63196) (hereinafter referred to as CY
2004 PFS final rule with comment period).
The direct cost data for individual services were originally
developed by the Clinical Practice Expert Panels (CPEP). The CPEP data
include the supplies, equipment, and staff times specific to each
procedure. The CPEPs consisted of panels of physicians, practice
administrators, and nonphysicians (for example, RNs) who were nominated
by physician specialty societies and other groups. There were 15 CPEPs
consisting of 180 members from more than 61 specialties and
subspecialties. Approximately 50 percent of the panelists were
physicians.
The CPEPs identified specific inputs involved in each physician's
service provided in an office or facility setting. The inputs
identified were the quantity and type of nonphysician labor, medical
supplies, and medical equipment. The CPEP data has been regularly
updated by various RUC committees on PE.
b. Allocation of PE to Services
Currently, the aggregate level specialty-specific PEs are derived
from the AMA's SMS survey and supplementary survey data. For CY 2010,
we discuss in section II.A.2. of this final rule with comment period
how a new data source, PPIS, will be used. To establish PE RVUs for
specific services, it is necessary to establish the direct and indirect
PE associated with each service.
(i) Direct costs. The direct costs are determined by adding the
costs of the resources (that is, the clinical staff, equipment, and
supplies) typically required to provide the service. The costs of these
resources are calculated from the refined direct PE inputs in our PE
database. These direct inputs are then scaled to the current aggregate
pool of direct PE RVUs. The aggregate pool of direct PE RVUs can be
derived using the following formula: (PE RVUs x physician CF) x
(average direct percentage from survey PE/HR data)).
(ii) Indirect costs. Currently, the SMS and supplementary survey
data are the sources for the specialty-specific aggregate indirect
costs used in our PE calculations. For CY 2010, we discuss in section
II.A.2. of this final rule with comment period how a new data source,
PPIS, will be used. We then allocate the indirect costs to the code
level on the basis of the direct costs specifically associated with a
code and the greater of either the clinical labor costs or the
physician work RVUs. For calculation of the 2010 PE RVUs, we use the
2008 procedure-specific utilization data crosswalked to 2010 services.
To arrive at the indirect PE costs--
We apply a specialty-specific indirect percentage factor
to the direct expenses to recognize the varying proportion that
indirect costs represent of total costs by specialty. For a given
service, the specific indirect percentage factor to apply to the direct
costs for the purpose of the indirect allocation is calculated as the
weighted average of the ratio of the indirect to direct costs (based on
the survey data) for the specialties that furnish the service. For
example, if a service is furnished by a single specialty with indirect
PEs that were 75 percent of total PEs, the indirect percentage factor
to apply to the direct costs for the purposes of the indirect
allocation would be (0.75/0.25) = 3.0. The indirect percentage factor
is then applied to the service level adjusted indirect PE allocators.
We currently use the specialty-specific PE/HR from the SMS
survey data, as well as the supplemental surveys for cardiothoracic
surgery, vascular surgery, physical and occupational therapy,
independent laboratories, allergy/immunology, cardiology, dermatology,
radiology, gastroenterology, IDTFs, radiation oncology, and urology.
(Note: For radiation oncology, the data represent the combined survey
data from the
[[Page 61745]]
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and the
Association of Freestanding Radiation Oncology Centers (AFROC)). As
discussed in the CY 2008 PFS final rule with comment period (72 FR
66233), the PE/HR survey data for radiology is weighted by practice
size. For CY 2010, we discuss in section II.A.2. of this final rule
with comment period how a new data source, PPIS, will be used. We
incorporate this PE/HR into the calculation of indirect costs using an
index which reflects the relationship between each specialty's indirect
scaling factor and the overall indirect scaling factor for the entire
PFS. For example, if a specialty had an indirect practice cost index of
2.00, this specialty would have an indirect scaling factor that was
twice the overall average indirect scaling factor. If a specialty had
an indirect practice cost index of 0.50, this specialty would have an
indirect scaling factor that was half the overall average indirect
scaling factor.
When the clinical labor portion of the direct PE RVU is
greater than the physician work RVU for a particular service, the
indirect costs are allocated based upon the direct costs and the
clinical labor costs. For example, if a service has no physician work
and 1.10 direct PE RVUs, and the clinical labor portion of the direct
PE RVUs is 0.65 RVUs, we would use the 1.10 direct PE RVUs and the 0.65
clinical labor portions of the direct PE RVUs to allocate the indirect
PE for that service.
c. Facility and Non-Facility Costs
Procedures that can be furnished in a physician's office, as well
as in a hospital or facility setting have two PE RVUs: facility and
non-facility. The non-facility setting includes physicians' offices,
patients' homes, freestanding imaging centers, and independent
pathology labs. Facility settings include hospitals, ambulatory
surgical centers (ASCs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The
methodology for calculating PE RVUs is the same for both facility and
non-facility RVUs, but is applied independently to yield two separate
PE RVUs. Because the PEs for services provided in a facility setting
are generally included in the payment to the facility (rather than the
payment to the physician under the PFS), the PE RVUs are generally
lower for services provided in the facility setting.
d. Services With Technical Components (TCs) and Professional Components
(PCs)
Diagnostic services are generally comprised of two components: a
professional component (PC) and a technical component (TC), both of
which may be performed independently or by different providers. When
services have TCs, PCs, and global components that can be billed
separately, the payment for the global component equals the sum of the
payment for the TC and PC. This is a result of using a weighted average
of the ratio of indirect to direct costs across all the specialties
that furnish the global components, TCs, and PCs; that is, we apply the
same weighted average indirect percentage factor to allocate indirect
expenses to the global components, PCs, and TCs for a service. (The
direct PE RVUs for the TC and PC sum to the global under the bottom-up
methodology.)
e. Transition Period
As discussed in the CY 2007 PFS final rule with comment period (71
FR 69674), the change to the PE methodology was implemented over a 4-
year period. In CY 2010, the transition period for the change to the PE
methodology is complete and PE RVUs will be calculated based entirely
on the current methodology.
f. PE RVU Methodology
The following is a description of the PE RVU methodology. While
there are some changes to the data sources, the methodology remains the
same.
(i) Setup File
First, we create a setup file for the PE methodology. The setup
file contains the direct cost inputs, the utilization for each
procedure code at the specialty and facility/non-facility place of
service level, and the specialty-specific survey PE per physician hour
data.
(ii) Calculate the Direct Cost PE RVUs
Sum the costs of each direct input.
Step 1: Sum the direct costs of the inputs for each service. The
direct costs consist of the costs of the direct inputs for clinical
labor, medical supplies, and medical equipment. The clinical labor cost
is the sum of the cost of all the staff types associated with the
service; it is the product of the time for each staff type and the wage
rate for that staff type. The medical supplies cost is the sum of the
supplies associated with the service; it is the product of the quantity
of each supply and the cost of the supply. The medical equipment cost
is the sum of the cost of the equipment associated with the service; it
is the product of the number of minutes each piece of equipment is used
in the service and the equipment cost per minute. The equipment cost
per minute is calculated as described at the end of this section.
Apply a BN adjustment to the direct inputs.
Step 2: Calculate the current aggregate pool of direct PE costs. To
do this, multiply the current aggregate pool of total direct and
indirect PE costs (that is, the current aggregate PE RVUs multiplied by
the CF) by the average direct PE percentage from the SMS and
supplementary specialty survey data. For CY 2010, we discuss in section
II.A.2. of this final rule with comment period how a new data source,
PPIS, will be used.
Step 3: Calculate the aggregate pool of direct costs. To do this,
for all PFS services, sum the product of the direct costs for each
service from Step 1 and the utilization data for that service.
Step 4: Using the results of Step 2 and Step 3 calculate a direct
PE BN adjustment so that the aggregate direct cost pool does not exceed
the current aggregate direct cost pool and apply it to the direct costs
from Step 1 for each service.
Step 5: Convert the results of Step 4 to an RVU scale for each
service. To do this, divide the results of Step 4 by the Medicare PFS
CF.
(iii) Create the Indirect PE RVUs
Create indirect allocators.
Step 6: Based on the SMS and supplementary specialty survey data,
calculate direct and indirect PE percentages for each physician
specialty. For CY 2010, we discuss in section II.A.2. of this final
rule with comment period how a new data source, PPIS, will be used.
Step 7: Calculate direct and indirect PE percentages at the service
level by taking a weighted average of the results of Step 6 for the
specialties that furnish the service. Note that for services with TCs
and PCs, we are calculating the direct and indirect percentages across
the global components, PCs, and TCs. That is, the direct and indirect
percentages for a given service (for example, echocardiogram) do not
vary by the PC, TC and global component.
Step 8: Calculate the service level allocators for the indirect PEs
based on the percentages calculated in Step 7. The indirect PEs are
allocated based on the three components: the direct PE RVU, the
clinical PE RVU, and the work RVU.
For most services the indirect allocator is:
indirect percentage * (direct PE RVU/direct percentage) + work RVU.
There are two situations where this formula is modified:
If the service is a global service (that is, a service
with global, professional, and technical components), then the
[[Page 61746]]
indirect allocator is: indirect percentage * (direct PE RVU/direct
percentage) + clinical PE RVU + work RVU.
If the clinical labor PE RVU exceeds the work RVU (and the
service is not a global service), then the indirect allocator is:
indirect percentage * (direct PE RVU/direct percentage) + clinical PE
RVU.
Note: For global services, the indirect allocator is based on
both the work RVU and the clinical labor PE RVU. We do this to
recognize that, for the professional service, indirect PEs will be
allocated using the work RVUs, and for the TC service, indirect PEs
will be allocated using the direct PE RVU and the clinical labor PE
RVU. This also allows the global component RVUs to equal the sum of
the PC and TC RVUs.
For presentation purposes in the examples in the Table 1, the
formulas were divided into two parts for each service. The first part
does not vary by service and is the indirect percentage * (direct PE
RVU/direct percentage). The second part is either the work RVU,
clinical PE RVU, or both depending on whether the service is a global
service and whether the clinical PE RVU exceeds the work RVU (as
described earlier in this step.)
Apply a BN adjustment to the indirect allocators.
Step 9: Calculate the current aggregate pool of indirect PE RVUs by
multiplying the current aggregate pool of PE RVUs by the average
indirect PE percentage from the physician specialty survey data. This
is similar to the Step 2 calculation for the direct PE RVUs.
Step 10: Calculate an aggregate pool of indirect PE RVUs for all
PFS services by adding the product of the indirect PE allocators for a
service from Step 8 and the utilization data for that service. This is
similar to the Step 3 calculation for the direct PE RVUs.
Step 11: Using the results of Step 9 and Step 10, calculate an
indirect PE adjustment so that the aggregate indirect allocation does
not exceed the available aggregate indirect PE RVUs and apply it to
indirect allocators calculated in Step 8. This is similar to the Step 4
calculation for the direct PE RVUs.
Calculate the Indirect Practice Cost Index.
Step 12: Using the results of Step 11, calculate aggregate pools of
specialty-specific adjusted indirect PE allocators for all PFS services
for a specialty by adding the product of the adjusted indirect PE
allocator for each service and the utilization data for that service.
Step 13: Using the specialty-specific indirect PE/HR data,
calculate specialty-specific aggregate pools of indirect PE for all PFS
services for that specialty by adding the product of the indirect PE/HR
for the specialty, the physician time for the service, and the
specialty's utilization for the service.
Step 14: Using the results of Step 12 and Step 13, calculate the
specialty-specific indirect PE scaling factors as under the current
methodology.
Step 15: Using the results of Step 14, calculate an indirect
practice cost index at the specialty level by dividing each specialty-
specific indirect scaling factor by the average indirect scaling factor
for the entire PFS.
Step 16: Calculate the indirect practice cost index at the service
level to ensure the capture of all indirect costs. Calculate a weighted
average of the practice cost index values for the specialties that
furnish the service. (Note: For services with TCs and PCs, we calculate
the indirect practice cost index across the global components, PCs, and
TCs. Under this method, the indirect practice cost index for a given
service (for example, echocardiogram) does not vary by the PC, TC and
global component.)
Step 17: Apply the service level indirect practice cost index
calculated in Step 16 to the service level adjusted indirect allocators
calculated in Step 11 to get the indirect PE RVU.
(iv) Calculate the Final PE RVUs.
Step 18: Add the direct PE RVUs from Step 6 to the indirect PE RVUs
from Step 17.
Step 19: Calculate and apply the final PE BN adjustment by
comparing the results of Step 18 to the current pool of PE RVUs. This
final BN adjustment is required primarily because certain specialties
are excluded from the PE RVU calculation for ratesetting purposes, but
all specialties are included for purposes of calculating the final BN
adjustment. (See ``Specialties excluded from ratesetting calculation''
below in this section.)
(v) Setup File Information
Specialties excluded from ratesetting calculation: For the
purposes of calculating the PE RVUs, we exclude certain specialties
such as midlevel practitioners paid at a percentage of the PFS,
audiology, and low volume specialties from the calculation. These
specialties are included for the purposes of calculating the BN
adjustment.
Crosswalk certain low volume physician specialties:
Crosswalk the utilization of certain specialties with relatively low
PFS utilization to the associated specialties.
Physical therapy utilization: Crosswalk the utilization
associated with all physical therapy services to the specialty of
physical therapy.
Identify professional and technical services not
identified under the usual TC and 26 modifiers: Flag the services that
are PC and TC services, but do not use TC and 26 modifiers (for
example, electrocardiograms). This flag associates the PC and TC with
the associated global code for use in creating the indirect PE RVU. For
example, the professional service code 93010 is associated with the
global code 93000.
Payment modifiers: Payment modifiers are accounted for in
the creation of the file. For example, services billed with the
assistant at surgery modifier are paid 16 percent of the PFS amount for
that service; therefore, the utilization file is modified to only
account for 16 percent of any service that contains the assistant at
surgery modifier.
Work RVUs: The setup file contains the work RVUs from this
proposed rule.
(vi) Equipment cost per minute
The equipment cost per minute is calculated as:
(1/(minutes per year * usage)) * price * ((interest rate/(1-(1/((1
+ interest rate) ** life of equipment)))) + maintenance)
Where:
minutes per year = maximum minutes per year if usage were continuous
(that is, usage = 1); 150,000 minutes.
usage = equipment utilization assumption; 0.9 for certain expensive
diagnostic equipment (see section II.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period rule) and 0.5 for others.
price = price of the particular piece of equipment.
interest rate = 0.11.
life of equipment = useful life of the particular piece of
equipment.