Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2012 and Other Proposed Changes, 71190-71292 [2010-28774]
Download as PDF
71190
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423
[CMS–4144–P]
RIN 0938–AQ00
Medicare Program; Proposed Changes
to the Medicare Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Programs for Contract Year 2012 and
Other Proposed Changes
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We are proposing revisions to
the Medicare Advantage (MA) program
(Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit
Program (Part D) to implement
provisions specified in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and
the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively
referred to as the Affordable Care Act)
(ACA) and make other changes to the
regulations based on our continued
experience in the administration of the
Part C and D programs. These latter
proposed revisions would clarify
various program participation
requirements; make changes to
strengthen beneficiary protections;
strengthen our ability to identify strong
applicants for Parts C and D program
participation and remove consistently
poor performers; and make other
clarifications and technical changes.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST) on January 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–4144–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission. You may submit
comments in one of four ways (no
duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on specific issues
in this regulation to https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click
on the link ‘‘Submit electronic
comments on CMS regulations with an
open comment period.’’ (Attachments
should be in Microsoft Word,
WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we
prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments (one original and two
copies) to the following address only:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–4144–
P, 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 (one
original and two copies) to the following
address only: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–4144–P, Mail Stop C4–26–05,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments (one original
and two copies) before the close of the
comment period to one of the following
addresses. If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
7195 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey
Building, 200 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244–1850.
(Because access to the interior of the
HHH Building is not readily available to
persons without Federal Government
identification, commenters are
encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main
lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock
is available for persons wishing to retain
a proof of filing by stamping in and
retaining an extra copy of the comments
being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
Submission of comments on
paperwork requirements. You may
submit comments on this document’s
paperwork requirements by mailing
your comments to the addresses
provided at the end of the ‘‘Collection of
Information Requirements’’ section in
this document.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Duran, (410) 786–8697 and
Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786–7499,
General information.
Christopher McClintick, (410) 786–
4682, Part C issues.
Deborah Larwood, (410) 786–9500, Part
D issues.
Kristy Nishimoto, (410) 786–8517, Part
C and D enrollment and appeals
issues.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Deondra Moseley, (410) 786–4577, Part
C payment issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments: We welcome
comments from the public on all issues
set forth in this rule to assist us in fully
considering issues and developing
policies. You can assist us by
referencing the file code CMS–4144–P.
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 at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click
on the link ‘‘Electronic Comments on
CMS Regulations’’ on that Web site to
view public comments.
Comments received timely will also
be available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Overview of the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003
B. History and Overview
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
A. Overview of the Proposed Changes
B. Changes To Implement the Provisions of
the Affordable Care Act of 2010
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
2. Simplification of Beneficiary Election
Periods (§ 422.62, § 422.68, § 423.38, and
§ 423.40)
3. Special Needs Plan (SNP) Provisions
(§ 422.2, § 422.4, § 422.101, § 422.107,
and § 422.152)
a. Adding a Definition of Fully Integrated
Dual Eligible SNP (§ 422.2)
b. Extending SNP Authority
c. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With State
Medicaid Agencies (§ 422.107)
d. Approval of Special Needs Plans by the
National Committee for Quality
Assurance (§ 422.4, § 422.101, and
§ 422.152)
4. Section 1876 Cost Contractor
Competition Requirements (§ 417.402)
5. Making Senior Housing Facility
Demonstration Plans Permanent (§ 422.2
and § 422.53)
6. Authority To Deny Bids (§ 422.254,
§ 422.256, § 423.265, and § 423.272)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
7. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
8. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
a. Reassigning LIS Individuals (§ 423.34)
b. Enrollment of LIS-Eligible Individuals
(§ 423.34)
c. Premium Subsidy (§ 423.780)
9. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the
Income Related Monthly Adjustment
Amount (D—IRMAA) (§ 423.44,
§ 423.286, and § 423.293)
a. Rules Regarding Premiums (§ 423.286)
b. Collection of Monthly Beneficiary
Premium (§ 423.293)
c. Involuntary Disenrollment by CMS
(§ 423.44)
10. Elimination of Medicare Part D CostSharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
11. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription
Drugs in Long-Term Care Facilities
Under PDPs and MA–PD Plans
(§ 423.154)
12. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
13. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128 and § 423.562)
14. Including Costs Incurred by AIDS Drug
Assistance Programs and the Indian
Health Service Toward the Annual Part
D Out-of-Pocket Threshold (§ 423.100
and § 423.464)
15. Cost Sharing for Medicare-Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
16. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund
(§ 422.458)
17. Improvements to Medication Therapy
Management Programs (§ 423.153)
18. Changes To Close the Part D Coverage
Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
19. Payments to Medicare Advantage
Organizations (§ 422.308)
a. Authority To Apply Frailty Adjustment
Under PACE Payment Rules for Certain
Specialized MA Plans for Special Needs
Individuals (§ 422.308)
b. Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.308)
c. Improvements to Risk Adjustment for
Special Needs Individuals With Chronic
Health Conditions (§ 422.308)
20. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate
(§ 422.252, § 422.258, and § 422.266)
a. Terminology (§ 422.252)
b. Calculation of Benchmarks (§ 422.258)
c. Increases to the Applicable Percentage
for Quality (§ 422.258(d))
d. Beneficiary Rebates (§ 422.266)
21. Quality Bonus Payment and Rebate
Retention Appeals (§ 422.260)
C. Clarify Various Program Participation
Requirements
1. Clarify Payment Rules for Non-Contract
Providers (§ 422.214)
2. Pharmacist Definition (§ 423.4)
3. Prohibition on Part C and D Program
Participation by Organizations Whose
Owners, Directors, or Management
Employees Served in a Similar Capacity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
With Another Organization That
Terminated Its Medicare Contract Within
the Previous 2 Years (§ 422.506,
§ 422.508, § 422.512, § 423.508,
§ 423.507, and § 423.510)
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When
CMS Terminates a Contract With a Part
D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
5. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions
by a Physician or Other Health Care
Professional and the Employment of a
Medical Director (§ 422.562, § 422.566,
§ 423.562, and § 423.566)
6. Compliance Officer Training (§ 422.503
and § 423.504)
7. Removing Quality Improvement Projects
and Chronic Care Improvement Programs
From CMS Deeming Process (§ 422.156)
8. Definitions of Employment-Based
Retiree Health Coverage and Group
Health Plan for MA Employer/UnionOnly Group Waiver Plans (§ 422.106)
D. Strengthening Beneficiary Protections
1. Agent and Broker Training Requirements
(§ 422.2274 and § 423.2274)
a. CMS-Approved or Endorsed Agent and
Broker Training and Testing (§ 422.2274
and § 423.2274)
b. Extending Annual Training
Requirements to All Agents and Brokers
(§ 422.2274 and § 423.2274)
2. Call Center and Internet Web Site
Requirements (§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
a. Extension of Customer Call Center and
Internet Web site Requirements to MA
Organizations (§ 422.111)
b. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
3. Require Plan Sponsors To Contact
Beneficiaries To Explain Enrollment by
an Unqualified Agent/Broker (§ 422.2272
and § 423.2272)
4. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111 and
§ 423.128)
5. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
6. Prohibition on Use of Tiered Cost
Sharing by MA Organizations (§ 422.262)
7. Delivery of Adverse Coverage
Determinations (§ 423.568)
8. Extension of Grace Period for Good
Cause and Reinstatement (§ 422.74 and
§ 423.44)
9. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
E. Strengthening Our Ability To
Distinguish for Approval Stronger
Applicants for Part C and Part D Program
Participation and To Remove
Consistently Poor Performers
1. Expand Network Adequacy
Requirements to Additional MA Plan
Types (§ 422.112)
2. Maintaining a Fiscally Sound Operation
(§ 422.2, § 422.504, § 423.4, and
§ 423.505)
3. Release of Part C and Part D Payment
Data
4. Required Use of Electronic Transaction
Standards for Multi-Ingredient Drug
Compounds; Payment for MultiIngredient Drug Compounds (§ 423.120)
5. Denial of Applications Submitted by
Part C and D Sponsors With Less Than
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71191
14 Months Experience Operating Their
Medicare Contracts (§ 422.502 and
§ 423.503)
F. Other Clarifications and Technical
Changes
1. Clarification of the Expiration of the
Authority To Waive the State Licensure
Requirement for Provider-Sponsored
Organizations (§ 422.4)
2. Cost Plan Enrollment Mechanisms
(§ 417.430)
3. Fast-Track Appeals of Service
Terminations to Independent Review
Entities (IREs) (§ 422.626)
4. Part D Transition Requirements
(§ 423.120)
5. Revision to Limitation on Charges to
Enrollees for Emergency Department
Services (§ 422.113)
6. Clarify Language Related to Submission
of a Valid Application (§ 422.502 and
§ 423.503)
7. Modifying the Definition of Dispensing
Fees (§ 423.100)
III. Collection of Information Requirements
A. ICRs Regarding Cost Sharing for
Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (§ 417.101 and § 422.100)
B. ICRs Regarding SNP Provisions
(§ 422.101, § 422.107, and § 422.152)
1. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With State
Medicaid Agencies (§ 422.107)
2. ICRs Regarding NCQA Approval of SNPs
(§ 422.101 and § 422.152)
C. ICRs Regarding Voluntary De Minimis
Policy for Subsidy Eligible Individuals
(§ 423.34 and § 423.780)
D. ICRs Regarding Increase in Part D
Premiums Due to the Income Related
Monthly Adjustment Amount (D—
IRMAA) (§ 423.44)
E. ICRs Regarding Elimination of Medicare
Part D Cost Sharing for Individuals
Receiving Home and Community-Based
Services (§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
F. ICRs Regarding Appropriate Dispensing
of Prescription Drugs in Long-Term Care
Facilities Under PDPs and MA–PD plans
(§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
G. ICRs Regarding Complaint System for
Medicare Advantage Organizations and
PDPs (§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
H. ICRs Regarding Uniform Exceptions and
Appeals Process for Prescription Drug
Plans and MA–PD Plans
(§ 423.128(b)(7)(i), § 423.128(d), and
§ 423.562(a)(3))
I. ICRs Regarding Including Costs Incurred
by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs and
the Indian Health Service Toward the
Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket Threshold
(§ 423.100 and § 423.464)
J. ICRs Regarding Improvements to
Medication Therapy Management
Programs (§ 423.153(vii))
K. ICRs Regarding Changes To Close the
Part D Coverage Gap (§ 423.104 and
§ 423.884)
L. ICRs Regarding Medicare Advantage
Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments,
and Rebate (§ 422.252, § 422.258 and
§ 422.266)
M. ICRs Regarding Quality Bonus Appeals
(§ 422.260)
N. ICRs Regarding Timely Transfer of Data
and Files When CMS Terminates a
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71192
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Contract With a Part D Sponsor
(§ 423.509)
O. ICRs Regarding Compliance Officer
Training (§ 422.503 and § 423.504)
P. ICRs Regarding Agent and Broker
Training Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
Q. ICRs Regarding Call Center and Internet
Web Site Requirements (§ 422.111 and
§ 423.128)
R. ICRs Regarding Requiring Plan Sponsors
To Contact Beneficiaries To Explain
Enrollment by an Unqualified Agent/
Broker (§ 422.2272 and § 423.2272)
S. ICRs Regarding Customized Enrollee
Data (§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
T. ICRs Regarding Extending the
Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket
(MOOP) Amount Requirements to
Regional PPOs (§ 422.100(f) and
§ 422.101(d))
U. ICRs Regarding Prohibition on Use of
Tiered Cost Sharing by MA
Organizations (§ 422.100 and § 422.262)
V. ICRs Regarding Translated Marketing
Materials (§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
W. ICRs Regarding Expanding Network
Adequacy Requirements to Additional
MA Plan Types (§ 422.112)
X. ICRs Regarding Maintaining a Fiscally
Sound Operation (§ 422.2, § 422.504,
§ 423.4, and § 423.505)
Y. ICRs Regarding Release of Part C and
Part D Payment Data
Z. ICRs Regarding Revision to Limitation
on Charges to Enrollees for Emergency
Department Services (§ 422.113)
IV. Response to Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
B. Costs, Savings, and Anticipated Effects
Associated With This Proposed Rule
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
2. Approval of Special Needs Plans (SNPs)
by National Committee for Quality
Assurance (NCQA) (§ 422.4, § 422.101,
and § 422.152)
3. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
4. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
5. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the
Income-Related Monthly Adjustment
Amount (D—IRMAA) (§ 423.44)
6. Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost
Sharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
7. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription
Drugs in Long-Term Care Facilities
Under PDPs and MA–PD Plans
(§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
8. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
9. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128 and § 423.562)
10. Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and
the Indian Health Service (IHS) Toward
the Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket
Threshold (§ 423.100 and § 423.464)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
11. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
12. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund
(§ 422.458)
13. Improvements to Medication Therapy
Management Programs (§ 423.153)
14. Changes To Close the Part D Coverage
Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
15. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate and
Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.252, § 422.258, § 422.266, and
§ 422.308)
16. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
17. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
18. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions
by a Physician or Other Health Care
Professional and the Employment of a
Medical Director (§ 422.562, § 422.566,
§ 423.562, and § 423.566)
19. Compliance Officer Training (§ 422.503
and § 423.504)
20. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
21. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
22. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
23. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
24. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
C. Expected Benefits
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
422.100)
2. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
3. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
4. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the
Income Related Monthly Adjustment
Amount (D—IRMAA) (§ 423.44)
5. Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost
Sharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
6. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription
Drugs in Long-Term Care Facilities
Under PDPs and MA–PD Plans
(§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
7. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
8. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128 and § 423.562)
9. Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and
the Indian Health Services (IHS) Toward
the Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket
Threshold (§ 423.100 and § 423.464)
10. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered
Preventive Service (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
11. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund
(§ 422.458)
12. Improvements to Medication Therapy
Management Programs (§ 423.153)
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13. Changes to Close the Part D Coverage
Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
14. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate and
Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.252, § 422.258 and § 422.266, and
§ 422.308)
15. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
16. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
17. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions
by a Physician or Other Health Care
Professional and the Employment of a
Medical Director (§ 422.562, § 422.566,
§ 423.562, and § 423.566)
18. Compliance Officer Training (§ 422.503
and § 423.503)
19. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
20. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
21. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
22. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
23. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
D. Alternatives Considered
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
2. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
3. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When
CMS Terminates a Contract With a Part
D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
5. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions
by a Physician or Other Health Care
Professional and the Employment of a
Medical Director (§ 422.562, § 422.566,
§ 423.562, and § 423.566)
6. Compliance Officer Training (§ 422.503
and § 423.504)
7. Agent and Broker Training Requirements
(§ 422.2274 and § 423.2274)
8. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
9. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111 and
§ 423.128)
10. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
11. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
12. Increases to the Applicable Percentage
for Quality (§ 422.258(d))
E. Accounting Statement
Regulations Text
Acronyms
ACA The Affordable Care Act of 2010
(which is the collective term for the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L.
111–148) and the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111–
152))
AO Accrediting Organization
ADS Automatic Dispensing System
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
AEP Annual Enrollment Period
AHFS American Hospital Formulary
Service
AHFS–DI American Hospital Formulary
Service-Drug Information
AHRQ Agency for Health Care Research
and Quality
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
ANOC Annual Notice of Change
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)
CAHPS Consumer Assessment Health
Providers Survey
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CCIP Chronic Care Improvement Program
CCS Certified Coding Specialist
CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Programs
CMP Civil Money Penalties
CMR Comprehensive Medical Review
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
CMS–HCC CMS Hierarchal Condition
Category
CTM Complaints Tracking Module
COB Coordination of Benefits
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facility
CPC Certified Professional Coder
CY Calendar Year
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109–171)
DUM Drug Utilization Management
EGWP Employer Group/Union-Sponsored
Waiver Plan
EOB Explanation of Benefits
EOC Evidence of Coverage
ESRD End-Stage Renal Disease
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FEHBP Federal Employees Health Benefits
Plan
FFS Fee-for-Service
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
HCPP Health Care Prepayment Plans
HEDIS HealthCare Effectiveness Data and
Information Set
HHS [U.S. Department of] Health and
Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–
191)
HMO Health Maintenance Organization
HOS Health Outcome Survey
HPMS Health Plan Management System
ICD–9–CM Internal Classification of
Disease, 9th, Clinical Modification
Guidelines
ICEP Initial Coverage Enrollment Period
ICL Initial Coverage Limit
ICR Information Collection Requirement
IRMAA Income-Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount
IVC Initial Validation Contractor
LEP Late Enrollment Penalty
LIS Low Income Subsidy
LTC Long Term Care
MA Medicare Advantage
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
MAAA Member of the American Academy
of Actuaries
MA–PD Medicare Advantage-Prescription
Drug Plans
M+C Medicare +Choice Program
MOC Medicare Options Compare
MPDPF Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
Finder
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (Pub. L. 108–173)
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSAs Medical Savings Accounts
MSP Medicare Secondary Payer
MTM Medication Therapy Management
MTMP Medication Therapy Management
Programs
NAIC National Association Insurance
Commissioners
NCPDP National Council for Prescription
Drug Programs
NCQA National Committee for Quality
Assurance
NGC National Guideline Clearinghouse
NIH National Institutes of Health
NOMNC Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage
OEP Open Enrollment Period
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
OTC Over the Counter
PART C Medicare Advantage
PART D Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Programs
PBM Pharmacy Benefit Manager
PDE Prescription Drug Event
PDP Prescription Drug Plan
PFFS Private Fee For Service Plan
POS Point of Service
PPO Preferred Provider Organization
PPS Prospective Payment System
P&T Pharmacy & Therapeutics
QIO Quality Improvement Organization
QRS Quality Review Study
PACE Programs of All Inclusive Care for the
Elderly
RADV Risk Adjustment Data Validation
RAPS Risk Adjustment Payment System
RHIA Registered Health Information
Administrator
RHIT Registered Health Information
Technician
SEP Special Enrollment Periods
SHIP State Health Insurance Assistance
Programs
SNF Skilled Nursing Facility
SNP Special Needs Plan
SPAP State Pharmaceutical Assistance
Programs
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Supplemental Security Income
TrOOP True Out-Of-Pocket
U&C Usual and Customary
USP U.S. Pharmacopoeia
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Overview of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003
The Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108–173)
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71193
established the Part D program and
made significant revisions to Part C
provisions governing the Medicare
Advantage (MA) program. The MMA
directed that important aspects of the
Part D program be similar to, and
coordinated with, regulations for the
MA program. Generally, the provisions
enacted in the MMA took effect January
1, 2006. The final rules implementing
the MMA for the MA and Part D
prescription drug programs appeared in
the Federal Register on January 28,
2005 (70 FR 4588 through 4741 and 70
FR 4194 through 4585, respectively).
As we have gained experience with
the MA program and the prescription
drug benefit program, we periodically
have revised the Part C and D
regulations to continue to improve or
clarify existing policies and/or codify
current guidance for both programs. For
example, in December 2007, we
published a final rule with comment on
contract determinations involving
Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations
and Medicare Part D prescription drug
plan sponsors (72 FR 68700). In April
2008, we published a final rule to
address policy and technical changes to
the Part D program (73 FR 20486). In
September 2008 and January 2009, we
finalized revisions to both the Medicare
Advantage and Medicare prescription
drug benefit programs (73 FR 54226 and
74 FR 1494, respectively) to implement
provisions in the Medicare
Improvement for Patients and Providers
Act (MIPPA) (Pub. L. 110–275), which
contained provisions affecting both the
Medicare Part C and D programs, and to
make other policy changes and
clarifications based on experience with
both programs (73 FR 54208, 73 FR
54226, and 74 FR 2881). In April 2010,
we finalized new policies for both the
MA and Part D prescription drug
programs as part of our continuing
efforts to protect beneficiaries from
excessive out-of-pocket costs, ensure
transparency in plan costs and benefits,
and strengthen plan compliance with
our requirements (75 FR 19678 through
19826).
B. History and Overview
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(BBA) (Pub. L. 105–33) established a
new ‘‘Part C’’ in the Medicare statute
(sections 1851 through 1859 of the
Social Security Act (the Act)) which
established the current MA program. As
discussed above, the MMA, enacted on
December 8, 2003, added a new ‘‘Part D’’
to the Medicare statute (sections 1860D–
1 through 42 of the Act) creating the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Program, and made significant changes
to the M+C program.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71194
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Also as noted previously, MIPPA,
enacted on July 15, 2008, further
amended provisions in Part C and D,
including adding extensive new
provisions governing marketing under
both programs, which were
implemented in a final rule that
paralleled provisions in MIPPA that was
published in the Federal Register on
September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54208), and
in the same issue of the Federal Register
(73 FR 54226) we published a separate
interim final rule that addressed the
other provisions of MIPPA affecting the
MA and Part D programs. We also
clarified the MIPPA marketing
provisions in a November 2008 interim
final rule (73 FR 67407) and issued a
separate interim final rule in January
2009 to address MIPPA provisions
related to Part D plan formularies (74 FR
2881).
The proposed and final rules
addressing additional policy
clarifications under the Part C and D
programs appeared in the October 22,
2009 (74 FR 54634) and April 15, 2010
Federal Register (75 FR 19678 through
19826), respectively. (These rules are
hereinafter referred to as the October
2009 proposed rule and the April 2010
final rule, respectively.) As noted when
issuing these rules, we believed that
additional programmatic and
operational changes were needed in
order to further improve our oversight
and management of the Part C and D
programs, and to further improve a
beneficiary’s experience under MA or
Part D plans.
Indeed, one of the primary reasons set
forth in support of issuing our April
2010 final rule was to address
beneficiary concerns associated with the
annual task of selecting a Part C or Part
D plan from so many options. We noted
that while it was clear that the Medicare
Part C and D programs have been
successful in providing additional
health care options for beneficiaries, a
significant number of beneficiaries have
been confused by the array of choices
provided and have found it difficult to
make enrollment decisions that are best
for them. Moreover, experience had
shown that organizations submitting
multiple bids under Part C and D had
not consistently submitted benefit
designs significantly different from each
other, which we believed added to
beneficiary confusion. For this reason,
the April 2010 rule required that
multiple plan submissions in the same
area have significant differences from
each other. Other changes set forth in
the April 2010 final rule were aimed at
strengthening existing beneficiary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
protections, improving payment rules
and processes, enhancing our ability to
pursue data collection for oversight and
quality assessment, strengthening
formulary policy, and finalizing a
number of clarifications and technical
corrections to existing policy.
In this new proposed rule, we are
continuing our process of implementing
improvements in policy consistent with
those included in the April 2010 final
rule, while also implementing changes
to the Part C and Part D programs made
by recent legislative changes. The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Pub. L. 111–148) was enacted on
March 23, 2010, as passed by the Senate
on December 24, 2009, and the House
on March 21, 2010. The Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L.
111–152), which was enacted on March
30, 2010, modified a number of
Medicare provisions in Pub. L. 111–148
and added several new provisions. The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Pub. L. 111–148) and the Health
Care and Education Reconciliation Act
(Pub. L. 111–152) are collectively
referred to as the Affordable Care Act
(ACA). The ACA includes significant
reforms to both the private health
insurance industry and the Medicare
and Medicaid programs. Provisions in
the ACA concerning the Part C and D
programs largely focus on beneficiary
protections, MA payments, and
simplification of MA and Part D
program processes. These provisions
affect the way we implement our
policies concerning beneficiary costsharing, assessing bids for meaningful
differences, and ensuring that costsharing structures in a plan are
transparent to beneficiaries and not
excessive. Some of the other provisions
for which we are proposing revisions to
the MA and Part D programs, based on
the ACA and our experiences in
administering the MA and Part D
programs, concern MA and Part D
marketing, including agent/broker
training; payments to MA organizations
based on quality ratings; standards for
determining if organizations are fiscally
sound; low income subsidy policy
under the Part D program; payment
rules for non-contract health care
providers; extending current network
adequacy standards to Medicare
medical savings account (MSA) plans
that employ a network of providers;
establishing limits on out-of-pocket
expenses for MA enrollees; and several
revisions to the special needs plan
requirements, including changes
concerning SNP approvals and deeming.
In general, our proposals are intended to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
strengthen the way we administer the
Part C and D programs, and help
beneficiaries make the best plan choices
for their health care needs.
II. Provisions of the Proposed
Regulations
A. Overview of Proposed Changes
In the sections that follow, we discuss
the proposed changes to the regulations
in 42 CFR parts 417, 422, and 423
governing the MA and prescription drug
benefit programs. To better frame the
discussion of the specific regulatory
provisions we are proposing, we have
structured the preamble narrative by
topic area rather than in subpart order.
Accordingly, our proposals address the
following five specific goals:
• Implementing the provisions of the
ACA.
• Clarifying various program
participation requirements.
• Strengthening beneficiary
protections.
• Strengthening our ability to
distinguish for approval stronger
applicants for Parts C and D program
participation and to remove consistently
poor performers.
• Implementing other clarifications
and technical changes.
A number of the proposed revisions
and clarifications affect both the MA
and prescription drug programs, while
some affect section 1876 cost contracts.
Within each section, we have provided
a chart listing all subject areas
containing provisions affecting the Part
C, Part D, and section 1876 cost contract
programs, and the associated regulatory
citations that would be revised.
We note that these regulations would
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule that will finalize the
proposed changes discussed in this
proposed rule, except where otherwise
noted in the preamble. Table 1 lists the
proposed changes that have an effective
date other than 60 days after the
publication of the final rule. The
proposed effective dates are discussed
in the preamble for each of these items.
We are proposing several changes to
the regulations to reflect provisions in
the ACA which either are already in
effect, or have an effective date that will
likely be earlier than 60 days after the
publication of the final rule. Table 2
lists these proposed changes. While
these ACA provisions are effective on
the statutory effective date, we propose
that the regulations implementing these
provisions be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71195
EP22NO10.000
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
B. Changes to Implement the Provisions
of the Affordable Care Act
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The ACA includes significant reforms
of both the private health insurance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
industry and the Medicare and
Medicaid programs. Provisions in the
Act concern the Part C and D programs
and largely focus on beneficiary
protections, MA payments, and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
simplification of MA and Part D
program processes. The changes based
on provisions in the ACA are detailed
in Table 3.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.001
71196
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
Section 3202 of the ACA amended
section 1852 of the Act to establish new
standards for MA plans’ cost sharing.
Specifically, section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the
Act was amended by the addition of a
new clause (iii) that limits cost sharing
under MA plans so that it cannot exceed
the cost sharing imposed under Original
Medicare for specific services identified
in a new clause (iv). New section
1852(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Act lists the
three services for which cost sharing in
MA plans may not exceed that required
in Original Medicare (chemotherapy
administration services, renal dialysis
services, skilled nursing care) and at
section 1852(a)(1)(B)(iv)(IV) of the Act
specifies that this limit on cost sharing
also applies to such other services that
the Secretary determines appropriate,
including services that the Secretary
determines require a high level of
predictability and transparency for
beneficiaries. The limits on cost sharing
in clause (iii) are ‘‘subject to’’ an
exception in clause (v) which provides
that, ‘‘[i]n the case of services described
in clause (iv) for which there is no cost
sharing required under Parts A and B,
cost sharing may be required for those
services’’ under the clause (i) standard
in place prior to the amendments made
by section 3202 of the ACA. This
section requires that overall cost sharing
for Medicare Part A and B services be
actuarially equivalent to that imposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
under Original Medicare. As noted in
the final rule that appeared in the April
15, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 19712)
and clarified in our April 16, 2010
policy guidance, the provisions of
section 3202 of the ACA apply to MA
plans offered in CY 2011. To codify
these provisions, we are proposing to
amend § 422.100 by adding a new
paragraph (g). In addition, under our
authority in section 1876(i)(3)(D) of the
Act to impose ‘‘other terms and
conditions’’ deemed ‘‘necessary and
appropriate,’’ we are proposing in a
proposed new paragraph (g) in § 417.100
that the requirements in section 3202 of
the ACA be extended by regulation to
section 1876 cost contracts. We believe
that this extension is necessary in order
to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries
have the benefit of the cost sharing
protections enacted in the ACA,
regardless of whether they receive their
Part A and B benefits through Original
Medicare, an MA plan, or under a
section 1876 cost contract.
We believe that the measures to
protect beneficiaries from high out-ofpocket costs in section 3202 of the ACA
complement the steps we already have
taken in our April 2010 final rule to
protect beneficiaries from health plans
with high out-of-pocket costs,
discriminatory cost sharing and benefit
designs that interfere with beneficiaries’
access to affordable high quality health
care, and create confusion that is
attributable to having too many MA
plan choices in an area that are not
‘‘meaningfully different.’’ In fact, for CY
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71197
2011, MA organizations already were
expected to comply with new standards
for cost sharing and to submit
meaningfully different plans in order to
reduce beneficiary confusion, and were
strongly encouraged to provide
Medicare-covered preventive services
without cost sharing. Organizations also
were expected to limit the number of
plans offered in a service area by
identifying for non-renewal plans with
sustained low enrollment.
In our April 16, 2010 guidance issued
via the Health Plan Management System
(HPMS) (‘‘Benefits Policy and
Operations Guidance Regarding Bid
Submissions; Duplicative and Low
Enrollment Plans; Cost Sharing
Standards; General Benefits Policy
Issues; and Plan Benefits Package (PBP)
Reminders for Contract Year (CY)
2011’’), we included clarifying
information related to implementation
of the required cost sharing for
chemotherapy administration services,
renal dialysis services, and skilled
nursing care for CY 2011 and we
defined chemotherapy administration
services to include chemotherapy drugs,
radiation therapy services and other
related chemotherapeutic agents, as well
as administration, and skilled nursing
care to mean skilled nursing facility
services. We also clarified that, since
there is no cost sharing under Original
Medicare for the first 20 days of skilled
nursing services, under section
1852(a)(1)(B)(v) of the Act, the new
restrictions in section 3202 of the ACA
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.002
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
71198
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
do not apply to such services during
this period.
In our proposed addition to § 422.100
and § 417.101, we would incorporate
these definitions for the two service
categories. We welcome comments on
these proposed cost sharing standards.
We also are proposing to limit cost
sharing for home health services under
MA plans to that charged under Original
Medicare. We note that, although we
can generally rely on our authority at
1852(a)(1)(B)(iv)(IV) of the Act to apply
Original Medicare cost sharing limits to
other services that the Secretary
determines appropriate, because there is
no cost sharing under Original Medicare
for home health services, as in the case
of the first 20 days of skilled nursing
facility services, the exception in clause
(v) of section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Act
would apply, and the limit on cost
sharing under section 1852(a)(1)(B)(iii)
of the Act would not apply. Thus, in
proposing to apply Original Medicare
cost sharing amounts to home health
services or any other service with zero
cost sharing, we would rely instead on
our authority in section 1856(b)(1) of the
Act to establish MA standards by
regulation, and in section 1857(e)(1) of
the Act to impose additional ‘‘terms and
conditions’’ found ‘‘necessary and
appropriate’’ to require that cost sharing
for these services under MA plans
conform to that under Original
Medicare, meaning that no cost sharing
could be imposed for these services.
We believe that even with the
additional restriction on cost sharing for
home health services, MA organizations
will continue to have adequate
flexibility to design plan benefits that
are responsive to beneficiary needs and
preferences while providing access to
high quality and affordable health care.
We are soliciting public comment on
our proposal to limit cost sharing for
home health services to that charged for
those services under Original Medicare.
2. Simplification of Beneficiary Election
Periods (§ 422.62, § 422.68, § 423.38,
and § 423.40)
Section 3204 of the ACA modified
section 1851(e)(3)(B) of the Act such
that, beginning with plan year 2012, the
annual coordinated election period
(AEP) under Parts C and D will be held
from October 15 to December 7. We
propose to amend § 422.62(a)(2) and
§ 423.38(b) to codify this change, which
will be effective October 15, 2011 for
elections effective January 1, 2012.
Section 3204 of the ACA also revised
section 1851(e)(2)(C) of the Act to
establish, beginning in 2011, a 45-day
period at the beginning of the year
(January 1 through February 14) that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
allows beneficiaries enrolled in MA
plans the opportunity to disenroll and
join Original Medicare, with the option
to enroll in a Medicare prescription
drug plan. This 45-day period replaces
the MA open enrollment period that
previously occurred annually from
January 1 to March 31, and eliminates
the requirements in section
1851(e)(2)(c)(iii) of the previous open
enrollment provision that required that
Part D status be maintained when an
election is made (under the previous
rule, an individual disenrolling from an
MA–PD plan to Original Medicare was
required to enroll in a Part D plan,
where it is optional under the new
provision). We propose to amend
§ 422.62(a) to provide for this new
disenrollment opportunity, and modify
§ 423.38(d) to allow for enrollment into
a standalone PDP.
We also would amend § 422.62(a) to
clarify that the open enrollment
opportunities for those beneficiaries
who are newly eligible for MA would
continue only through the end of 2010.
Additionally, we would modify
§ 422.68(f) to specify the effective date
for disenrollment requests submitted
during the new 45-day disenrollment
period. Finally, in § 423.40(d), we
would specify the enrollment effective
dates for individuals who enroll in a
standalone Medicare prescription drug
plan after disenrolling from MA during
the 45-day period. These changes would
be effective January 1, 2011.
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing these
provisions be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule.
3. Special Needs Plan (SNP) Provisions
(§ 422.2, § 422.4, § 422.101, § 422.107,
and § 422.152)
This section proposes a definition of
a fully integrated dual-eligible special
needs plan (SNP) for purposes of section
3205(b)(iv)(II) of the ACA, and
regulations implementing changes made
by the ACA which extend the SNP
program, extend provisions permitting
existing DE–SNPs that were not seeking
to expand their service areas to continue
operating through 2012, and establish a
required NCQA approval process for
SNPs.
a. Adding a Definition of Fully
Integrated Dual Eligible SNP (§ 422.2)
Section 3205 of the ACA revised
section 1853(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides
authority to apply a frailty payment
under PACE payment rules for certain
individuals under fully integrated dualeligible special needs plans described in
section 3205(b)(iv)(II) of the ACA. We
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are adding a definition of fully
integrated dual-eligible SNPs to § 422.2
that would apply for these purposes.
Under this definition, a plan—
• Is a SNP enrolling special needs
individuals entitled to medical
assistance under a State plan under
Medicaid, as defined under section
1859(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act and
§ 422.2;
• Provides dually-eligible
beneficiaries access to Medicare and
Medicaid benefits under a single
managed care organization (MCO);
• Has a capitated contract with a state
Medicaid agency that includes coverage
of specified primary, acute and, longterm care benefits and services,
consistent with State policy;
• Coordinates the delivery of covered
Medicare and Medicaid health and longterm care services, using aligned care
management and specialty care network
methods for high-risk beneficiaries; and
• Employs policies and procedures
approved by CMS and the State to
coordinate or integrate member
materials, including enrollment,
communications, grievance and appeals,
and quality assurance.
b. Extending SNP Authority
Section 3205 of the ACA revised
section 1859(f)(1) of the Act to extend
the authority for SNPs to restrict
enrollment to special needs individuals,
thereby permitting SNPs to continue to
limit enrollment to special needs
individuals through the 2013 contract
year. This extension applies to all SNP
categories, with the exception of dual
eligible SNPs that do not have a contract
with the State in which they operate as
described in section II.B.1.c. of this
proposed rule. This provision is
effective upon enactment of the ACA.
However, as indicated in section II.A. of
this proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
c. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With
State Medicaid Agencies (§ 422.107)
Section 164 of MIPPA provided that
all new dual-eligible SNPs (DE SNPs)
must have contracts with the State
Medicaid Agencies in the States in
which the SNP plans operate. The
provision also allowed existing DE SNPs
that were not seeking to expand their
service areas to continue to operate
without a State contract through the
2010 contract year as long as all other
MIPPA established requirements were
met. This authority was codified at
§ 422.107. Section 3205 of the ACA
extended this provision for existing DE
SNPs through December 31, 2012 such
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
that all new DE SNPs must have
contracts with State Medicaid agencies,
while all renewing DE SNPs that do not
have contracts with State Medicaid
agencies and are not seeking to expand
their service areas may continue to offer
DE SNPs through the 2012 contract. For
contract year 2013, all DE SNPs—new
and renewing—must have contracts
with State Medicaid agencies.
Accordingly, we propose revising
§ 422.107(d)(ii) to codify this provision.
This provision is effective upon
enactment of the ACA. However, as
indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
d. Approval of Special Needs Plans by
the National Committee for Quality
Assurance (§ 422.4, § 422.101, and
§ 422.152)
The ACA amended section 1859(f) of
the Act to require that SNPs be
approved by the National Committee for
Quality Assurance (NCQA) effective
January 1, 2012 and subsequent years.
Under this section, the NCQA approval
process shall be based on the standards
established by the Secretary.
The NCQA SNP approval process
should provide a foundation for
selecting Medicare Advantage
organizations that comprehend the
unique requirements of the SNP
program and are capable of
implementing these requirements. Both
the overall quality improvement (QI)
program description and the model of
care (MOC) are critical clinical elements
that represent the potential for the SNP
to provide integrated care for Medicare
enrollees.
New SNPs or SNPs that are expanding
their service areas are already required
to submit a QI Program Plan and a MOC
as part of the application process. For
2012, we will also require existing SNPs
to submit their QI Program and MOC
during the same application timeframe.
NCQA will review the QI program and
the MOC elements during the
application process using the standards
that are currently being developed by
CMS. NCQA would assume
responsibility for the review and scoring
of the overall QI program plan and the
MOC based on the standards developed
by CMS. While we will coordinate with
NCQA in developing these standards,
CMS will not participate in the scoring
and review of the MOC and QI program
plans.
Shortly, we will release specific
instructions and guidance to
organizations about how to submit their
QI program and MOCs. This guidance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
will include the specific criteria that
NCQA will use to evaluate the QI
program and the MOC. Also included in
the guidance will be information about
technical assistance that will be
available to the SNPs as they prepare
their QI Program and MOC submissions
as well as details on the frequency of the
SNP approval process. We are
concerned that an annual approval
process could be burdensome for plans.
Therefore, we are considering an
approval cycle that would occur
between 1 to 5 years. This approval
cycle would be designed so that the
plans that have a higher score on the
initial approval of their QI program and
MOC would be granted a longer period
before being required to be re-approved.
While plans that scored at the lower end
of the acceptable spectrum would be
granted a shorter period before the next
approval was required. We are also
considering using other quality
improvement measures to help
determine the length of time a plan may
have before reapproval. For example,
plans that score well during their
annual quality improvement audits may
be eligible for extensions to the time
period for the approval process. We
would like to use the public comment
period to help to determine the
appropriate frequency for the SNP
approval process.
We are conducting a review of the
MOCs from a sample of the SNPs. Data
are not yet available from these audits.
However, it is anticipated that the
audits will be completed by the end of
the calendar year. Information received
from the audits will be used to assist
CMS in revising and improving the
MOC. In addition, we intend to use this
information to modify and refine the
required evaluation criteria over time to
improve the QI program and the MOC.
Accordingly, we propose adding a
new paragraph (iv) to § 422.4(a) to
require MA plans wishing to offer a
SNP, whether new or current, to be
approved by NCQA, effective January 1,
2012, by submitting their overall quality
QI program and MOC to CMS for NCQA
evaluation and approval, per CMS
guidance. We also propose codifying the
new requirement at § 422.101(f), which
specifies MOC requirements, by adding
a new paragraph (vi). Finally we
propose codifying the new requirement
by revising § 422.152(g), which specifies
QI program requirements.
4. Section 1876 Cost Contractor
Competition Requirements (§ 417.402)
Section 3206 of the ACA revised
section 1876(h)(5)(C) of the Act to
extend implementation of the section
1876 cost contract competition
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71199
provisions until January 1, 2013.
Previously, MIPPA had specified that
section 1876 cost contractors operating
in service areas or portions of service
areas with two or more local or two or
more regional Medicare coordinated
care plans meeting minimum
enrollment requirements (5,000
enrollees for urban areas and 1,500
enrollees for non urban areas) be nonrenewed beginning in 2010. In addition,
MIPPA specified that MA plan
enrollment be assessed over a full
contract year.
As a result of the ACA revision, we
will evaluate enrollment of competing
MA coordinated care plans beginning
2012, and affected section 1876 cost
contractors will receive non-renewal
notices beginning 2013. Beginning in
2014, section 1876 cost contractors will
no longer be able to offer health care
services in affected service areas. We
propose to revise § 417.402(c) to specify
the statutory change in the
implementation date of the section 1876
cost plan competition requirements
from 2010 to 2013.
This provision is effective upon
enactment of the ACA. However, as
indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
5. Making Senior Housing Facility
Demonstration Plans Permanent (§ 422.2
and § 422.53)
Section 3208 of the ACA establishes
(at section 1859(g) of the Act) that as of
January 1, 2010, senior housing facility
plans participating as of December 31,
2009 ‘‘in a demonstration project
established by the Secretary under
which such a plan was offered for not
less than 1 year’’ may continue
participation as Medicare Advantage
senior housing facility plans. MA senior
housing facility plans must:
• Limit enrollment to residents of
continuing care retirement communities
as defined in section 1852(l)(4)(B) and
codified at § 422.133(b)(2)—that is, an
arrangement under which housing and
health-related services are provided (or
arranged) through an organization for
the enrollee under an agreement that is
effective for the life of the enrollee or for
a specified period;
• Provide primary care services onsite
and have a ratio of accessible physicians
to beneficiaries that the Secretary
determines is adequate; and
• Provide transportation services for
beneficiaries to specialty providers
outside of the facility.
We propose to amend the definitions
section at § 422.2 to include ‘‘senior
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71200
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
housing facility plan’’ as a new
coordinated care plan type. Our
proposed definition of the term senior
housing facility plan would be
consistent with the statutory
requirements for such plans at section
1859(g) of the Act—that is, that such
plan restrict enrollment to individuals
who reside in a continuing care
retirement community as defined in
§ 422.133(b)(2); provide primary care
services onsite and have a ratio of
accessible physicians to beneficiaries
that we determine is adequate
consistent with prevailing patterns of
community health care as provided
under § 422.112(a)(10); provide
transportation services for beneficiaries
to specialty providers outside of the
facility; and was participating as of
December 31, 2009 in a demonstration
established by us for not less than 1
year. We note that a senior housing
facility plan must otherwise meet all
requirements applicable to MA
organizations under this part.
In addition, we propose to add a new
§ 422.53 to subpart B of Part 422 to
address the eligibility and enrollment
policies applicable to senior housing
facility plans. We propose specifying at
§ 422.53 that MA senior housing facility
plans must restrict enrollment in these
plans to residents of continuing care
retirement communities, and that
individuals enrolled in such plans must
meet all other MA eligibility
requirements in order to be eligible to
enroll. In addition, we propose
specifying at § 422.53(c) that an MA
senior housing facility plan must verify
the eligibility of each individual
enrolling in its plan using a CMS
approved process. As indicated in
section II.A. of this proposed rule, we
propose that the regulations
implementing this provision be effective
60 days after the publication of the final
rule.
6. Authority To Deny Bids (§ 422.254,
§ 422.256, § 423.265, and § 423.272)
Section 3209 of the ACA amends
section 1854(a)(5) of the Act by adding
subsections (C)(i) and (ii) to provide that
nothing in section 1854 of the Act shall
be construed as requiring the Secretary
to accept any or every bid submitted by
an MA organization, and expressly
provides that the Secretary may deny a
bid submitted by an MA organization
for an MA plan if it proposes significant
increases in cost sharing or decreases in
benefits offered under the plan. Section
3209 also extends these provisions to
apply to the review of bids from Part D
sponsors by amending section 1860D–
11(d) of the Act to add a new paragraph
(3). This statutory authority applies to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
bids submitted for contract years
beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
However, as indicated in section II.A. of
this proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
We believe that these amendments
clarify the Secretary’s authority to deny
bids submitted by MA organizations and
PDP sponsors and provide support for
our current policies intended to
encourage plans that are high quality,
meaningfully different from each other,
and nondiscriminatory with respect to
cost sharing. In our final rule entitled
‘‘Policy and Technical Changes to the
Medicare Advantage and the Medicare
Prescription Drug Benefit Programs’’ (75
FR 19678), we established authority to
impose limits on cost sharing and to
deny bids submitted by plans with
sustained low enrollment, and for plans
not meaningfully different from other
plans offered by the same MA
organization or PDP sponsor in a service
area. We provided further guidance
related to these policies via the Health
Plan Management System (HPMS) on
April 16, 2010 (‘‘Benefits Policy and
Operations Guidance Regarding Bid
Submissions; Duplicative and Low
Enrollment Plans; Cost Sharing
Standards; General Benefits Policy
Issues; and Plan Benefits Package (PBP)
Reminders for Contract Year (CY)
2011’’and ‘‘2011 Part D Plan Benefit
Package (PBP) Submission and Review
Instructions’’).
Using our authority under sections
1857(c)(2)(B) and 1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of
the Act, we codified requirements in
§ 422.506(b)(1)(iv) and
§ 423.507(b)(1)(iii) for Part C and Part D,
respectively, to non-renew a health plan
or prescription drug plan (at the benefitpackage level) if the plan does not have
sufficient number of enrollees to
establish that it is a viable independent
plan option. Consistent with that
authority, we scrutinized lowenrollment plans during the bid review
period this year and encouraged
sponsors to withdraw or consolidate
low-enrollment plans prior to
submitting bids for CY 2011. We revised
§ 422.256(b)(4)(i) and § 423.272(b)(3)(i)
to stipulate that we would only approve
a bid submitted by a MA organization or
Part D sponsor if its benefit package or
plan cost structure is substantially
different from those of other plan
offerings by the organization or sponsor
in the service area with respect to key
characteristics such as premiums, costsharing, formulary structure, or benefits
offered. Related changes to
§ 422.254(a)(4) and § 423.265(b)(2)
provide that MA organizations and Part
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
D sponsors may submit multiple bids in
the same area only if the offerings are
substantially different from each other.
In the above-mentioned April 16, 2010
guidance for PDP sponsors, for the CY
2011 plan year, we defined meaningful
differences between health plans as a
$20 per member per month difference
(PMPM) in cost sharing and for PDPs as
a $22 PMPM difference in cost sharing
(not including premiums) as reflected in
the out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) data.
We further indicated that we do not
believe sponsors can demonstrate
meaningful differences based on
expected out-of-pocket costs between
two stand-alone basic Part D benefit
designs and maintain both statutory
actuarial equivalence requirements and
fulfill the requirement (in § 423.153(b))
to maintain cost-effective drug
utilization review programs. Therefore,
we indicated that PDP sponsors should
submit only one basic offering (where
basic offering includes defined
standard, actuarial equivalent or basic
alternative drug benefit types) for a
stand-alone prescription drug plan in a
service area. We also are increasing our
scrutiny of the expected cost sharing
amounts incurred by beneficiaries under
coinsurance tiers, in order to more
consistently compare copay and
coinsurance cost sharing impacts. If a
sponsor submitted coinsurance values
(instead of copayment values) for its
formulary tiers, we requested
documentation from the sponsor on the
average expected price for medications
on the coinsurance tier(s) in order to
better translate the coinsurance value
into an average cost sharing amount for
the purpose of our anti-discrimination
review. These additional benefit and
formulary evaluations are in addition to
our formulary review and analysis of
tier placement of drugs to ensure that
the coverage is balanced and that the
associated cost sharing does not
discriminate against beneficiaries with a
certain disease or diagnosis category.
Therefore, we have already established,
in effect, a bid review policy that
evaluates the limits plans place on
member benefits and cost sharing.
Under authority clarified in section
3209 of the ACA to decline to accept
bids, we believe that we can choose to
limit the number and/or type of plans
offered in service areas to enhance our
ability to achieve our goals, which are
to protect beneficiaries from confusion,
discriminatory cost sharing, and any but
the highest performing plans. For
instance, for CY 2011, we are requiring
that MA organizations and PDP
sponsors meet new cost sharing
standards, ensure that meaningful
differences exist between plan offerings,
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and consolidate or terminate plans with
sustained low enrollment. Although we
are not now proposing to establish
additional restrictive criteria for CY
2012, we considered proposing
additional regulatory restrictions and
assessed the expected effects of such
additional restrictions on MA
organizations, PDP sponsors, and
beneficiaries. For example, we believe
the Secretary has authority under
section 3209 by regulation to set specific
thresholds limiting premium increases
that can be imposed without a bid being
denied, limit which MA organizations
and PDP sponsors may offer plans based
on quality ratings, and specify caps on
the number or the types of plans that
may be offered in a service area.
We concluded that we would not
propose such additional restrictions
limiting MA organizations’ or PDP
sponsors’ plan bids until we were able
to evaluate the effectiveness of the
limits in place for CY 2011. We also are
aware of the many changes we required
plans to make for CY 2011 and believe
that allowing plans time to adjust to the
most recent policies prior to
implementing further restrictions may
be the most advantageous and
reasonable approach for CMS, Medicare
beneficiaries, and the organizations and
sponsors. Thus, although we believe the
new authority strengthens our ability to
take corrective action in the event that
MA organizations and PDP sponsors do
not meet the criteria in our current
regulation and subsequent guidance, we
realize that setting further limits before
we have enough information to evaluate
the effectiveness of our recent policy
changes or their effects on the market
may be premature.
Furthermore, with respect to Part C,
we believe that the implementation of
specific non-acceptance and denial
policies based on comparisons of
premium and cost sharing increases and
benefit decreases from year to year
would be especially challenging
considering the number of plan types
and services offered by MA
organizations. There would be serious
difficulties with an effective
quantitative premium and cost sharing
evaluation process. Such a process
would need to measure and adjust for
annual changes in maximum out-ofpocket limits, Original Medicare costsharing and premiums, medical cost
inflation, MA payment policy, benefit
designs, and plan service expansions
and reductions. Such a process might
well turn out to be too rigid to adapt to
rapidly changing circumstances and
market conditions.
To avoid such rigidity, and to
promote the statutory goals (including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
protection of beneficiaries from
confusion and discriminatory cost
sharing), we do not propose to specify
additional criteria such as thresholds
(either absolute or relative to the
distribution of bids received) limiting
acceptable premium increases. But we
do seek comment on our proposed
approach and on possible alternatives,
designed to balance the need to avoid
rigidity while promoting clarity and
predictability. We are specifically
soliciting public comments from the
industry and advocacy communities
regarding the criteria outlined in our
April 16, 2010 guidance issued via
HPMS and whether we should establish
additional requirements to limit plan
offerings in a service area. We also
invite comment as to whether there are
other measures we should consider as
part of future rulemaking that may help
us in our efforts to protect beneficiaries
and promote provision of high quality,
affordable health plans. We also solicit
comments on whether we should adopt
other substantive criteria for exercising
our authority under section 3209 of the
ACA by implementing caps, or limits,
on the number of plans offered in a
region, or on the number of sponsors
participating in the program. For
example, for contract year 2011, we
identified plan outliers based on
changes in premiums and cost-sharing
and required some changes to plan bids
in order for them to be approved. We
solicit comment on this and other,
similar approaches of using outlier
analyses based on previous and/or
current contract year bids to exercise
our authority under section 3209 of the
ACA. We ask the industry and advocacy
communities what we should consider
when limiting the acceptance of plan
bids or denying plan bids (for example,
comparability and access to services in
certain service areas, plan performance,
outlier plans with the highest bids),
were we to choose to move in that
direction. Finally, we solicit comment
on the best way to ensure fair notice and
equal treatment for all plan bids in the
absence of specific non-acceptance and
denial policies. Our decision not to
propose additional specific criteria for
CY 2012 should not be interpreted as an
indication that we will not adopt
specific policies in future rulemaking or
that we will not perform robust and
thorough reviews of bid submissions.
We will continue to use our statutory
and regulatory authority to ensure that
only high value, non-discriminatory,
and actuarially sound bid submissions
are approved as we evaluate the effects
of our current cost sharing, meaningful
differences and low-enrollment policies
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71201
and consider the timely suggestions and
comments we receive from the public
on this proposed rule to guide our
future policy. Additionally, we note that
our discretion to make determinations
that MA plan bids propose significant
increases in cost sharing or decreases in
benefits offered on a case-by-case basis,
in accordance with statutory goals, is
limited to consideration of the criteria
for acceptance or denial of plan bids
that have been established via
rulemaking and guidance.
We propose to codify the amendments
made to sections 1854(a)(5) and 1860D–
11(d) of the Act by adding paragraph
(a)(5) to § 422.254, revising § 422.256(a),
adding paragraph (b)(3) to § 423.265 and
by adding paragraph (b)(4) to § 423.272.
7. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
The ACA amends the statute
governing the calculation of the LIS
benchmark premium amount. Section
1860D–14(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, as
amended by the ACA, requires us to
calculate the LIS benchmarks using
MA–PD basic Part D premiums before
the application of Part C rebates each
year, beginning with 2011. This
proposed rule updates the regulations at
§ 423.780(b)(2)(ii)(C) to incorporate this
change. As indicated in section II.A. of
this proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
We note that the ACA also requires us
to calculate the low-income premium
benchmarks before the application of
the quality bonuses under section
1853(o) of the Act. The ACA section
1102(d) ties the level of rebate to a
plan’s star rating for quality of
performance. Since the quality bonus is
part of the rebate, we do not refer to this
requirement in the regulation text. The
quality bonus is described in more
detail in the Medicare Advantage
Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments,
and Rebate section (see section II.B.20.
of this proposed rule).
8. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
Section 3303(a) of the ACA modifies
section 1860D–14(a) of the Act by
creating a new subsection (5) that
permits PDPs and MA–PD plans to
waive a de minimis monthly beneficiary
premium for low income subsidy (LIS)
eligible individuals who are enrolled in
the plan. The provision also prohibits
the Secretary from reassigning LIS
individuals the plan’s premium was
greater than the LIS benchmark
premium amount, so long as amount of
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71202
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the premium is de minimis and the plan
waives it.
Section 3303(b) of the ACA modifies
section 1860D–1(b)(1) of the Act that
permits the Secretary to include PDPs
and MA–PD plans that waive the de
minimis amount in the auto-enrollment
process that we use to enroll those LIS
eligible individuals who fail to enroll in
a Part D plan. If these plans are included
in the process, and there is more than
one plan, the statute requires that
enrollees be randomly assigned among
all such plans in the PDP region. We
propose to amend regulations in
§ 423.34 and § 423.780(f) to codify the
new statutory requirements. The
statutory provision is effective January
1, 2011. However, as indicated in
section II.A. of this proposed rule, we
propose that the regulations
implementing these provisions be
effective 60 days after the publication of
the final rule.
a. Reassigning LIS Individuals (§ 423.34)
Currently, § 423.34(c) specifies that
CMS may reassign certain low income
subsidy eligible individuals if CMS
determines that further enrollment is
warranted. We have used this authority
to reassign LIS eligible individuals
annually when a PDP’s monthly
beneficiary premium amount is going to
exceed the low income benchmark as
calculated in § 423.780(b)(2). As noted
above, the ACA prohibits the Secretary
from reassigning a plan’s LIS eligible
enrollees based on the fact that the
plan’s monthly beneficiary premium
exceeds the LIS benchmark premium
amount, so long as the amount of
premium is de minimis and the plan
volunteers to waive the amount by
which their monthly premium exceeds
the LIS benchmark. Thus, plans that
would otherwise have lost enrollees
because of a de minimis monthly
beneficiary premium can retain their
membership. We are proposing to
amend § 423.34(c) regarding
reassignment of LIS beneficiaries to
reflect section 1860D–1(a)(5) of the Act.
b. Enrollment of LIS-Eligible Individuals
(§ 423.34)
Currently, § 423.34(d) specifies that
CMS enroll LIS eligible individuals who
fail to enroll in a PDP. The PDP into
which we auto-enroll these individuals
are those plans with monthly
beneficiary premiums for LIS eligible
individuals that do not exceed the low
income benchmark as calculated in
§ 423.780(b)(2).
We are proposing to amend
§ 423.34(d) regarding auto-enrollment of
LIS eligible individuals to be consistent
with section 1860D–1(b)(1) of the Act,
as modified by the ACA. We will
provide details on when we will use
this discretion in forthcoming guidance,
specifically operational guidance
memorandums as well as in Chapter 3
on Eligibility, Enrollment, and
Disenrollment of the Medicare
Prescription Drug Benefit Manual. We
expect that we will not auto-enroll or
reassign beneficiaries into plans that
volunteer to waive the de minimis
amount. The only exception would be
in cases where the reassignments would
allow beneficiaries to remain within the
same parent organization. Plans within
the same organization usually have the
same formulary, so keeping a person
within the same organizations
minimizes disruption. This mimics the
policy in place during the de minimis
demonstration from 2007 and 2008. The
goal of that policy was to minimize
reassignments, while maintaining
downward pressure on Part D bids by
not rewarding de minimis plans with
new enrollees. Beneficiaries with 100
percent premium subsidy who are
already enrolled in, or voluntarily elect,
a PDP or MA–PD plan that waives the
de minimis amount will not be liable for
premiums. Although we do not intend
to exercise this discretion by including
Part D plans that waive the de minimis
amount in the pool of Part D plans
qualified to receive auto-enrollees or
reassignees, we do believe that the D
regulations should be modified so that
the flexibility to do so can be
maintained.
c. Premium Subsidy (§ 423.780)
We are also proposing to amend
§ 423.780(f) to reflect section 1860D–
14(a)(5) of the Act. In addition, because
section 1860D–14(a)(5) of the Act refers
to waivers of de minimis premium that
exceeds the low-income benchmark,
which accounts only for the basic
benefit, we propose to limit the waiver
of the de minimis amount to the
premium applicable to the basic benefit.
We will determine the de minimis
amount taking into consideration the
goal of minimizing reassignments
without undue cost to the program. We
will announce the de minimis amount
each August, in conjunction with our
announcement of the LIS benchmarks.
Plans will volunteer as part of the bid
finalization process. Additional details
will be provided in forthcoming
guidance.
9. Increase In Part D Premiums Due to
the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D—IRMAA)
(§ 423.44, § 423.286, and § 423.293)
Section 3308 of the ACA amended
section 1860D–13(a) of the Act by
establishing an income related monthly
adjustment amount (hereafter referred to
as Part D—IRMAA) that is added to the
monthly Part D premium for individuals
whose modified adjusted gross income
exceeds the same income threshold
amounts established under section
1839(i) of the Act with respect to the
Medicare Part B income-related monthly
adjustment amount (Part B—IRMAA).
In calendar year (CY) 2007, the
income ranges set forth in section
1839(i) of the Act required that
individual and joint tax filers enrolled
in Part B whose modified adjusted gross
income exceeded $80,000 and $160,000,
respectively, would be assessed the Part
B—IRMAA on a sliding scale. As
specified in section 1839(i)(5) of the
Act, since the implementation of the
Part B—IRMAA, each dollar amount
within the income threshold tiers has
been adjusted annually based on the
Consumer Price Index. As a result of the
annual adjustment, for calendar year
2010, the income threshold amounts
were increased to reflect the four
income threshold amount tiers shown
below:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Individual tax filers with income:
Joint tax filers with income:
Equal to or less than $85,000 ...................................................
Greater than $85,000 and less than or equal to 107,000 .........
Greater than $107,000 and less than or equal to $160,000 .....
Greater than $160,000 and less than or equal to $214,000 .....
Greater than $214,000 ..............................................................
Equal to or less than $170,000 ................................................
Greater than $170,000 and less than or equal to $214,000 ...
Greater than $214,000 and less than or equal to $320,000 ...
Greater than $320,000 and less than or equal to $428,000 ...
Greater than $428,000 .............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Premium
percentage
0—No IRMAA.
35.
50.
65.
80.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
We note that section 3402 of the ACA
freezes the income thresholds at the
above 2010 levels through 2019.
In accordance with section 3308 of
the ACA, effective January 1, 2011, any
individual enrolled in the Medicare
prescription drug program whose
modified adjusted gross income exceeds
the same income threshold amount tiers
established under Part B will have an
income related increase to his/her Part
D monthly premium. Section 3308 of
the ACA provides that the income
related monthly amount for Part D will
be calculated using the Part D national
base beneficiary premium and the
premium percentages in the above chart
as follows: BBP x [(P percent ¥25.5
percent)/25.5 percent]. The BBP is the
base beneficiary premium and P percent
is the applicable premium percentage
(35 percent, 50 percent, 65 percent, or
80 percent). The premium percentage
used in the calculation will depend on
the level of the Part D enrollee’s
modified adjusted gross income.
Section 3308 of the ACA requires us
to provide the Social Security
Administration (SSA) with the national
base beneficiary premium amount used
to calculate the Part D—IRMAA, no later
than September 15 of every year,
beginning in 2010. We must also
provide SSA, no later than October 15
of each year, beginning 2010, with: (1)
The modified adjusted gross income
threshold ranges; (2) the applicable
percentages established for Part D—
IRMAA in accordance with section
1839(i) of the Act; (3) the corresponding
monthly adjustment amounts; and (4)
any other information SSA deems
necessary to carry out the Part D—
IRMAA. With respect to the final item,
we will provide SSA with an initial list
of all individuals enrolled in the Part D
program. In accordance with section
3308 of the ACA, SSA will use this
initial list of Part D enrollees to request
beneficiary-specific tax payer
information from the Internal Revenue
Service in order to determine: (1) Which
Part D enrollees exceed the income
threshold amounts established under
section 1839(i) of the Act; and (2) the
income related monthly adjustment
amount that these enrollees must pay.
This exchange of information between
CMS and SSA will occur in 2010 so that
individuals identified will be billed the
correct Part D—IRMAA beginning
January 1, 2011. Following this initial
data exchange with SSA, CMS will
routinely provide SSA with the names
of all individuals newly enrolling in the
Part D program so that SSA can repeat
the process of identifying individuals
who must pay the Part D—IRMAA and
the specific income related amount. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
will also routinely provide the names of
individuals who have disenrolled from
the Part D program so that such
individuals will no longer be assessed
the Part D—IRMAA. In cases where an
individual disagrees with a
determination that he/she is subject to
the Part D—IRMAA, such individual
may appeal to SSA in the same manner
that has been established for the Part
B—IRMAA under 20 CFR Part 418.
Section 3308 of the ACA also
stipulates that the Part D—IRMAA must
be withheld from benefit payments in
accordance with section 1840 of the Act.
Therefore, in cases where an individual
is receiving benefit payments from SSA,
the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), or
the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the Part D—IRMAA must be
withheld from such benefit payments.
However, if the benefit payment is
insufficient to allow the Part D—IRMAA
withholding, or an individual is not
receiving benefit payments as described
in section 1840 of the Act, section 3308
of the ACA requires SSA to enter into
agreements with CMS, RRB, and OPM,
as necessary, in order to allow the Part
D—IRMAA to be collected directly from
these beneficiaries.
To implement section 3308 of the
ACA, we are proposing to revise
§ 423.286 (rules regarding premiums),
§ 423.293 (collection of monthly
beneficiary premium), and § 423.44
(involuntary disenrollment by PDP).
a. Rules Regarding Premiums
(§ 423.286)
Currently, § 423.286(a) provides that
the monthly beneficiary premium for a
Part D plan in a PDP region is the same
for all Part D-eligible individuals
enrolled in the plan with the exception
of employer group waivers, the
assessment of the Part D late enrollment
penalty, or an enrollee receiving lowincome assistance. We propose to revise
§ 423.286(a) to include the assessment
of the income related monthly
adjustment amount as another exception
to the requirement for a uniform
monthly beneficiary premium for a Part
D plan in a PDP region.
We also propose to add a new
§ 423.286(d)(4) to define the increase for
the income related monthly adjustment
amount for Part D. This provision would
specify that, beginning, January 1, 2011,
the monthly beneficiary premium
amount would be increased for any
individual whose modified adjusted
gross income amount exceeds the
minimum income threshold amounts
established at 20 CFR 418.1115 for the
Part B—IRMAA. Additionally, proposed
§ 423.286(d)(4)(i) would specify that
SSA would determine the individuals
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71203
that are subject to the Part D—IRMAA
and the amount of the adjustment.
Proposed § 423.286(d)(4)(ii) would
provide the formula used to calculate
the monthly adjustment amount.
Finally, proposed § 423.286(d)(4)(iii)–
(iv) would provide appeals rights to
individual who disagree with SSA’s
determination that they are subject to
Part D—IRMAA or the threshold
amount.
b. Collection of Monthly Beneficiary
Premium (§ 423.293)
We are proposing to establish a new
§ 423.293(d)(1) that describes how the
Part D—IRMAA would be collected.
First, we would address the process for
collecting the Part D—IRMAA from
SSA, RRB or OPM benefit payments. In
cases where SSA had determined that a
Part D enrollee must pay an income
related monthly adjustment amount,
such amount must be paid through
withholding from the enrollee’s Social
Security benefit payments, or benefit
payments by the RRB or OPM in the
manner that the Part B premium is
withheld. Additionally, we would
establish at § 423.293(d)(2) that in cases
where premium withholding is not
possible because the monthly benefit
check is insufficient to allow the
withholding, or the enrollee is not
receiving any monthly benefit payment,
the individual must be directly billed
for the Part D—IRMAA through an
electronic funds transfer mechanism
(such as automatic charges of an
account at a financial institution or a
credit or debit card account) or
according to other means that we may
specify.
Section 3308 of the ACA provides that
the Part D—IRMAA is an increase to the
monthly beneficiary premium for
certain individuals. Section
1851(g)(B)(i) of the Act, as incorporated
by section 1860D–1(b)(5) of the Act,
establishes that a beneficiary may be
terminated for failing to pay his/her Part
D premiums. Although the Part D—
IRMAA is paid to CMS (via benefit
payment withholdings or direct billing
as described above), and not to the PDP,
we believe the same consequences
should apply for failure to pay the Part
D—IRMAA as for failure to pay plan
premiums. Therefore, we are proposing,
at § 423.293(d)(3), that CMS would
terminate Part D coverage for any
individual who fails to pay the income
related monthly adjustment amount in
accordance with proposed § 423.44.
c. Involuntary Disenrollment by CMS
(§ 423.44)
Section 3308 of the ACA provides that
the Part D—IRMAA increases the
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71204
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
monthly beneficiary premium for
individuals who are subject to the
assessment. Therefore, we propose to
apply provisions similar to the existing
Part D premium rules to terminate Part
D coverage for any individual who fails
to pay the Part D—IRMAA. However,
prior to terminating coverage, we
propose to provide the beneficiary with
a grace period to pay the Part D—
IRMAA. We propose to add § 423.44(e),
to specify the involuntary disenrollment
process by CMS when an individual
fails to pay the Part D—IRMAA.
Section 1860D–13(c) of the Act
provides that enrollees’ Part D coverage
can be terminated if they fail to pay
their Part D premiums to the PDP after
a grace period and adequate notice has
been provided. In cases where enrollees’
Part D coverage is terminated due to
their failure to pay premiums, Medicare
rules do not now provide reinstatement
if the enrollee later pays the premium
arrearages after the termination date. We
note that section C.8 of this preamble
addresses our proposal to amend
§ 423.44(d)(1) to reinstate a beneficiary’s
enrollment into Part D if the beneficiary
demonstrates good cause for failing to
pay the Part D premium. Additionally,
terminated enrollees cannot re-enroll in
a stand-alone Part D or MA–PD plan
unless they have a valid enrollment
period. Consequently, waiting for a
valid enrollment period may create a
period in which an individual is
without coverage and, depending on the
duration, the enrollee may incur a Part
D late enrollment penalty. Therefore, we
propose to create a grace period and an
extension of the grace period for good
cause and reinstatement at § 423.44(e)(2)
and (3) for individuals subject to the
Part D—IRMAA. Although CMS
recently extended the grace period that
PDPs must provide enrollees before
disenrolling them for failure to pay their
premium (75 FR 19816) from a
minimum of 1 month to 2 months, we
propose to apply a longer grace period
with respect to the Part D—IRMAA. The
extended grace period under this
proposed provision would be similar to
the grace period (and extension of the
initial grace period) afforded
individuals under section 1838(b) of the
Act with respect to the Part B premium
(including the Part B—IRMAA).
We believe that it is appropriate to
provide additional beneficiary
flexibility in terms of a longer grace
period for the Part D—IRMAA because
section 3308 of the ACA does not
impact the direct subsidy amount that
CMS is required to pay Part D plan
sponsors. Specifically, the Part D—
IRMAA is not a reduction in the direct
subsidy that CMS pays to PDPs; instead,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
it is an income-based amount paid to
CMS in addition to the premium that is
paid by the enrollee to his/her Part D
plan. Thus, an extended grace period
would not impact PDPs negatively.
Furthermore, the extended grace period
would allow the beneficiary more time
to pay the Part D—IRMAA arrearages
and avoid an immediate disenrollment
that would leave the beneficiary without
Part D coverage sooner. Therefore, we
are proposing to allow all enrollees a
minimum grace period of 3 months
following the billing month to pay any
Part D—IRMAA arrearages before they
are disenrolled from their Part D plan.
In addition, we propose that an
enrollee’s Part D coverage may be
reinstated without interruption if the
enrollee, within 3 calendar months after
the termination date, demonstrates
‘‘good cause’’ (as defined under
§ 423.44(d)(1)(iv)of this proposed rule)
for failure to pay Part D—IRMAA during
the initial grace period, pays all Part D—
IRMAA arrearages, and does not owe
any plan premiums to the PDP. CMS (or
an entity acting on behalf of CMS) will
determine whether the beneficiary has
demonstrated ‘‘good cause.’’
We are also proposing at
§ 423.44(e)(4) to require PDPs, after
notification by CMS, to notify enrollees
of the termination of their enrollment in
the Part D plan in a form and manner
determined by CMS. We are also
proposing to add a provision at
§ 423.44(e)(5) that would stipulate that
in cases where an enrollee has been
directly billed for the Part D—IRMAA
and provided with the appropriate grace
period as described above, the enrollee’s
termination will be effective the first
day following the last day of the initial
grace period. That is, the enrollee’s last
day of Part D coverage would be the last
day of the grace period.
Finally, we propose to modify the title
of § 423.44 from ‘‘Involuntary
disenrollment by the PDP’’ to
‘‘Involuntary Disenrollment from Part D
Coverage.’’ The new title would
encompass disenrollments at the behest
of both PDPs and CMS. In addition to
disenrollments for failure to pay the Part
D—IRMAA, examples of disenrollments
that may be initiated by CMS include
disenrollment due to death or loss of
entitlement to Medicare Parts A or B.
10. Elimination of Medicare Part D CostSharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
The MMA, as reflected in § 423.782,
established that full-benefit dual eligible
institutionalized individuals have no
cost-sharing for covered Part D drugs
under their PDP or MA–PD plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Section 3309 of the ACA also eliminates
cost-sharing for full-benefit dual eligible
individuals who are receiving home and
community-based services (HCBS)
under a home and community-based
waiver authorized for a State under
section 1115 or subsection (c) or (d) of
section 1915 of the Act, or under a State
Plan Amendment under section 1915(i)
of the Act, or if such services are
provided through enrollment in a
Medicaid managed care organization
with a contract under section 1903(m)
or 1932 of the Act. These services are
targeted to frail, elderly individuals
who, without the delivery in their home
of services such as personal care
services, would be at risk of
institutionalization. We propose to
amend § 423.772 to establish the
definition of ‘‘individual receiving home
and community-based services’’ and
§ 423.782(a)(2)(ii) to reflect that these
individuals will have no cost-sharing.
The Best Available Evidence policy in
42 CFR 423.800—which requires plans
to charge a lower copayment if certain
evidence is provided—is written
broadly enough that it will apply to this
new copayment category without any
further regulatory changes. We will
update our guidance to plans to provide
additional detail on how the Best
Available Evidence regulation applies to
this population.
Section 3309 of the ACA provides the
Secretary the discretion regarding the
effective date of this provision, with the
stipulation that it shall be effective no
earlier than January 1, 2012. We rely on
data from State Medicaid agencies,
submitted to us no less frequently than
monthly, to identify the individuals in
the State who are full-benefit dual
eligibles and are institutionalized. These
data allow us to set these individuals’
Part D cost-sharing to zero. To expand
the population entitled to zero costsharing to include individuals receiving
home and community-based services,
states would be required to identify
these additional individuals in their
data to CMS.
We are proposing that this provision
take effect on January 1, 2012. We
believe it is important to provide this
benefit at the earliest possible date,
since it will provide assistance to an
estimated 600,000 beneficiaries a year.
In proposing an effective date, we
considered the administrative impact on
States, and we believe that even the
earliest possible effective date will
provide States with adequate time for
implementation.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
11. Appropriate Dispensing of
Prescription Drugs in Long-Term Care
Facilities Under PDPs and MA–PD
Plans (§ 423.154)
Section 3310 of the ACA provides that
the Secretary shall require Part D
sponsors to utilize specific, uniform
dispensing techniques, as determined
by the Secretary in consultation with
relevant stakeholders, such as weekly,
daily, or automated dose dispensing
when dispensing covered Part D drugs
to enrollees who reside in long-term
care (LTC) facilities in order to reduce
waste associated with 30-day fills. We
propose to implement this requirement
by adding a new regulation at § 423.154
to govern how plan sponsors handle
dispensing of covered Part D drugs in
LTC facilities. The provisions of this
regulation will apply to all
organizations and sponsors offering Part
D including stand alone Part D plans,
MA organizations, EGWP contracts, and
PACE plans.
Consistent with section 3310 of the
ACA, we consulted with a number of
stakeholders about dispensing in the
LTC arena and their recommendations
for implementing section 3310 of the
ACA. On March 19, 2010, we
participated in the ‘‘Short Cycle
Dispensing Focus Group for Long Term
Care’’ program hosted by the National
Council for Prescription Drug Programs
(NCPDP). The well attended focus group
brought together pharmacies servicing
LTC facilities, LTC facilities, vendors,
prescription drug plans, and pharmacy
benefit managers (PBMs). The objective
of the conference was to discuss the
implementation of 7-day-or-less
dispensing from various points of view.
We announced our open-door policy in
several industry forums and have also
actively reached out to all industry
groups we could identify. We have
consulted with a wide spectrum of
industry stakeholders including
professional organizations and trade
groups; providers of LTC pharmacy
services; vendors for automated
dispensing technologies, pre-pack filling
equipment and software; Part D
sponsors; group purchasing
organizations; LTC pharmacy networks;
and pharmacy benefit managers. On
June 29, 2010, we hosted a meeting on
long-term care waste and the
implementation of section 3310 of the
ACA. The meeting brought together
leaders in the LTC industry including
nursing and pharmacy professional
organizations, LTC facilities, and LTC
pharmacies. The industry has been
helpful in providing recommendations
for implementing Section 3310 of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
ACA to reduce waste associated with
30-day dispensing.
We consider ‘‘waste’’ to occur when a
Part D drug is dispensed to a Part D
enrollee residing in a LTC facility and
billed to a Part D sponsor, but is not
consumed by the Part D enrollee. Waste
may occur, for example, when treatment
with the Part D drug has been
discontinued, the Part D enrollee has
been discharged to the community, the
Part D enrollee has been hospitalized, or
the Part D enrollee has died, leaving
unused dispensed drugs.
Under § 423.154 (a)(1)(i), we propose
to require all pharmacies servicing longterm care facilities, as defined in
§ 423.100, to dispense brand-name
medications, as defined in § 423.4, to
enrollees in such facilities in no greater
than 7-day increments at a time. During
our discussions with the industry,
multiple parties reported that 75 percent
to 80 percent of the cost of drug wastage
arises from only 20 percent of the drugs.
That 20 percent is made up exclusively
of brand-name medications. In an effort
to target the drugs resulting in the most
financial waste and to lessen the burden
for facilities transitioning from 30-day
supplies to 7-day supplies, we propose
initially limiting the requirement for
7-day-or-less dispensing to brand-name
drugs as defined in § 423.4. However,
nothing precludes LTC pharmacies and
facilities from expanding 7-day-or-less
dispensing to more than brand-name
drugs, and we encourage Part D
sponsors to facilitate that practice.
While we considered imposing the
7-day dispensing requirement for all
drugs at once, in consultation with
industry representatives, we have
concluded that a transitional approach
would ease the initial burden on
nursing facility nursing staff time and
LTC pharmacy pharmacist staff time, in
particular by reducing the number of
products for which a pharmacy would
have to transition from dispensing one
30-day supply per month to dispensing
at least four 7-day supplies per month.
Many industry participants in our
consultative phone interviews and faceto-face meetings indicated that they
believed it would be feasible to change
quickly to 7-days-or-less dispensing for
the 20 percent of total scripts (that is,
those for brand-name drugs). Although
other industry representatives opined
that a transitional approach was not
necessary and that the additional labor
associated with four times as many
dispensing events per month on all
applicable medications was being
overestimated. Nonetheless, we are not
aware of any objective data which
demonstrate the cost effectiveness of
full versus partial implementation, and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71205
thus we believe the more prudent
course is to proceed with a transitional
approach. If such data does exist, we
welcome comments from the public
presenting such data. Therefore, our
proposal would apply the 7-day-or-less
supply requirement initially only to
brand-name drugs and would postpone
applying the requirement to generic
drugs until a later date which we will
determine through future rulemaking. In
the meantime, we solicit comments on
how soon the industry can transition to
include generic drugs in the 7-day-orless requirement.
We also propose excluding from the
requirements of § 423.154(a) those drugs
that are difficult to dispense in a 7-day
or less supply and drugs that are
dispensed for acute illnesses. We
believe that requiring these types of
drugs to be dispensed in 7-day-or-less
increments could result in safety or
efficacy concerns or could have the
counterproductive effect of increasing
drug waste. We propose to codify these
exclusions at § 423.154(b). In proposing
these exclusions, we recognize that
there are some medications that, for the
reasons described above, do not lend
themselves well to a 7-day or less
supply. These include eye drops, ear
drops, inhalers and inhalation drugs,
nasal sprays, reconstituted antibiotics
and other drugs with parenteral route of
administration, drugs that must remain
in their original container, and topical
medications. However, in keeping with
the statute’s intent—that is, the
reduction of drug waste in the LTC
setting—our proposal aims to be limited
to instances where a 7-day-or-less
dispensing requirement is truly not
feasible. For example, some in the
industry have suggested that we exclude
liquids from the requirements; however,
we believe most liquids can be
transferred to smaller amber
prescription bottles or oral syringes to
accommodate 7-day-or-less dispensing,
so we decline to propose the exclusion
of all liquids. In contrast, we believe
antibiotics reconstituted from powder
need to remain in their original
container and, thus, our proposal would
exclude them from the 7-day-or-less
dispensing requirement. For other
medications that we proposed excluding
from the requirement, we encourage use
of smaller size containers, when
available, to reduce the potential for
waste. We solicit comments on the types
of dosage forms and drugs that should
be excluded from the requirements
under § 423.154(a).
Another solution we considered to
reduce waste in LTC facilities is in the
area of return for credit and reuse.
Under this scenario, Part D sponsors
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
would have policies in place, consistent
with state law, to require unused Part D
drugs to be returned to the pharmacy for
reuse to fill another patient’s
prescription. Although return for credit
and reuse is not prohibited by CMS, we
recognize limitations to this approach
since return for credit and reuse is not
permitted in all states, often excludes
lower cost generic drugs, and is
frequently limited to a subset of drugs
in unused or specially approved
packaging. Moreover, return and reuse
of controlled substances is limited by
the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In
order to reduce pharmaceutical and
financial waste, pharmacies must
reclaim the unused medications from
the LTC facility, reverse, and re-bill the
claim to reflect the unused portion of
drug, and restock the drug. We
understand from discussions with the
industry that this places a significant
burden on the pharmacies. In addition,
there are safety and quality control
issues regarding storage of the unused
medications in the LTC facility and
chain of custody of the drugs to be
returned. Finally, return for credit and
reuse does not address issues regarding
drug diversion because unused drugs
that may be returned to the pharmacy
for reuse are still available for diversion
prior to restocking. Upon consideration
of these facts, we decided that return for
credit and reuse would not be the
optimal solution to address drug waste
generated by LTC facilities under Part D.
However, we believe that Part D sponsor
contracts should not be silent on the
disposition of unused drugs. Only when
data has been systematically collected
will the extent of waste of Part D drugs
be quantifiable on other than an
anecdotal basis. Therefore, we propose
to add a provision at § 423.154(f) to
require that Part D sponsors include
terms in their LTC pharmacy contracts
that require any unused drugs originally
dispensed to the Part D sponsor’s
enrollees to be returned to the pharmacy
(not necessarily for reuse) and reported
to the sponsor. Such contracts will also
address contractual obligations for
disposal in accordance with Federal and
State regulations, as well as whether
return for credit and reuse is authorized
where permitted under State law.
Beyond these proposed requirements,
we urge the industry to improve
practices with respect to the tracking
and inventory control of returned
unused drugs, as well as electronic
transactions for adjustments to
previously submitted claims and other
reporting on the disposition of unused
drugs. We solicit comments on whether
there are DEA or state technical issues
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
that may be barriers to the
implementation of this provision.
Although we are not proposing to
recognize return for credit and reuse as
an alternative to 7-day-or-less
dispensing, we understand that return
for credit and reuse may be a
supplement to reduce the minimal
pharmaceutical waste associated with
7-day-or-less dispensing. Through
conversations with the industry, we
learned that there are circumstances
where a Part D drug can be safely
returned to stock for reuse. For example,
a LTC facility may have an onsite
pharmacy that services only that facility
using unit dose packaging. Under those
conditions, assuming state law allows
return for credit and reuse, it would be
a reasonable way to reduce the minimal
waste that may be generated with 7-dayor-less dispensing. We will allow return
for credit and reuse in LTC pharmacies,
when return for credit and reuse is
permitted under the state law and is
allowed under the contract between the
Part D sponsor and the pharmacy. We
expect that if Part D drugs are returned
for credit, the Part D drugs will be
reused only if the environments to
which the drugs have been exposed and
chain of custody of the drugs do not
compromise the safety or efficacy of the
medication. In addition, when
permitted or required contractually, we
believe pharmacy dispensing fees paid
to pharmacies may take into account
restocking fees consistent with the
proposed modification to dispensing
fees under § 423.100, ‘‘Dispensing Fees’’
discussed in section II.F. of this
proposed rule (Other Clarifications and
Technical Changes).
While we believe return for credit and
reuse, where permitted, can help to
reduce some drug waste after it occurs,
we believe it is better to prevent the
waste from occurring in the first place
through the use of 7-day-or-less
dispensing. It stands to reason that if
fewer drugs are available to be wasted,
fewer drugs will be wasted. That
proposition is supported in smaller
studies and analyses projecting waste
based on retrospective reviews of drugs
dispensed using less than 30-day
dispensing methodologies.1 Those
studies not only show a reduction in
pharmaceutical waste, but also show
savings associated with reduction of the
waste.
Seven-day-or-less dispensing has
advantages besides reducing financial
waste. For example, 7-day-or-less
dispensing is consistent with the DEA’s
requirement to guard against diversion
of controlled substances by limiting the
quantity of drugs dispensed. (See for
example 21 CFR 1301.71). We are also
convinced that 7-day-or-less dispensing
would be more beneficial for the
environment. We note that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recommends that LTC facilities reduce
the amount of pharmaceutical waste
generated by limiting the amount of
pharmaceuticals dispensed at one time.2
Based on our research and
discussions with stakeholders, we
therefore propose to require that for the
purposes of dispensing Part D drugs to
Part D enrollees in LTC facilities, Part D
sponsors require that their contracted
pharmacies dispense no more than a
7-day supply of brand-name drugs as
defined in § 423.4, except when a brandname drug is excluded from the
requirement. We understand from the
industry that 7-day-or-less dispensing
has been used for decades by some
pharmacies servicing small facilities
with as few as ten beds, as well as by
some pharmacies that service large
facilities with hundreds of beds. Many
pharmacies are currently using 14-day
or 7-day-or-less dispensing
methodologies for their Medicare Part A
population since the nursing facilities
are responsible for Part A stay-related
costs and recognize the cost-saving
value of lesser amounts dispensed at a
time. As a result, many pharmacies
providing drugs to LTC facilities have
experience with 7-day-or-less
dispensing.
The requirement would generally
apply to ‘‘all pharmacies,’’ including not
only closed-door exclusively LTC
pharmacies, but also retail pharmacies
and mail order pharmacies that
dispense to LTC facilities. Under section
§ 423.100, a LTC facility means a skilled
nursing facility as defined in section
1819(a) of the Act, or a medical
institution or nursing facility for which
payment is made for an institutionalized
1 James W. Moncrief, Advanced Pharmacy, data
from a seven month study of 36 LTC facilities
presented at the NCPDP Short Cycle Dispensing
Meeting. Sheraton Hotel BWI, March 19, 2010.
Lepinski PW, Am J Hosp Pharm 1986 Nov; 43
(11):2771–9 Cost comparison of unit dose and
traditional drug distribution in a long-term-care
facility.
Brown CH, Am J Hosp Pharm. 1984 Apr;
41(4):698–702 Cost of discarded medication in
Indiana LTC facilities.
Parrott KA Am J Hosp Pharm 1980 Nov;
37(11);1531–4 Drug waste in LTC facilities: impact
of drug distribution system.
Farmer RG Am J Hosp Pharm 1985 Nov;
42(11):2488–91 Cost of drugs wasted in the
multiple-dose drug distribution system in longterm-care facilities.
2 Environmental Protection Agency, Unused
Pharmaceuticals the health care industry: Interim
report, August 2008 (available at https://epa.gov/
waterscience/ppcp/hcioutreach.pdf)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
individual under section 1902(q)(1)(B)
of the Act. We note that this provision
does not encompass settings such as
group homes or assisted living facilities
that may also be serviced by these same
pharmacies.
We also note that 7-day-or-less
dispensing does not correspond to a
change in the quantity of a prescription
a prescriber writes, or the number of
prescriptions. Unlike the typical 30 or
90-day prescriptions written for
individuals in the community,
prescribing in the LTC setting is
generally done by physicians inserting
standing orders for medications into the
residents’ medical record. Pharmacies
may dispense a partial days supply in
a manner consistent with the proposed
requirements of § 423.154(a)(1). Partial
filling of prescriptions is not
inconsistent with DEA regulations and
is permissible under 21 CFR 1306.23 for
Schedule III, IV, and V drugs and under
21 CFR 1306.13(b) for Schedule II drugs.
Under § 423.154(a)(1)(ii), we propose
to permit the use of uniform dispensing
techniques defined by each of the LTC
facilities being serviced. By uniform
techniques, we mean that dispensing
methodologies will be uniform with
respect to the type of packaging used to
dispense Part D drugs within a LTC
facility, but may vary by the quantity of
medication (days’ supply) dispensed at
a time. The industry currently employs
a variety of single and multi-dose
packaging systems such as punch cards
(also known as blister packs or bingo
cards), strip packaging, cassettes,
pouches, and envelopes. Consistent
with section 3310 of the ACA, we
consulted with the LTC industry and
based on industry input, we have
determined that it is not possible or
practical for CMS or Part D sponsors to
identify the uniform dispensing
techniques that must be used by all
pharmacies. Rather, it is the LTC
facilities that are in the best position to
identify uniform dispensing techniques
to be used throughout their LTC facility.
We understand from the industry that
there are various constraints and
considerations that limit the type of
dispensing systems used in a particular
LTC facility. For example, we
understand that there are older LTC
facilities that cannot easily support
automated dose dispensing technology
because of the computer networking and
ventilation considerations for that type
of equipment. Therefore, we are
proposing that Part D sponsors must
permit their contracted pharmacies to
implement the uniform dispensing
techniques selected by each LTC
facility, and may not require the use of
a different packaging system or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
technology than that selected by the
facility through its contracted LTC
pharmacy. Based on our conversations
with industry, we understand that one
of the greatest potential problems in
implementing a 7-day-or-less dispensing
approach would be any inconsistency in
the dispensing methodology and/or
packaging technique utilized in the
same LTC facility. We believe our
proposal to require that Part D sponsors
must ensure that their contracted
pharmacies dispense Part D drugs using
techniques that are uniform throughout
the facility would address this concern.
We believe this proposal is consistent
with the purpose of section 3310 of the
ACA because it is intended to minimize
waste through the use of uniform
dispensing techniques that are specific
to the LTCs being served.
We understand from the industry that
depending on the 7-day-or-less
dispensing methodology used, there
may be an increase in nursing time
devoted to ordering and receiving
medication. We encourage LTC facilities
to work with the pharmacies serving
them to determine the 7-day-or-less
dispensing methodology that will work
best for the LTC facility, taking into
account not only physical plant and
labor considerations, but also overall
cost effectiveness and waste reduction
potential . We believe our proposed
requirement will accommodate various
7-day-or-less on-demand or cycle filling
methodologies in use by the LTC
industry today, including (1) 7-daysupply dispensing; (2) dispensing of a
drug for 2 days, followed by the
dispensing of the drug for another 2
days, followed by dispensing of the drug
for 3 days, referred to as ‘‘2–2–3’’ day
dispensing; (3) dispensing of a drug for
4 days followed by the dispensing of the
drug for 3 days, referred to as ‘‘4–3’’ day
dispensing; (5) daily dispensing; and (6)
automated shift or dose dispensing.
In making this proposal, we recognize
that automated dose dispensing, which
generally refers to medication
dispensing through automated
technology located at the facility on a
demand basis, is likely the most
efficient dispensing methodology and
the most effective in reducing waste.
However, we recognize there are
significant limitations to the rapid
adoption of automated dose dispensing
systems, including capital acquisition
costs, state pharmacy board restrictions,
the lack of final automated medical
record and interface standards, and
inventory considerations. Additionally,
automated dose dispensing may not be
considered practical by some LTC
facilities and the pharmacies servicing
them due to size or physical plant
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71207
limitations. Thus, we expect Part D
sponsors to encourage pharmacies and
LTC facilities to work together to
determine the most appropriate
dispensing methodology or
methodologies to be used for a
particular facility.
We recognize that the majority of
pharmacies not already using 7-day-orless dispensing methodologies are using
30-day dispensing for their Part D
population. We understand that the
most common 30-day dispensing system
is the 30-day punch card. As a result,
these pharmacies will have to make
changes in the number of medications
packed in a 30-day card or switch to
7-day card stock in order to continue
dispensing brand-name drugs to Part D
enrollees residing in LTC facilities. Our
conversations with manufacturers of the
30-day punch card systems have
indicated that there is minimal
conversion involved in the transition
from 30-day dispensing to 7-day
dispensing.
We also do not expect a pharmacy’s
delivery schedule to be greatly affected
since deliveries are generally made at
least daily to long-term care facilities to
accommodate first dose and new
admission needs. However, we
recognize that for some pharmacies
there will be changes in the way
deliveries are made. Some pharmacies
may not service the number of beds to
justify hiring additional delivery drivers
and purchasing additional delivery
vehicles. These arrangements need to be
considered by the pharmacy and LTC
facilities. As specified under 50.5.2 of
Chapter 5 of the Medicare Prescription
Drug Benefit Manual (See https://
www.cms.gov/
PrescriptionDrugCovContra/Downloads/
Chapter5.pdf ), which outlines the LongTerm Care Performance and Service
Criteria, specific delivery arrangements
are to be determined through an
agreement between the pharmacy and
the LTC facility. Accordingly and
subject to any state law restrictions,
pharmacies and LTC facilities may agree
to use a common carrier for some
deliveries of drugs to LTC facilities. We
would not consider a contractual
agreement to deliver a portion of Part D
drugs to Part D enrollees residing in
LTC facilities via a common carrier to
constitute a mail order benefit, or the
pharmacy making some but not all
deliveries by common carrier being
considered a mail order pharmacy. We
solicit comments on this interpretation.
We note that options for billing to
accommodate 7-day-or-less dispensing
are being discussed in a National
Council for Prescription Drug Programs
(NCPDP) workgroup. Unless the
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
industry voluntarily adopts a single
billing standard, we believe that Part D
sponsors should generally allow
pharmacies to use currently accepted
transactions to minimize burden in
transitioning to more frequent
dispensing of smaller amounts.
However, pursuant to our authority
under section 1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of the
Act, which incorporates by reference
section 1857(e)(1) of the Act, we also
propose establishing a new requirement
under § 423.154(a)(2) in which Part D
sponsors must collect and report to CMS
the dispensing methodology used for
each dispensing event described by
proposed § 423.154(a)(1)(i) and (ii). We
expect that our data collection efforts
will help us to estimate the relative
efficiencies of dispensing methodologies
and determine the residual waste to
estimate additional savings. We cannot
establish the impact of increased
dispensing fees prior to the dispensing
fees being renegotiated. We believe that
it is critical for Part D sponsors and
CMS to obtain data to identify changes
in the industry and to evaluate the effect
of different dispensing methodologies
on the reduction of waste. We note that
the NCPDP workgroup is considering
the adoption and transmission of
specific codes on billing transactions
that would facilitate the collection of
this information by Part D sponsors in
an automated and cost-effective manner.
We note that if adopted, this proposal
would likely lead to a change in
copayment methodology. We anticipate
the implementation of particular copayment methodologies will be
dependent on the billing and dispensing
methodologies used, and as a result, we
acknowledge that co-payment
methodologies within the same plan
may vary depending on the LTC facility
where the beneficiary resides. We
believe implementation of co-payment
methodologies in this way is consistent
with the uniform benefit requirement at
§ 423.104(b)(2) so long as the copayment
methodology throughout the plan’s
service area is consistent for
beneficiaries who receive their Part D
medications using the same dispensing
methodology. Copayment may be
collected at the first dispensing event in
a month, the last dispensing event in a
month, or prorated based on the number
of days a Part D drug was dispensed in
a month. However, due to the relatively
small copayments for low-income
subsidy (LIS) beneficiaries, copayments
for LIS beneficiaries should be billed
with the first or last dispensing event of
the month.
Despite the changes in dispensing
events, billing, and co-payments, we are
considering limiting the LTC claims
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
prescription drug events (PDEs) to 1 per
month for each standing order or
prescription. We solicit comments on
this proposal.
We realize our proposed requirements
are likely to result in renegotiations of
dispensing fees to reflect the costs
associated with additional dispensing
events in a single billing cycle for a
single prescription and the costs
undertaken to acquire technology aimed
at reducing waste. Currently, Part D
plans have the flexibility to vary the
actual dispensing fees paid to
pharmacies. As provided in section
1860D–11(i) of the Act, we are
prohibited from intervening in
negotiations between pharmacies and
Part D plans; however, we do believe
that it reasonable to expect that
dispensing fees be adjusted based on the
proposed requirements under this
provision. Accordingly, we propose to
modify the definition of ‘‘dispensing
fee’’ under § 423.100 to include costs
associated with the acquisition and
maintenance of technology to maintain
reasonable pharmacy costs. Although it
is not our intent to include all activities
that are ‘‘reasonable costs’’ in the
definition of ‘‘dispensing fees,’’ in light
of statutory requirements regarding LTC
pharmacy dispensing, we believe it is
particularly important to highlight
potential pharmacy costs aimed at
reducing waste and efficiency of
dispensing. We also believe dispensing
fees are likely to differentiate among the
costs associated with different
dispensing methodologies and
appropriately address costs that are
incurred to offset waste. Appropriate
dispensing fees that differentiate among
the various dispensing methodologies
could incentivize more rapid adoption
of the most cost-effective technologies
and align facility, plan sponsor, and
public interests in minimizing costs and
pharmaceutical waste.
We also solicit comments on whether
the requirements should be waived for
particular types of LTC pharmacies. We
propose to waive the requirements
under paragraph (a) for pharmacies
when they dispense brand-name Part D
drugs to Part D enrollees residing in an
intermediate care facilities for the
mentally retarded and developmentally
disabled (ICFMRDD) and institutes for
mental disease (IMDs) under
§ 423.154(c). We believe that due to
specific problems with medication
delivery and dispensing to closed (and
often locked) facilities, it would be
difficult for these pharmacies to adhere
to 7-day-or-less dispensing. Waving the
requirements in this instance would be
consistent with the statute when done
on a uniform basis (that is, all similarly
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
situated LTCs) and when there is a
demonstration that applying the
dispensing requirements to that type of
LTC would not serve to reduce waste.
For the ICFMRDD and IMDs, there is a
good rationale for not requiring 7-day
dispensing, because requiring 7-day-orless dispensing is not feasible and could
increase costs rather than decrease
waste associated with 30-day
dispensing. We solicit comments on
whether other types of similarly situated
facilities (such as LTC facilities utilizing
Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities to
provide pharmaceuticals or utilizing
Tribal facilities providing pharmacy
services for the IHS under Pub. L. 93–
638 compacts or contracts) should also
be waived from the requirement and
specific reasons as to why those
facilities should be waived from the
requirement.
We note that we originally considered
waiving the requirements for
pharmacies dispensing to small LTC
facilities. However, we do not believe
that such a waiver is supported based
on conversations with the industry
which, as stated above, demonstrate that
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities as
small as 10 beds are using 7-day-or-less
dispensing methodologies. We also
considered waiving the requirements for
pharmacies that dispense to LTC
facilities in rural areas. Similarly, we do
not believe such a waiver is supported
since many of these pharmacies deliver
to LTC facilities daily to accommodate
first fill and new admissions. We solicit
specific comments on the waiver criteria
for LTC pharmacies.
Pursuant to section 3310 of the ACA,
the requirements of this section go into
effect January 1, 2012. However, as a
result of discussions with the LTC
industry, we propose a limited
extension to a Part D sponsor when an
independent community pharmacy
(such as, not a closed door pharmacy
dedicated to servicing LTC facilities
only) with which the Part D sponsor has
contracted is the primary provider to a
small LTC facility (less than 80 beds) in
rural communities, as defined by the
Bureau of the Census, and the pharmacy
is not already dispensing a 7-day supply
to any patient population in the LTC
facility. Since independent community
pharmacies are frequently the only
pharmacy provider to rural LTC
facilities, we understand that there
could be significant challenges in
getting Part D drugs to beneficiaries
residing in LTC facilities in rural areas.
We have heard from the industry that
small pharmacies dispensing to small
LTC facilities in rural areas frequently
only dispense in 30-day supplies. We
understand that those facilities may
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
need extra time because of a lack of
dedicated staff to adequately train and
make the necessary changes to convert
to 7-day-or-less dispensing by January 1,
2012. Under § 423.154(e), we propose
allowing an independent community
pharmacy that is the primary provider
of the Part D drugs to a LTC facility
located in a rural to dispense no more
than a 14-day supply through December
31, 2012. We expect that these
pharmacies contracted with Part D
sponsors will find solutions to their
significant challenges and work towards
full compliance with § 423.154(a)
during this extension. We propose that
Part D sponsors contracted with these
independent community pharmacies
must come into full compliance with
§ 423.154(a) by January 1, 2013. We
solicit comments on this proposal.
Based on the preceding, we propose
to revise § 423.150 by renumbering
paragraphs (b) through (g) as paragraphs
(c) through (h) and adding a new
paragraph (b) that would address
appropriate dispensing of covered Part
D drugs in LTC facilities. We also
propose to add new requirements, as
discussed previously, at § 423.154 to
require Part D sponsors to ensure that
all pharmacies servicing LTC facilities
dispense no more than a 7-day supply
of brand-name medications and use
uniform dispensing methodologies as
defined by each of the LTC facilities
being serviced. In addition, we propose
§ 423.154 (a)(2) which requires Part D
sponsors to collect and report, as CMS
requires, the dispensing methodology
used for each dispensing event
described by paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii)
of § 423.154. We propose exceptions to
this requirement at § 423.154(b)(1) and
(2) relative to specific drugs and waivers
of this requirements for specific
pharmacies under § 423.154(c).
Pursuant to section 3310 of the ACA, we
propose the effective date of January 1,
2012 for § 423.154 under § 423.154(d)
with a limited extension through
December 31, 2012 to pharmacies
meeting the requirements under
§ 423.154(e). We also propose to add the
requirement that Part D sponsors require
any unused Part D drugs originally
dispensed to its enrollees to be returned
to the pharmacy and reported to the
sponsor and address whether return for
credit and reuse is permitted under their
contracts with pharmacies servicing
LTC facilities in § 423.154(f).
12. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
The Secretary has the authority under
the Act to include any terms or
conditions the Secretary deems
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
necessary and appropriate in MA
organization and Part D sponsor
contracts, including requiring the
organization to provide the Secretary
with such information as the Secretary
may find necessary and appropriate.
(See section 1857(e)(1) of the Act as
incorporated into Part D through section
1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of the Act.) Under
this authority, we have proposed a
number of contract provisions that
require MA organizations and Part D
sponsors to report specific information
to CMS for a variety of purposes, with
the overall goal of improving the Part C
and D programs. For example, we relied
on this authority to establish a
requirement related to the reporting of
prescription drug event data under Part
D for purposes other than payment. One
of the purposes for requiring submission
of these data for nonpayment-related
purposes was to enable us to conduct
evaluations of the data in order to make
recommendations for improving the
Medicare program.
Up until now, we have not
implemented specific regulatory
requirements related to the tracking and
resolution of complaints that we capture
from the Part C and D enrollees in the
CMS-established Health Plan
Management System (HPMS)
Complaints Tracking Module (CTM).
This system was established at the start
of the Part D program in order to record
and track complaints received by CMS
from beneficiaries, providers, and other
constituents about prescription drug
plans. After the start of the Part D
program, the system was expanded in
July 2008 to collect and capture
complaints related to the Part C
program.
With the establishment of the CTM
system, we have routinely provided
complaint-related information to Part C
and D sponsoring organizations to assist
sponsors in the identification of
operational and plan performance
issues. In addition, we have issued
oversight and compliance direction to
Part C and D sponsors with respect to
CTM complaints, including CMS’
expectations of MA organization and
Part D sponsors with regard to
complaint resolution. These
expectations are largely contained in
recommended standard operation
procedures (SOPs) that CMS issued to
MA organization and Part D sponsors (
see https://www.cms.gov/
PrescriptionDrugCovContra/Downloads/
CTMSOP_10.06.09.pdf). As part of these
procedures, CMS directed MA
organizations and Part D sponsors to
document when they resolve a
complaint in their case notes, and to
enter a resolution date and a resolution
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71209
summary note in the CTM complaint
tracking system, to which they have
access. Since we developed the CTM
system, we have focused on complaint
resolution monitoring for oversight
purposes but have not gone so far as
requiring in regulation that MA
organizations and Part D sponsors
respond to complaints received by us
and document the details of the
complaint resolution in the CMS CTM
system.
With the enactment of the Affordable
Care Act, we now believe additional
requirements in the area of complaint
resolutions are necessary. Under section
3311 of the Affordable Care Act, we
(under our delegation of authority by
the Secretary of HHS) are directed to
develop a complaint system that will
allow for the collection and
maintenance of complaints against PDPs
and MA–PD plans. We are also directed
to develop a model electronic complaint
form that is to be maintained on https://
www.medicare.gov and the Office of
Medicare Ombudsman’s Web site.
Finally, we are required to report to
Congress annually on the number and
types of complaints reported in the
system, geographic variations in such
complaints, the timeliness of agency or
plan responses to such complaints, and
the resolution of such complaints.
We believe that the current CTM
system largely fulfills the requirement
by Congress that we establish a
complaint system to capture complaints
against Part D plans. As explained
previously, the CTM system was
established to record and track
complaints received by us from
beneficiaries, providers, and other
constituents about health and drug
plans. However, to ensure that the data
collected and warehoused in the system
provide us with sufficient information
to report to Congress, we believe that
enhancements to the current system are
necessary, particularly with respect to
the data relating to the closure of
complaints. While our SOP instructs
MA organizations and Part D sponsors
to indicate in the system a clear and
concise complaint resolution summary
note when the complaint is resolved, we
have determined that many sponsors do
not do so and merely write the words
‘‘complaint closed’’ in the CTM. Absent
more detailed information on how a
complaint is resolved by the plan, we do
not believe we will be able to meet the
objectives of Congress to report on the
timeliness and resolution of complaints.
Therefore, to ensure that we have the
appropriate information to report to
Congress, and to further improve our
monitoring efforts with respect to
complaint closure, we are proposing a
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71210
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
new requirement on MA organizations
and Part D sponsors, under the authority
of section 3311 of the ACA and section
1857(e)(1) and 1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of the
Act, to require sponsors to respond to
complaints received by us. We believe
it is necessary and appropriate to apply
these requirements to both MA
organizations and Part D sponsors to
maintain a balanced and fair program
for beneficiaries receiving medications
under the Part D program or an
enhanced benefit under the MA
program. At this time, with respect to
the proposed requirement to document
how a complaint was resolved, we are
contemplating adding a drop down
checklist to CTM that MA organization
and Part D sponsors would use to
document closure of complaints, as
opposed to requiring free text
descriptions of complaint closure. We
invite comments on this approach.
With respect to the model electronic
complaint form to be used for reporting
plan complaints, Congress has directed
us to prominently display the form on
the front page of the Medicare.gov
Internet Web site and on the Internet
Web site of the Medicare Beneficiary
Ombudsman. We are in the process of
developing the model electronic
complaint form and plan to make this
form available on the internet websites
as required. Considering the importance
that Congress has given to the issue of
reporting complaints and the
development of a standardized form for
taking complaints against plans, we are
also proposing to require MA
organizations and Part D plans to link to
the CMS-developed electronic
complaint form on the Medicare.gov
Internet Web site from their main Web
page. We believe the importance
Congress has given to the issue of
complaint reporting makes it necessary
and appropriate to propose to apply this
requirement to both MA organizations
and Part D plans.
Accordingly, based on the preceding,
we propose to add a new requirement to
§ 422.504(a) and § 423.505(b) to require
MA organization and Part D sponsors to
address and resolve all complaints in
the CMS complaint tracking system and
to require a link to the electronic
complaint form at the Medicare.gov
Internet Web site on each Part C and
Part D sponsor main Web page. If
adopted, this requirement would be
effective January 1, 2012. Following the
issuance of a final rule, we will develop
guidance to instruct MA organizations
and Part D sponsors on how to comply
with this new requirement.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
13. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128 and § 423.562)
Section 3312 of the ACA amends
section 1860D–4(b)(3) of the Act by
adding a new section (H) that will
require, effective January 1, 2012, each
PDP sponsor of a prescription drug plan
to use a single, uniform exceptions and
appeals process (including, to the extent
the Secretary determines feasible, a
single uniform model form for use
under such process) with respect to the
determination of prescription drug
coverage for an enrollee under the plan;
and to provide instant access to such
processes by enrollees through a tollfree telephone number and an Internet
Web site.
Since the inception of the Part D
program, we have received numerous
comments, especially from beneficiary
advocacy groups, suggesting the
coverage determination and appeals
processes are too complex and difficult
for enrollees to navigate. The
commenters recommended streamlining
the existing coverage determination and
appeals processes in order to simplify
the plan appeals procedures for both
enrollees and providers. The most
significant concerns noted by
commenters involve access to the Part D
coverage determination and
redetermination processes. For a variety
of reasons, enrollees often have
difficulty making initial requests for
coverage. Over time, plan sponsors have
developed plan-specific forms for
requesting coverage, and often have
multiple request forms that are drugspecific. As a result, enrollees often
have difficulty locating or obtaining
these plan-specific request forms and
determining which form should be used
for their particular request. Even when
enrollees are able to locate and complete
the appropriate request forms, they may
have trouble determining where the
forms should be submitted, because
plan sponsors often have multiple
addresses, telephone numbers, and fax
numbers, and it is not clear which
address or phone number should be
used to submit a particular request.
Commenters indicate these elements
create a process that is quite
overwhelming and frustrating for
enrollees, and for those who try to assist
them.
In accordance with the new section
1860D–4(b)(3)(H) of the Act, we propose
to revise the regulation at § 423.562(a) to
require Part D plans to use a single,
uniform exceptions and appeals process
that includes procedures for accepting
oral and written requests for coverage
determinations and redeterminations. In
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
addition, we also propose to revise the
regulation at § 423.128 paragraphs (b)(7)
and (d) to provide specific mechanisms
that plan sponsors must have in place
in order to meet the uniform appeals
requirements of section 1860D–
4(b)(3)(H) of the Act. We believe the
proposed requirements will address
many of the long-standing concerns
about the Part D coverage determination
and appeals processes being too
complex and difficult for enrollees to
navigate.
At § 423.128(b)(7), we propose adding
paragraph (i) to require that plan
sponsors make available a standard form
to request a coverage determination and
a standard form to request a
redetermination, to the extent such
standard request forms have been
approved for use by CMS. We plan to
evaluate the feasibility of developing
and requiring the use of standard
request forms and will determine
whether a single form can reduce
confusion and address the needs of
beneficiaries, providers, and PDP
sponsors. If it is determined that
standardized forms are appropriate, the
forms will be developed by us and will
be used to request any type of coverage
determination under Part D (including
exception requests and requests for
drugs that may be subject to a utilization
management requirement) and
redeterminations. We will evaluate
existing plan and CMS forms used for
requesting coverage determinations and
redeterminations to determine what
elements should be included in the
forms. We welcome comments and
suggestions regarding: (1) The specific
elements that should be included in
these forms; (2) whether a single request
form is feasible; and (3) any other issues
that should be considered and/or
resolved before this requirement is
operationalized.
Section 3312 of the ACA also requires
plan sponsors to provide instant access
to the coverage determination and
appeals processes through an internet
Web site. Therefore, we propose to add
paragraph (ii) to § 423.128(b)(7), which
would require sponsors to develop a
Web-based electronic interface that
allows an enrollee (or an enrollee’s
prescriber or representative) to
immediately request a coverage
determination or redetermination via a
plan’s secure Web site. We believe that
allowing requests for coverage
determinations and redeterminations to
be made through plan websites will
further increase beneficiary access to the
coverage determination and
redetermination processes. We propose
that the interface would be the
‘‘electronic equivalent’’ of the paper
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
coverage determination and appeals
forms proposed at § 423.128(b)(7)(i). In
establishing this interface, Part D
sponsors must ensure that any such
interface complies with the Health
Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, the
Privacy Act, and CMS’s information
security requirements where
appropriate. Some Part D sponsors may
already have an electronic means for
requesting coverage determinations and
redeterminations available to their
enrollees. We request comments and
ideas regarding how such an electronic
interface should work and any issues
that need to be addressed before
operationalizing this requirement.
Plan sponsors must also establish a
toll-free telephone line that provides
instant access to the coverage
determination and appeals process
pursuant to section 3312 of the ACA.
Therefore, we propose to revise
§ 423.128(d)(1) to include a requirement
that sponsors provide a toll-free
telephone line for requesting coverage
determinations and appeals. We
currently require sponsors to offer a tollfree customer call center as part of the
provision of specific information
requirements at § 423.128(d), and
propose requiring plan sponsors to
provide enrollees with access to the
coverage determination and
redetermination processes through the
toll-free customer call center if sponsors
are not doing so already. In other words,
we envision the customer service
representative (CSR) accessing the online coverage determination and
redetermination process via the plan’s
web-based application discussed
previously, and entering the information
supplied by the enrollee via telephone.
We will develop model scripts for the
CSRs to use for this purpose.
Consistent with the proposals to
require the use of standardized forms for
requesting coverage determinations and
redeterminations (should this be
determined feasible and to the extent
that standard request forms have been
approved for use by CMS), and the
establishment of a toll-free telephone
number and Web site for accepting
requests for coverage determinations
and redeterminations, we propose to
amend § 423.562 by adding a new
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) which crossreferences the proposed requirements in
§ 423.128 paragraphs (b)(7) and
(d)(1)(iii), and redesignating paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii) as paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) respectively.
Finally, we are proposing to require
Part D sponsors to modify their
electronic response transactions to
pharmacies so that they can transmit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
codes instructing the pharmacy to
provide a point-of-sale (POS) notice to
enrollees when a prescription cannot be
filled. Currently, when an enrollee
attempts to fill a prescription at a
pharmacy, the pharmacist receives
certain information electronically
related to the prescription from the Part
D sponsor, which may include whether
it is on the plan’s formulary, and
whether there are any conditions
associated with filling the prescription.
In cases where a prescription cannot be
filled as written, Part D sponsors are
required under § 423.562(a)(3) to
arrange with their network pharmacies
to either post or distribute a pharmacy
notice advising the enrollee of his or her
right to contact the plan to request a
coverage determination. The pharmacy
notice is generic and does not include
plan-specific information for requesting
coverage determinations. While the
current pharmacy notice provides
enrollees with some information about
requesting coverage determinations,
beneficiary advocacy groups have
argued the notice is too generic to
provide enrollees with all of the
information they need to easily access
the coverage determination process.
Advocates have also expressed concern
about enrollees not receiving, or not
being directed to the notice. Although
we have been concerned about these
complaints, under the existing
pharmacy billing standard agreed upon
by the National Council of Prescription
Drug Programs (NCPDP version 5.1), it
has not been feasible for plan sponsors
to systematically transmit situationspecific messaging to pharmacists
because transaction coding could not
easily or quickly be changed.
Furthermore, the pharmacies do not
have the capability to populate, print,
and distribute plan-specific notices to
each enrollee who is not able to obtain
a prescription as written.
With the adoption of the new HIPAA
pharmacy billing standard (NCPDP
version D.0), we now have the
opportunity to work with the NCPDP to
develop and standardize use of codes
that will prompt a Part D network
pharmacist to print or provide a POS
notice to give to enrollees when a
prescription cannot be filled.
Accordingly, we are proposing at
§ 423.128(b)(7)(iii) that Part D sponsors
modify their systems so that the plan
sponsors are capable of transmitting
codes to their contracted pharmacies
and that the pharmacy will be notified
to populate or provide a notice that can
be printed by the pharmacist at the
point of sale. We believe such notices
should be printed and provided in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71211
same manner as other instructions (for
example, instructions for taking
prescriptions). We will develop a model
notice to ensure that messaging at the
pharmacy is consistent with and in
accordance with CMS rules. Consistent
with this proposal, we are also
proposing to revise § 423.562(a)(3) by
deleting the reference to posting the
pharmacy notice and requiring the
sponsor to arrange with its network
pharmacies to distribute notices
instructing enrollees how to contact
their plans to obtain a coverage
determination or request an exception if
they disagree with the information
provided by the pharmacist. We propose
that the pharmacy notice be provided in
writing, consistent with the standards
established in § 423.128(b)(7)(iii), and
will include instructions explaining
how enrollees can request coverage
determinations by calling their plan
sponsor’s toll free customer service line
or accessing their plan sponsor’s Web
site.
14. Including Costs Incurred by AIDS
Drug Assistance Programs and the
Indian Health Service Toward the
Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket Threshold
(§ 423.100 and § 423.464)
Section 1860D–2(b)(4)(C) of the Act
provides protection against high out-ofpocket expenditures for Part D eligible
individuals. Under the standard Part D
benefit, a beneficiary is entitled to
reductions in cost sharing under the
catastrophic phase of the benefit once
his or her true out-of-pocket (TrOOP)
expenditures reach the annual Part D
out-of-pocket threshold. TrOOP
expenditures represent costs actually
paid by the beneficiary, another person
on behalf of the beneficiary, or a
qualified State Pharmaceutical
Assistance Program (SPAP). Most third
party assistance, such as that from
employers and unions, does not count
toward the TrOOP threshold.
Prior to the passage of the ACA, our
policy as specified in the definition of
‘‘incurred cost’’ at § 423.100 and as
clarified in section 30.4 of Chapter 5 of
the Prescription Drug Benefit Manual
was that to the extent that a party
paying for cost-sharing on behalf of a
Part D enrollee was a group health plan,
insurance program or otherwise (such as
a government-funded health program),
or third party payment arrangement
with an obligation to pay for covered
Part D drugs, that party’s payment
would not count toward TrOOP. Under
this policy, supplemental drug coverage
provided by the Indian Health Service
(IHS), as defined in section 4 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
Indian tribes and organizations, and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71212
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
urban Indian organization facilities were
not considered to be TrOOP eligible
because these entities fell under our
definition of ‘‘government-funded health
program,’’ under § 423.100.
Similarly, Aids Drug Assistance
Programs (ADAPs) co-payments, which
are funded under the Ryan White CARE
Act, were not counted toward TrOOP
for the purpose of meeting the out-ofpocket threshold at which catastrophic
coverage under the Part D benefit
begins. As explained in the preamble in
the January 2005 final rule (see 70 FR
4240 and 4241) implementing the Part
D program, ADAPs were not considered
SPAPs because these programs receive
Federal funding. Moreover, because the
law specified that costs for covered Part
D drugs paid by insurance or otherwise
on behalf of a Part D enrollee do not
count as incurred costs, any coverage
that supplements the benefits available
under Part D coverage that are provided
to beneficiaries by Medicaid, Medicaid
Section 1115 waiver programs, the VA
health care program, the IHS, ADAP
programs, and local or State indigent
drug programs would not count as an
incurred cost for purposes of TrOOP
(see 70 FR 4240 and 4241).
With the passage of the ACA, CMS
requirements as they relate to IHS and
ADAPs have been superseded effective
January 1, 2011. Section 3314 of the
ACA amends section 1860D–2(b)(4)(C)
of the Act to specify that costs borne or
paid for by IHS, an Indian tribe or tribal
organization, or an urban Indian
organization, and costs borne or paid for
by an ADAP would be treated as
incurred costs for the purpose of
meeting the annual out-of-pocket
threshold. Based on these amendments,
we propose to revise the definition of
incurred cost at § 423.100(2)(ii) to
include cost paid for by the IHS (as
defined in section 4 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act), an Indian tribe
or tribal organization, or an urban
Indian organization (referred to as I/T/
U pharmacy in § 423.100) or under an
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (as
defined in part B of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service). We also propose
to amend § 423.464(f)(2) to specifically
exclude expenditures made by IHS, an
Indian tribe or tribal organization, or an
urban Indian organization (referred to as
I/T/U pharmacy in § 423.100) or under
an AIDS Drug Assistance Program (as
defined in part B of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service) from the
requirement to exclude such
expenditures for the purpose of
determining whether a Part D enrollee
has satisfied the out-of-pocket
threshold.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
15. Cost Sharing for Medicare-Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
Effective January 1, 2011, sections
4103 and 4104 of the ACA revise
sections 1833 and 1861 of the Act to
create new coverage of Personalized
Prevention Plan Services (PPPS) or
‘‘annual wellness visits’’ and establish a
requirement that no cost sharing may be
charged to beneficiaries under Original
Medicare for the annual wellness visit,
the initial preventive physical exam
(IPPE) and Medicare-covered preventive
services graded as an A or B by the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF).
In light of the new legislative
requirements for Original Medicare, and
the importance of preventive services in
managed and coordinated care, we
included information related to
coverage and cost sharing for preventive
services in guidance issued via the
Health Plan Management System
(HPMS) on April 16, 2010 (‘‘Benefits
Policy and Operations Guidance
Regarding Bid Submissions; Duplicative
and Low Enrollment Plans; Cost Sharing
Standards; General Benefits Policy
Issues; and Plan Benefits Package (PBP)
Reminders for Contract Year (CY) 2011’’)
and May 20, 2010 (‘‘Supplemental 2011
Benefits Policy and Operations
Guidance on Application of the
Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket
(MOOP) for Dual Eligible SNPs, and
Cost Sharing for Preventive Services’’).
In this guidance, we strongly
encouraged MA organizations to
provide all in-network Medicarecovered preventive services without
cost sharing charges under their MA
plans in contract year 2011, indicated
our intention to consider rulemaking to
require that such preventive services be
provided with no cost sharing, and
provided instructions on how to reflect
the zero cost sharing in their plan
benefit package (PBP) submissions for
contract year 2011.
As required at section 1852(a)(1)(A) of
the Act (except as provided in section
1859(b)(3) of the Act for MSA plans and
in section 1852(a)(6) of the Act for MA
regional plans), each MA plan must
provide to its members all Parts A and
B benefits included under the Original
Medicare fee-for-service program as
defined at section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the
Act. Because we agree with Congress
that the utilization of preventive
services should be encouraged by
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
providing them without cost sharing, we
believe it is necessary, and appropriate,
to provide this same incentive to all
Medicare beneficiaries, whether they
receive their benefits through Original
Medicare, under an MA plan, or under
a section 1876 cost contract.
Therefore, under our authority in
section 1856(b)(1) of the Act to establish
MA standards by regulation, and our
authority in section 1857(e)(1) of the Act
to establish requirements we find
‘‘necessary and appropriate,’’ we
propose to add a new paragraph (h) to
§ 422.100 to require MA organizations to
provide in-network Medicare-covered
preventive benefits at zero cost sharing,
consistent with the new regulations for
Original Medicare-covered preventive
benefits. More specifically, we propose
requiring that all MA organizations
provide Medicare-covered preventive
services, as specified by CMS, without
enrollee cost sharing charges. Under our
authority in section 1876(i)(3)(D) of the
Act to impose requirements we find
‘‘necessary and appropriate,’’ we also
propose to add a new paragraph (f) to
§ 417.101 to extend this proposed
requirement to section 1876 cost plans.
For specific information about the list
of preventive services covered under
Original Medicare without cost sharing
and information about what is included
in the annual wellness visit, we propose
to direct plans to go to the following
Medicare Web sites: https://
www.cms.HospitalOPPS/ and https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/.
16. Elimination of the Stabilization
Fund (§ 422.458)
Section 221(c) of the MMA added
section 1858 of the Act to establish rules
for MA Regional Plans. Section 1858(e)
established an MA Regional Plan
Stabilization Fund (the Fund) for the
purpose of providing financial
incentives to MA organizations that
offered new MA Regional Plans
nationally, or in each MA region
without one. The Fund was also
established to retain MA regional plans
in regions with relatively low MA
market penetration. Specifically, the
MMA authorized us to make a 1-year
‘‘national bonus payment’’ to an
organization or organizations that
offered an MA Regional Plan in each
MA region in a given year (if there was
no such plan offered in one or more
regions in the previous year). If no
national bonus payment was made in a
given year, we could have used the fund
to increase payments to MA regional
plans offered in regions that did not
have any MA regional plans offered in
the prior year. Finally, to encourage
plans to remain in regions with
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
relatively low MA market penetration,
we could have used the Fund to make
retention payments to MA regional
plans that notified us of their intent to
exit a region prior to the bidding
deadline. Payments from the Fund,
which was initially established at $10
billion, were first available beginning
January 1, 2007.
Section 301 of Division B, Title III, of
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006—enacted December 20, 2006—
delayed Stabilization Fund payments
until January 1, 2012, and limited initial
funding to $3.5 billion. Subsequent
legislation, including the Medicare,
Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007, and the Medicare Improvements
for Patients and Providers Act of 2008,
further delayed the timeframe during
which initial funding was available
until 2014 and limited the amount to $1.
Section 10327(c) of the ACA repealed
section 1858(e) of the Act, eliminating
the Stabilization Fund. Therefore, we
are proposing to delete paragraph (f)
from § 422.458, since the statutory basis
for the Fund no longer exists.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17. Improvements to Medication
Therapy Management Programs
(§ 423.153)
Section 1860D–4(c)(1)(C) of the Act
requires Part D sponsors to establish
Medication Therapy Management
programs (MTMPs). Section 1860D–
4(c)(2) of the Act requires MTMPs to be
designed to ensure that, with respect to
targeted beneficiaries described in
section 1860D–4(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,
covered Part D drugs are appropriately
used to optimize therapeutic outcomes
through improved medication use and
to reduce the risk of adverse events.
These requirements are codified in
§ 423.153(d) of the Part D regulations.
The federal regulations at
§ 423.153(d)(1) require each Part D
sponsor to establish a MTMP that is
designed to ensure that covered Part D
drugs (as defined in § 423.100)
prescribed to targeted beneficiaries are
appropriately used to optimize
therapeutic outcomes through improved
medication use; designed to reduce the
risk of adverse events for targeted
beneficiaries; furnished by a pharmacist
or other qualified provider; and allowed
to distinguish between services
provided in ambulatory and
institutional settings. Beginning in 2011,
§ 423.153(d)(2) defines targeted
beneficiaries as enrollees who have
multiple chronic diseases, are taking
multiple Part D drugs, and are likely to
incur annual costs for covered Part D
drugs that are greater than or equal to
$3,000 as adjusted by the annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
percentage increase under
§ 423.153(d)(5)(iv) for subsequent years.
With the recent passage of the
Affordable Care Act, Congress provided
for specific MTMP improvements by
law. Effective January 1, 2013, section
10328 of the ACA amends section
1860D–4(c)(2) of the Act to require
prescription drug plan sponsors to
perform a quarterly assessment of all ‘‘at
risk’’ individuals who are not already
enrolled in an MTMP, establish opt-out
enrollment for MTM, and offer
medication therapy management
services to targeted beneficiaries that
include, at a minimum, an annual
comprehensive medication review
(CMR) that may be furnished person-toperson or via telehealth technologies
and a review of the individual’s
medications, which may result in the
creation of a recommended medication
action plan, with a written or printed
summary of the results of the review
provided to the targeted individual. The
law also requires that the action plan
and summary resulting from the CMR be
written in a standardized format.
Prior to the passage of the new
legislation, we had already made several
improvements to the MTM program via
the 2010 Call Letter to Part D sponsors
on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/
PrescriptionDrugCovContra/, as well as
via the 2011 final rule containing policy
and technical changes under the Part C
and D programs (see 75 FR 19772
through 19776 and 19818 and 19819). In
this final rule, in accordance with our
authority under sections 1860D–
4(c)(1)(C) and 1860D–4(c)(2) of the Act,
we revised our regulations at
§ 423.153(d)(1)(v) to require Part D
sponsors to enroll beneficiaries in their
MTMPs using only an opt-out method of
enrollment; § 423.153(d)(1)(vi) to
require Part D sponsors to target
beneficiaries for enrollment in the
MTMP at least quarterly during each
plan year; and § 423.153(d)(1)(vii) to
require Part D sponsors to offer a
minimum level of MTM services for
each beneficiary enrolled in the MTMP
that includes interventions for both
beneficiaries and prescribers including,
an annual comprehensive medication
review with a written summary, and
quarterly targeted medication reviews
with follow up when necessary. We also
revised § 423.153(d)(2) to clarify which
beneficiaries should be targeted for
MTMP services.
In comparing the requirements
codified in the final rule to those
required by section 10328 of the ACA,
we found that a number of the
provisions are consistent. The final rule
requires opt-out enrollment of targeted
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71213
beneficiaries, quarterly targeting of
beneficiaries for enrollment into the
MTMP, and quarterly targeted
medication reviews for individuals
enrolled in the MTMP with follow up
interventions when necessary.
Based on this review and to ensure
that our policies are fully consistent
with the new requirements added by
section 10328 of the ACA, we have
determined that it is necessary to amend
the current regulations to clarify the Part
D MTMP requirements relating to the
required use of a standardized format
for the written summary and action plan
that may result from the CMR. Thus, in
accordance with sections 1860D–
4(c)(1)(C) and 1860D–4(c)(2) of the Act
as amended by section 10328 of the
ACA, we propose to amend
§ 423.153(d)(1)(vii) to add the
requirement that Part D sponsors use a
standardized format for the action plan
and summary resulting from a review of
the targeted beneficiary’s individual
medications, and to provide the
individual with a written or printed
copy of the summary. We plan to award
a contract to an outside entity to work
in consultation with stakeholders in
order to develop a standardized format
for the action plan and summary which
may result from annual or quarterly
targeted medication reviews.
We also propose to amend the MTMP
requirements at § 423.153(d)(1)(vii) to
explicitly permit the use of telehealth
technologies to conduct the required
annual CMR as referenced under the
ACA, to allow the sponsors to attempt
innovative techniques that provide care
at a distance in order to better serve the
beneficiary, especially beneficiaries that
cannot travel to the provider’s location,
or who reside in a remote location or in
different time zone. Recent
advancements in digitized health care
and telecommunication now permit
some direct provider care to be
delivered to beneficiaries remotely. As
promoted in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the
adoption and use of health information
technology (HIT) and electronic health
records (EHR) to provide patient care is
encouraged by the federal government.
We emphasize that when using
telehealth technologies, personal health
information privacy and security must
be ensured.
In addition to the regulatory changes
required to implement the ACA
provisions, we are proposing a further
revision to the MTMP requirements
related specifically to MTM services
furnished in LTC facilities. Under
sections 1819(b)(4) and 1919(b)(4) of the
Act, LTC facilities must provide, either
directly or under arrangements with
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71214
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
others, for the provision of
pharmaceutical services to meet the
needs of each resident. This
requirement is codified in regulations at
§ 483.60 which require LTC facilities to
employ or obtain the services of a
licensed pharmacist to provide
consultation on all aspects of the
provision of pharmacy services in the
facility, including a drug regimen
review at least once a month for each
facility resident. Although Part D
sponsors are required to provide MTM
services to all beneficiaries meeting the
target criteria, it is not clear that these
services are being made available to
nursing home residents meeting these
criteria. Further, we are concerned that
if MTM is provided, in the absence of
coordination, the MTMP and the
consultant pharmacist’s drug regimen
review could result in conflicting
recommendations relating to medication
management. Therefore, we propose to
add a requirement for Part D sponsors
to coordinate their MTMP with the drug
regimen reviews performed by the LTC
consultant pharmacists.
Specifically, we propose to revise
§ 423.153(d)(5) to require Part D
sponsors to contract with LTC facilities
to provide appropriate MTM services to
residents in coordination with the
monthly medication reviews and
assessments performed by the LTC
consultant pharmacist. We believe this
approach would enable beneficiaries to
receive the full benefits of the sponsor’s
MTMP and would also result in
coordinated assessments that would be
more likely to discover evidence of
adverse side effects and medication
overuse. We believe that requiring this
coordination is the best way to ensure
that residents receive the advantage of
MTM services in LTC facilities. We are
soliciting comments from the public on
how such coordination between
sponsors and LTC facilities might work
best.
18. Changes To Close the Part D
Coverage Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
Section 1860D–2(b) of the Act, as
amended by the ACA, revises the Part
D benefit structure to close the gap in
coverage that occurs between the initial
coverage limit for the year and the outof-pocket threshold. The new provisions
not only revise the amount of
coinsurance for costs of covered drugs
above the initial coverage limit and
below the out-of-pocket threshold (that
is, within the Part D coverage gap), but
also reduce the growth in the annual
out-of-pocket threshold from 2014 to
2019.
Under the new provisions in section
1860D–2(b)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
effective January 1, 2011, cost sharing in
the coverage gap will be determined on
the basis of whether the covered Part D
drug is considered an ‘‘applicable drug’’
under the Medicare coverage gap
discount program as defined at section
1860D–14A(g)(2). Section 1860D–
14A(g)(2)(A) defines an applicable drug
under the Medicare coverage gap
discount program as a covered Part D
drug that is either approved under a
new drug application (NDA) under
section 505(b) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act or, in the case
of a biologic product, licensed under
section 351 of the Public Health Service
Act (BLA) (other than under section
351(k)). Under standard prescription
drug coverage, coinsurance in the
coverage gap for drugs that are not
applicable drugs under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program (that is,
generic drugs) will be either: (1) Equal
to the statutory generic gap coinsurance
percentage for the year; or (2) actuarially
equivalent to an average expected
coinsurance for covered Part D drugs
that are not applicable drugs under the
Medicare coverage gap discount
program at the statutory generic gap
coinsurance percentage for the year, as
determined through processes and
methods established under section
1860D–11(c) of the Act and
implemented at § 423.265(c) and (d) of
our regulations. For applicable drugs
under the Medicare gap coverage
discount program, coinsurance in the
coverage gap for the actual cost of the
drug as defined at § 423.100 minus any
applicable dispensing fees will be
either: (1) Equal to the difference
between the applicable gap percentage
for the year and the discount percentage
determined under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program at
section 1860D–14A(4)(A) of the Act; or
(2) actuarially equivalent to an average
expected payment of the coinsurance for
applicable covered Part D drugs at the
applicable gap percentage for the year,
as determined through processes and
methods established under section
1860D–11(c) of the Act and
implemented at § 423.265(c) and (d) of
our regulations. As a result, when the
applicable drug is purchased at a
network pharmacy, the beneficiary will
be fully liable for any dispensing fees,
since the statute requires that the
coinsurance apply only to the
negotiated price of the drug minus
dispensing fees.
We propose codifying these new
requirements in § 423.104(d)(4).
Additionally, since the terms applicable
drug, applicable beneficiary, and
coverage gap have not been previously
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
defined in regulation, we are proposing
new definitions for these terms at
§ 423.100.
Under the new provisions in section
1860D–2(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Act, the rate
of growth of the annual out-of-pocket
threshold will be reduced from 2014 to
2019. In accordance with the new
requirements, as proposed in
§ 423.104(d)(5)(iii), the annual out-ofpocket threshold for years 2014 and
2015 will be the amount specified for
the previous year, increased by the
‘‘annual percentage increase’’ in the
average expenditures for Part D drugs
per eligible beneficiary currently
specified in § 423.104(d)(5)(iv), minus
0.25 percentage point. In accordance
with the new requirements in sections
1860D–2(b)(4)(B)(i) and 1860D–2(b)(7)
of the Act, we propose amending
§ 423.104(d)(5)(iii) and (v), to reflect that
for years 2016 through 2019, the annual
out-of-pocket threshold will be the
amount specified for the previous year,
increased by the lesser of: (1) The
annual percentage increase in the
consumer price index specified in
§ 423.104(d)(5)(v) for the year involved
plus 2 percentage points; or (2) the
‘‘annual percentage increase’’ specified
in § 423.104(d)(5)(iv), rounded to the
nearest $50. The new provisions in
section 1860D–2(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Act
require us to calculate the annual outof-pocket threshold for 2020 and later as
if no change had been made to the
calculation of the out-of-pocket
threshold for 2014 through 2019 under
the ACA. Thus, we propose to amend
§ 423.104(d)(5)(iii) to reflect this
requirement.
The ACA also amended section
1860D–22(a)(2)(A) of the Act by adding
a provision with regard to the actuarial
equivalence of retiree prescription drug
plan coverage to standard coverage.
Specifically, the new provision requires
that when attesting to the actuarial
equivalence of the plan’s prescription
drug coverage to defined standard
coverage, qualified retiree prescription
drug plans not take into account the
value of any discount or coverage
provided during the gap in coverage that
occurs between the initial coverage limit
during the year and the out-of-pocket
threshold for defined standard coverage
under Part D. We propose codifying this
new requirement in § 423.884(d) of this
rule.
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing these
provisions be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
a. Authority To Apply Frailty
Adjustment Under PACE Payment Rules
for Certain Specialized MA Plans for
Special Needs Individuals (§ 422.308)
similar levels of frailty, in the Advance
Notice and Rate Announcement for the
plan year in question.
The Secretary has the authority to
make an adjustment to payment to take
into account the level of frailty among
the enrollees of a plan if the plan meets
our proposed definition of a fully
integrated dual-eligible special needs
plan at § 422.2 and the plan has a
similar average level of frailty as the
PACE program. In order to have a frailty
score that can be compared to the PACE
program, MA organizations sponsoring a
dual eligible SNP that meets our
proposed definition of a fully integrated
dual-eligible SNP must fund any survey
used by us to support the calculation of
frailty scores; the survey must be fielded
such that we can calculate a frailty score
at the plan benefit package level for
each SNP in question (currently the
counts of limitations on activities of
daily living (ADLs) used to calculate
frailty scores are taken from the HOS or
HOS–M). Further, the survey must
adhere to the methodological
requirements of any such survey.
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
Section 3205 of the ACA provides the
Secretary with the authority to apply a
frailty adjustment to payments to certain
SNPs, starting with plan year 2011. The
statute permits the Secretary to apply
the payment rules under section 1894(d)
of the Act (other than paragraph (3) of
such section), rather than the payment
rules that would otherwise apply under
this part, but only to the extent
necessary to reflect the costs of treating
high concentrations of frail individuals.
We are interpreting this new statutory
language to mean that payments to
frailty-qualifying SNPs will continue to
be calculated using the existing MA
payment rules under which all SNPs are
paid with the sole exception of the
application of a frailty adjustment.
Further, we are interpreting this new
statutory language to permit us to use
the same methodology to adjust
payment to take into account the frailty
of SNP enrollees as we use for the PACE
program.
The Secretary determines the
adjustment methodology for frailty,
which frailty scores will be considered
‘‘similar’’ to PACE program, and how to
measure the ‘‘average level of frailty of
the PACE program.’’ We will announce
any changes to the methodology used to
pay for the frailty, as well as how we
determine PACE program averages, and
which frailty-qualifying SNPs have
b. Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.308)
Section 1102(e) of the ACA amended
section 5301(b) of the Deficit Reduction
Act (DRA) of 2005. Beginning in 2006,
section 1853(a)(1)(C)(ii), as added by
section 5301(b) of the DRA, required the
Secretary, in risk adjusting payments for
health status under 1853(a)(1)(C)(i), to
ensure that such adjustment reflects
changes in treatment and coding
practices in the FFS sector and
beginning in 2008 reflects differences in
coding patterns between MA plans and
providers under Part A and B, to the
extent that the Secretary has identified
such differences. The ACA adds new
statutory language clarifying our
existing authority to adjust risk scores
for coding trends in the FFS sector,
under its general authority to conduct
risk adjustment in an actuarially
equivalent manner under
1853(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act. Further, this
new language extends the mandate that
CMS adjust risk scores for differences in
coding patterns between MA plans and
FFS beyond 2010.
Adjusting risk scores for the
underlying FFS trend—or
normalization—is necessary to ensure
accurate payments because, each time
we recalibrate a risk adjustment model,
the average risk score is set to 1.0 using
the fixed set of coefficients appropriate
19. Payments to Medicare Advantage
Organizations (§ 422.308)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 1853(a)(1)(C) of the Act
requires the Secretary to adjust MA
payments by risk factors including age,
disability status, gender, institutional
status, and other factors as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, including
adjustment for health status. Section
1853(a)(3) of the Act required the
Secretary to establish a ‘‘risk
adjustment’’ methodology which
‘‘accounts for variations in per capita
costs based on [the] health status [of the
enrollee].’’
Generally, the law related to MA
payments is self-implementing, and the
effective dates for changes to the
payment methodology are established in
statute and announced in accordance
with section 1853(b) of the Act.
Regulations related to payment
provisions thus implement
requirements that are effective on the
date specified in statute and as provided
for in the Annual Announcement of MA
Capitation Rates and MA and Part D
Payment Policies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71215
to the population and data for that
calibration year. When the model with
fixed coefficients is used to predict
expenditures for other years, predictions
for prior years are lower and predictions
for succeeding years are higher than for
the calibration year. Because average
predicted expenditures increase after
the model calibration year due to coding
and population changes, we apply a
normalization factor to adjust
beneficiaries’ risk scores so that the
average risk score is 1.0 in subsequent
years.
Adjusting risk scores for the
difference between MA and FFS coding
patterns is also necessary in order for
payments to be accurate because we
calibrate the CMS–HCC model using
FFS data, and the relative factors reflect
the FFS pattern of coding. We adjust for
the trend in the rate of increase of
diagnoses codes submitted by FFS
providers with the application of a
normalization factor that is updated
annually and that adjusts risk scores
with the goal that the average remains
1.0 in each payment year. However,
because MA coding patterns differ from
those in FFS, MA risk scores generally
increase more quickly and are,
therefore, higher than they would be if
MA plans coded in the same manner as
FFS providers.
The DRA also required the Secretary
to conduct an analysis of the differences
in FFS and MA coding patterns in order
to ensure payment accuracy. Such an
analysis was to be completed in time to
ensure that the results of such analysis
were incorporated into the risk scores
for 2008 through 2010. In conducting
such analysis, the Secretary was to use
data submitted with respect to 2004 and
subsequent years, as available.
The ACA made four modifications to
this requirement for analysis. They
are—(1) The analysis must now be
conducted annually; (2) the data used in
the analysis is to be updated as
appropriate; (3) the results of the
analysis are to be incorporated into risk
scores on a timely basis; and (4) the
application of an adjustment for
differences in coding patterns is
extended indefinitely.
The ACA added two additional
requirements to the DRA-mandated
requirements. First, the ACA requires
that the adjustment factor for 2014 be
not less than the adjustment factor
applied for 2010 plus 1.3 percentage
points; for each of the years 2015
through 2018, not less than the
adjustment factor applied for the
previous year plus 0.25 percentage
points; and for 2019 and each
subsequent year not less than 5.7
percent.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Second, the ACA requires the
Secretary to apply the coding
adjustment to risk scores until the
implementation of risk adjustment using
MA diagnostic, cost, and use data.
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
c. Improvements to Risk Adjustment for
Special Needs Individuals With Chronic
Health Conditions (§ 422.308)
The CMS–HCC risk adjustment model
incorporates a set of coefficients for
calculating risk scores for new enrollees
that are based on demographic factors
only, such as age, sex, Medicaid status,
and original reason for entitlement. A
new enrollee risk score is used in the
payment of a beneficiary who is
enrolled in an MA plan or PACE
organization and who does not have
enough diagnoses in the data collection
period to calculate a full risk score. We
classify a beneficiary as a new enrollee
when they do not have 12 months of
Part B in the data collection period.
Because chronic SNP enrollees must,
as a condition of enrollment, have
specific conditions, the average new
enrollee risk score of new enrollees in
chronic SNPs is likely to understate
these beneficiaries’ risk. For 2011 and
subsequent years, for purposes of the
adjustment under section
1853(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, the Secretary
will use a risk score that reflects the
known underlying risk profile and
chronic health status of similar
individuals. The Secretary is required to
use such risk score instead of using the
default risk score that is otherwise used
in payment for new enrollees in MA
plans.
The risk score developed for this
purpose will be used in calculating
payments for a special needs individual
described in section 1859(b)(6)(B)(iii) of
the Act who enrolls in a specialized MA
plan for special needs individuals on or
after January 1, 2011.
For 2011 and periodically thereafter,
the Secretary will evaluate and revise
the risk adjustment system under this
subparagraph in order, as accurately as
possible, to account for higher medical
and care coordination costs associated
with frailty, individuals with multiple,
comorbid chronic conditions, and
individuals with a diagnosis of mental
illness, and also to account for costs that
may be associated with higher
concentrations of beneficiaries with
those conditions. The Secretary is
required to publish in the Rate
Announcement, as described under
section 1853(b) of the Act, a description
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
of any evaluation conducted during the
preceding year and any revisions made
under such clause as a result of such
evaluation.
As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision
be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
20. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate
(§ 422.252, § 422.258, and § 422.266)
a. Terminology (§ 422.252)
In order to implement new ACA
provisions affecting MA payments, we
propose to revise § 422.252 by adding
two new terms and revising one term.
We propose to add the terms ‘‘new MA
plan’’ and ‘‘low enrollment contract.’’ A
new MA plan means, for the purpose of
quality ratings under proposed
§ 422.258(d)(7) (discussed below), with
respect to a year, a plan offered by an
organization or sponsor that has not had
a contract as an MA organization in the
preceding 3-year period. A low
enrollment contract is a contract that
could not undertake Healthcare
Effectiveness Data and Information Set
(HEDIS) and Health Outcome Survey
(HOS) data collections because of a lack
of a sufficient number of enrollees to
reliably measure the performance of the
health plan.
We also propose to revise the
definition of Unadjusted MA areaspecific non-drug monthly benchmark
amount to reflect the provision of the
ACA that, effective for 2012, the MA
area-specific non-drug monthly
benchmark amount is the blended
benchmark amount determined
according to the rules set forth under
§ 422.258(d). In addition, this revision
clarifies that ratesetting rules for county
capitation rates are specific to a time
period, as set forth at § 422.258(a).
Finally, this revision further clarifies
that the term ‘‘unadjusted’’ refers to a
standardized amount, reflecting a risk
profile based on the national average.
b. Calculation of Benchmarks
(§ 422.258)
Section 1102(b) of the ACA
establishes a new blended benchmark as
the MA county rate, effective 2012, and
section 1102(c) of the Act establishes
quality-based increases to the blended
benchmark. To implement these ratesetting rules for the MA program
effective 2012 onward, we propose
amendments to § 422.258(a) and
§ 422.258(c)(3), and propose the
addition of a new paragraph
§ 422.258(d), which sets forth the
provisions for MA blended benchmarks,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including increases to the benchmarks
for quality bonuses at § 422.258(d)(7).
Proposed § 422.258(a) implements
section 1853(j) of the Act to reflect the
ACA requirement that CY 2011 MA
capitation rates be set at 2010 levels.
Proposed § 422.258(a) also clarifies
which ratesetting rules are in effect for
a particular time period by
distinguishing the (c)(1) capitation rates
in effect prior to 2007 from the
applicable amount rates in effect from
2007 to 2011 (section 1853(k)(1) of the
Act), and from the blended benchmark
rates effective for 2012 (section 1853(n)
of the Act).
We also propose to amend
§ 422.258(c)(3) to require that the MA
regional plan statutory component of
the region-specific benchmarks be
calculated using the county rates
determined under proposed § 422.258(a)
for the year. This amendment ensures
that the statutory component of the
regional plan benchmarks reflects ratesetting rules regarding blended
benchmarks for counties that are
effective in 2012.
To implement sections 1853(n) and
(o) of the Act, as added by sections
1102(b) and (c) of the ACA, respectively,
on blended benchmarks and qualitybased increases to the benchmarks, we
propose to add a new paragraph
§ 422.258(d). Paragraphs (1) through (6),
and (8) and (9), of paragraph (d)
implement provisions regarding the
blended benchmark, effective for 2012
onward. Paragraph (7) implements the
provisions to increase the blended
benchmarks for MA plans that receive
quality ratings of a specified level. The
quality bonus provisions in
§ 422.258(d)(7) are discussed following
presentation of other provisions on the
blended benchmarks that are
implemented in this proposed
paragraph.
The MMA established the concept of
the ‘‘unadjusted MA area-specific nondrug monthly benchmark amount’’ as
the service-area level benchmark for an
MA plan, as specified in section 1853(j)
of the Act and implemented at
§ 422.258(a) for MA local plans and
§ 422.258(b) for MA regional plans.
Under rules established by the MMA,
the service area-level benchmark for an
MA plan is, in effect, the bidding target.
Service area-level benchmarks are based
on county capitation rates, and the
general amendments to the rules for
setting county capitation rates are as
follows. The MMA eliminated the
‘‘higher of three’’ rate-setting rule that
had been established by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), and
mandated a transition to the ratesetting
rule that a county capitation rate was
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the (redefined) minimum percentage
increase rate for a year (that is, the
previous year’s rate increased by the
greater of 102 percent or the National
Per Capita Medicare Advantage Growth
Percentage), except in years when
county average FFS expenditures were
rebased (updated with more recent
data); in rebasing years a county rate for
a year was the greater of the FFS rate
and the minimum percentage increase
rate. The DRA introduced section
1853(k)(1) of the Act, which mandated
that a county rate is an ‘‘applicable
amount’’ for an area for a year, also used
‘‘for purposes of subsection (j),’’ that is,
to determine a plan’s service area-level
benchmark. Effective in 2007, the
applicable amount under section
1853(k)(1) of the Act for an area for a
year was the (again, redefined)
minimum percentage increase rate (that
is, the prior year’s rate increase by the
National Per Capita Medicare Advantage
Growth Percentage), except in a year
when we rebased the FFS rates; in a
rebasing year, the applicable amount
was the greater of the county’s rebased
FFS rate and its minimum percentage
increase rate. In other words, the
‘‘unadjusted MA area-specific non-drug
monthly benchmark amount’’ was now
based on applicable amounts under
section 1853(k)(1) of the Act.
Section 1102(b)(2) of the ACA
introduces section 1853(n) of the Act,
which creates a new type of county
capitation rate, the ‘‘blended benchmark
amount’’ for an area for a year, which
also must be determined ‘‘for purposes
of subsection (j)’’—to determine MA
plans’ service area-level benchmarks.
Effective 2012 onward, the blended
benchmark will be set at some
percentage of the county’s average FFS
expenditure (the FFS rate). This
percentage varies depending on several
rules discussed below. The minimum
percentage increase rate will no longer
exist. Rather, we must rebase the 2012
county FFS rates, and all 2012 county
capitation rates are based on the FFS
rates. The rebasing rule at section
1853(c)(1)(D)(ii) of the Act remains in
effect, requiring us to rebase the FFS
rates at least every 3 years. In years after
2012 when the FFS rates are not
rebased, the county rate is the previous
year’s rate increased by the National Per
Capita Medicare Advantage Growth
Percentage. In effect, the ACA mandates
that the ‘‘unadjusted MA area-specific
non-drug monthly benchmark amount’’
will be based on the blended benchmark
rate, thus replacing the applicable
amounts determined under section
1853(k)(1) of the Act.
However, section 1853(n) of the Act
states that there are two components of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the blended benchmark: The applicable
amount determined under section
1853(k)(1) of the Act and described at
proposed § 422.258(d)(1); and the
‘‘specified amount’’ introduced at
section 1853(n)(2) of the Act and
described at proposed § 422.258(d)(2).
The two components must be combined
using weights that are specific to the
phase-in period assigned each area
(county), according to rules set forth at
sections 1853(n)(1) and (n)(3) of the Act
and implemented at proposed
paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9) of § 422.258
of the regulations. At the conclusion of
an area’s phase-in period, the blended
benchmark for the area for a year will
be the area’s specified amount under
section 1853(n)(2) of the Act. In other
words, when all counties have
concluded their transition periods to a
blended benchmark based on 100
percent of the specified amount, the
‘‘blended’’ aspect of the benchmark will
also be concluded, because the
proportion attributed to the applicable
amount under section 1853(k)(1) of the
Act will be zero. However, we will
continue to calculate the applicable
amounts under section 1853(k)(1) of the
Act because section 1853(n)(4) of the
Act requires that the blended
benchmarks for an area for a year must
be capped at what the applicable
amount under section 1853(k)(1) of the
Act would be for a year if the blended
benchmark provisions were not in
effect.
Specified Amount. Section 1853(n)(2)
of the Act, as implemented by proposed
§ 422.258(d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4), sets
forth the formula for the specified
amount and the rules for tabulating the
components of the formula. Specifically,
the specified amount is the product of
two quantities: the base payment
amount defined at section 1853(n)(2)(E)
of the Act (adjusted to carve-out the
indirect medical education (IME)
amount, as required at section
1853(k)(4)) of the Act and implemented
at § 422.306(c); and the applicable
percentage defined at section
1853(n)(2)(B) of the Act and
implemented at proposed
§ 422.258(d)(4).
The base payment amount for an area
for 2012 is the average FFS expenditure
amount determined for 2012, as
specified in proposed § 422.306(b)(2).
For subsequent years, the base payment
amount for an area is the average FFS
expenditure amount specified in
§ 422.306(b)(2), which includes the
requirement to rebase (update with
more recent data) the FFS rates no less
frequently than every 3 years.
The applicable percentage is one of
four values assigned to an area (a
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71217
county) based on our determination of
the quartile ranking for the previous
year of the area’s average FFS
expenditure amount (described at
§ 422.306(b)(2)) relative to this amount
for all counties. The FFS rate used for
the quartile ranking must be net of the
IME amount determined under
§ 422.306(c) for the year. For the 50
States or the District of Columbia,
counties whose FFS rates (net of the
IME amount for the year) fall in the
highest quartile of all such amounts for
the previous year receive an applicable
percentage of 95 percent, while counties
falling in the second highest quartile
receive an applicable percentage of 100
percent, counties falling in the third
highest quartile receive an applicable
percentage of 107.5 percent, and
counties falling in the lowest quartile
receive an applicable percentage of 115
percent. To determine the applicable
percentages for a territory, we must rank
such areas for a year based on the level
of the area’s FFS amount net of the IME
amount, relative to the quartile rankings
computed for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia.
After establishing the basic formula
for the specified amount and setting the
rules for calculating its components—
the base payment amount and the
applicable percentage, sections 1853(n)
and (o) of the Act provide additional
rules for determining the applicable
percentage for a county for a year. There
are four sets of rules: (1) When to rerank the county FFS rates to determine
whether some counties receive quartile
reassignments; (2) how to transition a
county from one quartile assignment to
another; (3) how to assign a county its
transition period of 2, 4, or 6 years,
whereby at the conclusion of the
transition period, the county’s blended
benchmark equals 100 percent of the
specified amount; and (4) under what
conditions the applicable percentage
shall be increased to provide a quality
bonus payments to qualifying plans.
The first three types of rules are
discussed here, and the fourth rule on
quality bonuses is discussed in the next
section on paragraph § 422.258(d)(7).
First, section 1853(n)(2)(C) of the Act,
implemented at proposed
§ 422.258(d)(5)(i), provides that the
quartile ranking of all county FFS rates
(net of the IME carve-out) for a contract
year must be re-ranked whenever the
FFS rates for the year prior to the
contract year are rebased FFS rates, per
the rebasing rule set forth at
§ 422.306(b)(2). For example, if we did
not rebase the FFS rates for contract
year 2013, but did rebase them for
contract year 2014, the base payment
amount for contract year 2014 would be
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the 2014 rebased FFS rates, but the
applicable percentage for contract year
2014 must be based on the previous
year’s quartile ranking, which would be
the 2013 rates. Under this hypothetical
scenario, because the 2013 FFS rates
were not rebased, the 2013 FFS rates are
the 2012 FFS rates increased by the
2013 National Per Capita Medicare
Advantage Growth Percentage; further,
because the 2013 growth trend would be
applied as a constant to all 2012 FFS
rates, in effect the applicable
percentages for contract year 2014
would be based on the quartile ranking
of the 2012 rebased FFS rates.
Second, section 1853(n)(2)(D) of the
Act, implemented at proposed
§ 422.258(d)(5)(ii), provides that for a
year after 2012, if there is a change in
a county’s quartile ranking for a contract
year compared to the county’s ranking
in the previous year, the applicable
percentage for the area for the year shall
be the average of the applicable
percentage for the previous year and the
applicable percentage that would
otherwise apply for the area for the year
in the absence of this transitional
provision. For example, if a county’s
ranking changed from the third quartile
to the second quartile, the applicable
percentage would be 103.75 percent for
the year of the change—the average of
107.5 percent and 100 percent.
Third, sections 1853(n)(2) and (n)(3)
of the Act, implemented at proposed
§ 422.258(d)(8) and (d)(9) respectively,
establish the methodology that we must
use to assign one of three transition
periods to each county—a 2-year, 4year, or 6-year transition—to phase-in
the blended benchmark amount to be
equal to 100 percent of the specified
amount. Assignment of a phase-in
period is determined by the size of the
difference between the 2010 applicable
amount under section 1853(k)(1) of the
Act at proposed paragraph (d)(1) and
‘‘the projected 2010 benchmark amount’’
at proposed (d)(8)(i), which is a quantity
created at section 1853(n)(3)(C) of the
Act solely for the purpose of assigning
a transition period to each county. The
projected 2010 benchmark amount is
equal to one-half of the 2010 applicable
amount and one-half of the specified
amount; the latter is calculated as if the
2012 effective date for the specified
amount were instead 2010. This
modified specified amount for 2010 is
the product of two quantities: the 2010
base payment amount adjusted as
required under paragraph § 422.306(c);
and the applicable percentage, which is
determined under the rules set forth at
proposed paragraph (d)(8)(ii)(B).
Specifically, all applicable percentages
are increased as if all counties were in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
qualifying plans in 2010 for the purpose
of calculating the projected 2010
benchmark amount (thus adding 1.5
percentage points to each county’s
applicable percentage). Further, we
must determine a list of 2010 qualifying
counties using the criteria set forth for
2012 onward in proposed paragraph
(d)(7)(ii), thus further increasing the
applicable percentage of this subset of
2010 counties an additional 1.5
percentage points.
Once the special quantity ‘‘projected
2010 benchmark amount’’ is compared
to the 2010 specified amount under
section 1853(k)(1) of the Act, the phasein assignments are made as follows. A
county is assigned a 2-year phase-in
period if the difference between the
applicable amount and the projected
2010 benchmark amount is less than
$30, a 4-year phase-in period if the
difference is at least $30 but less than
$50, and a 6-year phase-in period if the
difference is at least $50.
Finally, section 1853(n)(3),
implemented at proposed
§ 422.258(d)(8), sets forth the rules for
calculating the blended benchmark
depending on the assigned phase-in
period. For counties assigned the 2-year
phase-in period, the blended benchmark
for 2012 is the sum of one-half of the
applicable amount at paragraph (1) and
one-half of the specified amount at
paragraph (2); and or subsequent years,
the blended benchmark equals the
specified amount. For counties assigned
the 4-year phase-in period, the blended
benchmark is calculated as follows: for
2012 the blended benchmark is the sum
of three-quarters of the applicable
amount for the area and year and onefourth of the specified amount for the
area and year; for 2013, it is the sum of
one-half of the applicable amount for
the area and year and one-half of the
specified amount for the area and year;
for 2014 it is the sum of one-fourth of
the applicable amount for the area and
year and three-fourths of the specified
amount for the area and year; and for
subsequent years, the blended
benchmark equals the specified amount.
For counties assigned the 6-year phasein period, for 2012, the blended
benchmark is the sum of five-sixths of
the applicable amount for the area and
year and one-sixth of the specified
amount for the area and year; for 2013
it is the sum of two-thirds of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and one-third of the specified amount
for the area and year; for 2014 it is the
sum of one-half of the applicable
amount for the area and year and onehalf of the specified amount for the area
and year; for 2015 it is the sum of onethird of the applicable amount for the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
area and year and two-thirds of the
specified amount for the area and year;
for 2016 it is the sum of one-sixth of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and five-sixths of the specified amount
for the area and year; and for subsequent
years, the blended benchmark equals
the specified amount.
c. Increases to the Applicable
Percentage for Quality (§ 422.258(d))
Under the ACA, the Secretary is
required to implement increases to MA
plan benchmarks (which are the basis of
a plan’s bidding target) if they attain 4
or more stars on a 5 star quality rating
system implemented by the Secretary.
The effective date for this provision is
January 1, 2012. For the purposes of this
preamble, we will refer to these qualitybased increases in MA benchmarks as
quality bonus payments (QBPs) for MA
plans. We propose to implement the
quality payment provisions under
section 1102 of the ACA at
§ 422.258(d)(7) and at § 422.252. Below
we discuss our proposal for applying a
star rating system to MA plan
benchmarks.
Under the terms of proposed
§§ 422.258(d)(7) and 422.252, MA
organizations would be evaluated and
scored on a 5-star rating system, with
bonus payments made to qualifying
organizations that have a star rating of
4 or higher. As specified under section
1102 of the ACA, the 5 star rating
system that serves as the basis for
making the bonus payment must be
based on quality information collected
by us under authority of section 1852(e)
of the Act.
Under the proposed regulations, the
blended benchmark for 2012 and future
years would reflect the level of quality
rating at the organization or contract
level, as determined by the Secretary
pursuant to a methodology that would
be set forth in a notice to MA
organizations for the calendar year in
question. This notice would come in the
form of a memorandum to the Medicare
Compliance Officers of MA
organizations. As discussed in section
II.B.20.b of this proposed rule, the
blended benchmark has two
components—the applicable amount
and the specified amount. A qualifying
organization that receives 4 or more
stars on a 5 star rating system would,
under the proposed regulations, receive
an increase in the specified amount
component of the blended benchmark
amount of 1.5 percentage points in
2012, 3.0 percentage points in 2013 and
5.0 percentage points in 2014 and in
subsequent years. A qualifying
organization in a qualifying county
would receive double the applicable
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
percentage increase. A qualifying
county is defined as a county that has
an MA capitation rate that, in 2004, was
based on the amount specified in
subsection c1b for a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) with a
population of more than 250,000; has at
least 25 percent of MA eligible
individuals enrolled in MA plans as of
December 2009; and has a per capita
fee-for-service spending that is lower
than the national monthly per capita
cost for expenditures for individuals
enrolled under the Original Medicare
fee-for-service program for the year.
Under the proposed regulations, a new
MA plan would receive an increase in
the specified amount component of the
blended benchmark amount of 1.5
percentage points in 2012; 2.5
percentage points in 2013; and 3.5
percentage points in 2014 and in
subsequent years.
The 5 star ratings system that would
be used is the system currently in place,
which historically has served two
purposes. First, the plan ratings provide
beneficiaries information on
organization performance that they may
consider (in addition to cost and benefit
information) when choosing a plan. The
second purpose is to assist us in
identifying poor performing
organizations for compliance actions.
Under the plan rating system, if an MA–
PD organization offers health and drug
benefits, both Part C and Part D
summary ratings scores are generated. In
the Fall of 2010, MA–PDs will receive
a combined Part C and D summary
rating to summarize overall contract
performance with respect to health and
drug issues. This combined rating
would, under the proposed regulations,
be used to determine the new quality
bonus payments (QBPs) based on
quality.
We have always considered the plan
rating system to be based on information
consistent with section 1852(e) of the
Act, which specifies that MA
organizations are required to collect,
analyze and report data that measure
health outcomes and other quality
indices. Because section 1852(e) of the
Act states that ‘‘The Secretary shall not
collect data on quality, outcomes and
beneficiary satisfaction to facilitate
consumer choice and program
administration other than the types of
data that were collected by the Secretary
as of November 1, 2003’’, we clarify here
the types of data included under the
plan rating system are consistent with
the types of data collected as of
November 1, 2003. Since 1997 Medicare
managed care organizations have been
required to annually report quality of
care performance measures through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
HEDIS. HEDIS is a widely used quality
measures set in the managed care
industry, developed and maintained by
the National Committee for Quality
Assurance (NCQA). HEDIS data
includes clinical measures assessing the
effectiveness of care, access/availability
measures such as telephone customer
service, and use of service measures. We
have also been conducting the
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare
Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey
since 1997 to measure beneficiary’s
experiences and satisfaction with their
health plans. HOS began in 1998 to
capture changes in the physical and
mental health of MA enrollees.
Additionally, there are several measures
based on performance that address
telephone customer service, members’
complaints, disenrollment rates, and the
seriousness of problems found during a
Medicare audit. All of these measures
reflect structure, process, and outcomes
indices of quality that form the
measurement set under plan ratings.
Additionally, since 2007, we have
publicly reported a number of measures
related to the drug benefit as part of the
plan ratings. For MA organizations that
offer prescription drug coverage, we
have developed a series of measures
focusing on administration of the drug
benefit. Similar to MA measures of
quality relative to health services, the
Part D measures focus on customer
service and satisfaction, effectiveness,
and access to care relative to the drug
benefit. Because these measures focus
on structure, process, and outcomes
indices of quality, we believe that they
too are consistent with the types of
information referenced in section 1852
(e) of the Act. Therefore, we believe that
the Part C and D plan ratings are
consistent with the limitation expressed
in section 1852(e) of the Act limiting
data collection for quality to the types
of data collected as of November 1,
2003.
Additionally, for 2012 and thereafter,
the ACA directs the Secretary to
develop definitions for new
organizations that lack sufficient data to
produce a star rating. Those new plans
as defined by the Secretary will be
considered qualifying organizations and
will receive a bonus payment. The ACA
requires that for 2012 the Secretary
develop definitions for low enrollment
plans that lack sufficient data to
produce a star rating. For years after
2012, the Secretary must develop a
methodology in order to rate these low
enrollment plans for purposes of
determining whether these plans qualify
for quality bonus payments and what
are the applicable beneficiary rebates
percentages for these plans. We are
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71219
proposing to add a new paragraph (d)(7)
to § 422.258 to reflect our authority to
make bonus payments based on quality.
Under § 422.252, we propose definitions
of a low enrollment organization and a
new organization for the purpose of
identifying qualifying organizations
eligible to receive a bonus payment.
Low enrollment plans will be qualifying
plans for 2012 and in subsequent years,
the Secretary is directed to develop a
methodology to assign star ratings to
low enrollment organizations. MA
organizations that fail to report data as
required by the Secretary shall be
counted as having a rating of fewer than
3.5 stars at the organization or contract
level, as determined by the Secretary.
For the purpose of awarding 2012
quality bonus payments, we propose to
define low enrollment organizations as
those that could not undertake HEDIS
and HOS data collections because of a
lack of a sufficient number of enrollees
to reliably measure the performance of
the health plan. New MA organizations
that meet criteria specified by the
Secretary are also treated as qualifying
organizations for the purposes of QBPs.
We propose to define a new MA
organization as a MA contract offered by
a parent organization that has not had
another MA contract in the previous 3
years; these contracts would qualify for
the QBP. Other MA contracts that open
in a given year, but have had other
contracts offered by the parent
organization offering the new plan in
the prior three years would be assigned
a star rating based on the average
enrollment-weighted performance of the
other contracts offered by the parent
organization to reflect the overall
performance of the organization. Also
under the ACA, new MA organizations
that meet criteria specified by the
Secretary are treated as qualifying
organizations for the purposes of QBPS.
We propose to define a new MA
organization as a MA contract offered by
a parent organization that has not had
another MA contract in the previous 3
years; these contracts would qualify for
the QBP. Other MA contracts that open
in a given year, but have had other
contracts offered by the parent
organization offering the new plan in
the prior three years would be assigned
a star rating based on the average
enrollment-weighted performance of the
other contracts offered by the parent
organization to reflect the overall
performance of the organization.
We anticipate moving toward
transformation of the rating system in
future years in order to advance more
ambitious and comprehensive quality
improvement objectives. These
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
objectives will include greater emphasis
on demonstrable improvements in
beneficiary access to care, beneficiary
health status and outcomes, beneficiary
satisfaction and engagement, prevention
and management of chronic conditions
as well as coordination across the
continuum of care. By designing the MA
quality rating system around these types
of objectives, we expect to encourage
and incentivize MA plans and affiliated
providers to transform their delivery
systems and processes to provide
beneficiaries with high-quality and
efficient care. Ultimately, we seek to
design the MA quality rating system to
ensure that Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in MA organizations receive
efficient, high quality care and services
every time. Future quality agenda and
measurement development will be
designed to ensure that MA
organizations lead the healthcare
industry in providing cutting edge,
integrated and coordinated care for our
beneficiaries using evidence-based and
demonstrable metrics.
As we develop a longer term strategic
framework for transforming the MA
quality rating system, over the near
term, we also will consider guiding
principles for the MA quality agenda.
For instance, these principles could be
based on aims from the 2001 Institute of
Medicine (IOM) Report ‘‘Crossing the
Quality Chasm: A New Health System
for the 21st Century.’’ From this IOM
Report, the six aims that have been
described are being proposed as a
framework for the MA Quality Strategic
Plan. The IOM Report provides the
following definitions for the six aims:
Safe is defined as avoiding injuries to
patients from the care that is intended
to help them. Effective refers to
providing services based on scientific
knowledge to all who could benefit, and
refraining from providing services to
those not likely to benefit. Patientcentered is providing care that is
respectful of and responsive to
individual patient preferences, needs,
and values, and ensuring that patient
values guide all clinical decisions.
Timely is defined as reducing waits and
sometimes harmful delays for both those
who receive and those who give care.
Efficient is avoiding waste, including
waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and
energy. Equitable is providing care that
does not vary in quality because of
personal characteristics such as gender,
ethnicity, geographic location, and
socioeconomic status (IOM, 2001).
We invite public comment on what
types of principles or objectives that we
should adopt for the MA quality rating
system over the longer term. For
instance, are there specific frameworks
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
or elements that we should adopt from
the National Quality Forum (NQF),
NCQA, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality and Research
(AHRQ) or other experts in this field?
How should these objectives evolve over
time so the rating system rewards
continual improvement and innovation
on the part of MA organizations?
As a part of developing our long-term
quality strategy, we have begun to
identify measures that can be
implemented in the near term to further
the MA quality agenda. Looking beyond
the 2012 plan ratings, we are exploring
using measures, such as reportable
adverse events and hospital acquired
conditions, which are submitted via the
Part C reporting requirements. We are
also examining the use of alternative
measurement sets (for example,
ACOVE), exploring the use of data
collected in other settings (for example,
rural hospital quality data annual
payment update (RHQDAPU)),
considering incorporating encounter
data into quality measures, and are
considering development of additional
outcome measures designed specifically
for MA. The NCQA is also developing
measures of all-cause readmission rates
and ambulatory care sensitive
conditions that we would look to
implement as they become available.
These are some of the activities that we
anticipate engaging in over the next few
years, and we expect to undertake
further measure identification,
refinement, and development as we
implement the MA quality bonus
payments.
Further, beyond broadening the goals
of the MA quality rating system, for
instance by incorporating more
outcomes-based measures, we also seek
to continually raise performance targets,
so as to incentivize continual quality
improvement across established metrics
of performance and quality. We invite
public comment on appropriate
performance and quality benchmarks,
and what approach should be used for
updating these benchmarks, including
frequency of updates.
The MA quality agenda will also be
coordinated with the national priorities
for quality that are being set as part of
the ACA. As the national priorities for
quality are shaped, the MA quality
agenda will be aligned with these
priorities. We are working on the MA
quality agenda and have also
established an agency-wide Quality
Working Group Advisory Panel. Senior
CMS leadership has convened an
agency-wide Quality Working Group
Advisory Panel to facilitate the
coordination of the CMS quality
initiatives in support of the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
development of the HHS National
Strategy for Quality that is required by
the ACA. This working group will
ensure that the MA Quality agenda
aligns with other components within
CMS and with HHS national goals.
CMS’s participation in the HHS-wide
Interagency Quality Measures
Workgroup will also further ensure that
MA quality measures are developed in
a coordinated way across the
Department.
Accordingly, based on the preceding,
we are proposing the following
amendment to § 422.258 to add a new
paragraph (d)(7) to reflect our authority
to make bonus payments based on
quality. Under § 422.252, we propose
definitions of low enrollment
organization and new organization for
the purpose of identifying qualifying
organizations eligible to receive a bonus
payment.
While the regulations we are
proposing in this section would
implement the QBP provisions specified
in the ACA on a permanent basis, for
the near term we will be conducting a
demonstration project under which the
rules for determining QBPs set forth in
the Affordable Care Act and in these
proposed regulations would be waived,
and QBPs would instead be determined
under the terms of the demonstration.
For CYs 2012 through 2014, MA
payment will be determined under the
terms of the national quality bonus
payment demonstration project. Details
on the demonstration will be provided
on the CMS Web site.
d. Beneficiary Rebates (§ 422.266)
The proposed rule for calculation of
beneficiary rebates implements section
1102(d) of the ACA, which reduces the
amount of beneficiary rebate, and ties
the level of rebate to a plan’s star rating
for quality of performance.
The ACA does not change the basic
rules for determining whether or not an
MA plan must provide a beneficiary
rebate. These three basic rules are as
follows. As set forth at § 422.262, we
determine whether an MA plan must
charge a basic beneficiary premium for
coverage of Original Medicare benefits
by comparing the unadjusted
(standardized) Parts A/B bid amount to
the unadjusted (standardized) Parts A/B
benchmark amount for the plan for the
year. If the bid is less than the
benchmark, the basic beneficiary
premium for coverage of Original
Medicare benefits is zero. Second, as set
forth at § 422.264(c) and (d) for local
and regional plans, we calculate the
amount of savings for MA plans with
zero basic beneficiary premiums, which
is 100 percent of the difference between
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the risk-adjusted bid amount and the
risk-adjusted benchmark amount.
Finally, as set forth at § 422.266, the MA
plan’s beneficiary rebate amount is
calculated as a percentage of the savings
amount. Rebates must be used to reduce
the costs of Part C mandatory
supplemental benefits, Part D
supplemental benefits, and/or to reduce
the Part D basic premium and Part B
premium.
Section 1102(d) of the ACA changes
the share of savings that MA plans must
provide to enrollees as the beneficiary
rebate specified at § 422.266(a).
Specifically, this provision mandates
that the level of rebate is tied to the level
of a plan’s star rating for quality of
performance. Under the new provisions,
the highest possible rebate, for plans
with a 4.5 star rating or higher, is set at
70 percent of the average per capita
savings. The rebate is reduced further
for plans with lower star ratings for a
year. These new provisions are phasedin from 2012 through 2014. The
demonstration project mentioned in
section II.B.20.c. of this proposed rule
would not affect the rebate percentages
associated with a particular star rating,
under the terms of the ACA.
We propose to revise § 422.266 by
first redesignating paragraph (a) as
paragraph (a)(1), and amending it to
apply to years 2006 through 2011. We
further propose to add paragraph (a)(2),
which sets forth the rebate
determination rules for 2012 and
subsequent years. Proposed
§ 422.266(a)(2)(ii) states that for 2014
and subsequent years, the final
applicable rebate percentage (the
percentage applied to the savings
amount to determine the rebate amount)
is 70 percent in the case of a plan with
a quality rating under such system of at
least 4.5 stars; 65 percent in the case of
a plan with a quality rating of at least
3.5 stars and less than 4.5 stars; and 50
percent in the case of a plan with a
quality rating of less than 3.5 stars.
Proposed § 422.266(a)(2)(i) describes
the transition period during which the
old 75 percent rule at paragraph (a)(1)
will be phased-out and the (a)(2)(ii)
rules phased in. For 2012, the rebate
percentage equals the sum of: Twothirds of the old proportion of 75
percent of the average per capita
savings; and one-third of the new
proportion assigned the plan or contract
under paragraph (ii), based on the plan’s
star rating for the year. For 2013, the
rebate percentage equals the sum of:
One-third of the old proportion of 75
percent of the average per capita
savings; and two-thirds of the new
proportion assigned the plan or contract
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
based on the plan’s star rating for the
year.
Proposed § 422.266(a)(2)(iii) describes
the rules for low enrollment plans. For
2012, the ACA requires that low
enrollment plans shall be treated as
having a rating of 4.5 stars for the
purpose of determining the beneficiary
rebate amount. Proposed
§ 422.266(a)(2)(iii) describes the rules
for new MA plans. For 2012 or a
subsequent years, a new MA plan
defined at § 422.252 that meets the
criteria specified by us for purposes of
§ 422.258(d)(7)(v) shall be treated as a
qualifying plan under paragraph (7)(i),
except that plan must be treated as
having a rating of 3.5 stars for purposes
of determining the beneficiary rebate
amount.
For the purpose of setting a plan’s
rebate level for 2012 and 2013, we
anticipate that MA organizations will
receive adjustments to their quality
ratings in a manner similar to the
adjustments proposed for benchmarks,
in recognition that MA organizations
have limited ability to influence their
summary plan ratings for purposes of
the 2012 and 2013 determination of the
plan rebate amount.
21. Quality Bonus Payment and Rebate
Retention Appeals (§ 422.260)
Section 1853(o) of the Act requires us
to make QBPs to MA organizations that
achieve performance rating scores of at
least 4 stars under a five star rating
system. While we have applied a star
rating system to MA organizations for a
number of years, these star ratings have
thus far been used only to provide
additional information for beneficiaries
to consider in making their Part C and
D plan elections. Beginning in 2012, the
star ratings we assign for purposes of
QBPs under section 1858(o) of the Act
will directly affect the monthly payment
amount MA organizations receive from
us under their contracts. In effect, the
bonus payment provisions of the new
statute create a new category of CMS
determinations related to MA
organizations that affect their payments,
arguably similar in terms of possible
adverse impact to determinations
related to contract qualification,
termination, sanction, and payment
reconciliation. Historically, a key aspect
of the exercise of our authority to make
such organization-specific
determinations has been making an
administrative review process available
to MA organizations. Accordingly, we
are proposing a review process through
which MA organizations may seek
review of their star rating (‘‘QBP status’’)
for QBP determinations.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71221
Section 1854(b)(1)(C)(v) of the Act, as
added by the ACA, also requires us to
change the share of savings that MA
organizations must provide to enrollees
as the beneficiary rebate specified at
§ 422.266(a) based on the level of a
sponsor’s star rating for quality
performance. This review process will
also apply to the determinations made
by us where the organization’s plan
rating sets its QBP status at ineligible for
rebate retention.
While the statute does not specify a
process for appealing low star ratings for
QBP purposes, we are proposing this
process pursuant to our authority to
establish MA program standards by
regulation at section 1856(b)(1) of the
Act. We are proposing to afford the MA
organization the opportunity to seek an
appeal of their QBP status by a hearing
officer. Prior to a request for an appeal,
we will afford MA organizations the
benefit of a technical report on the
calculation of their QBP status, at the
organization’s request.
As previously discussed, for calendar
years 2012 through 2014, QBP payments
will be awarded under the terms of a
demonstration project. Because the
appeals process proposed in this
proposed rule contemplates that the
regulations governing QBP payments
would be in effect, we are considering
that these regulations not take effect
until after the demonstration project has
terminated. We anticipate making the
appeals regulations effective when the
demonstration project has terminated.
In the interim, we will announce a
process to appeal low star ratings for
both QBP determinations under the
demonstration and rebate retention
allowances in separate guidance. We
request comment regarding our proposal
to delay the effective date of the appeals
process set forth in this proposed rule
until after the end of the demonstration.
Under the proposed regulations
described in this section, MA
organizations would be permitted to
request a report on the calculation of
their QBP status upon CMS’ issuance of
its final QBP payment determinations
each year. Currently, we make plan star
ratings available to MA organizations
each September. As we have in prior
years, we will continue to provide all
organizations with a two-week preview
period during which they can review
their plan rating and raise questions
concerning its accuracy with us before
it is displayed on the CMS Web site. As
noted in the discussion of the
implementation of quality bonus
payments earlier in this preamble, the
plan ratings play a significant role in
identifying MA organizations that
qualify for QBPs. While we reserve the
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
right to use the same star rating that
applies to the plan rating for QBP
determinations, we will provide MA
organizations notice each year regarding
their QBP status. QBP determinations
will be considered made, subject to the
appeal rights described in this section,
when the notice of QBP status is
released.
Under our proposed regulations, MA
organizations would have 5 calendar
days from the date of CMS’ release of its
QBP determinations to request from
CMS a technical report explaining the
development of their QBP status. The
report would be produced by an
independent contractor engaged by us to
review the application of CMS’ QBP
payment methodology to the
organization’s performance for the most
recent evaluation period. The technical
report would be designed primarily to
allow MA organizations to ‘‘see CMS’
work’’ by providing the organization
with a full explanation of how the
values were determined for each
performance area and how those values
were in turn incorporated into the
methodology used to calculate the QBP.
This information would help MA
organizations identify the ways in
which their organization would need to
improve to qualify for a QBP in future
MA program years. The technical report
contractor would provide its report in
writing by electronic mail to the MA
organization and CMS within 30 days of
CMS’ receipt of the organization’s
request for the report.
If, after reviewing the technical report,
the MA organization believes that we
were incorrect in its QBP determination,
the MA organization would be able to
request an appeal to be conducted by a
hearing officer designated by CMS. The
organization would be required to make
such a request within 7 calendar days of
the MA organization’s confirmed receipt
of the technical report. Such request
would have to include a statement that
describes the errors that we made in our
QBP determination and how correction
of those errors would result in the
organization’s qualification for a QBP.
We propose that the scope of the
hearing be limited to challenges of CMS’
application of its QBP determination
methodology to the appealing MA
organization and, in very limited
instances, the accuracy of the data CMS
used to make the QBP determination.
We would make available and request
comment from the public on the star
rating calculation methodology each
year. Once that process is concluded,
the appeals process proposed may not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
be used as a means to challenge the
validity of the adopted methodology.
Generally, we do not believe that the
appeals process should provide a forum
for MA organizations to challenge the
accuracy of plan rating data as such data
has often been made available to the
sponsor and been subject to
independent review (for example,
HEDIS, CAHPS) prior to their use in
QBP determinations. However, we
acknowledge that while MA
organizations often have access to the
their raw performance data, the data sets
we actually develop and use for the
calculation of some of the performance
measures may not be made available to
the MA organization until they are
released to them during the star rating
preview period or through the technical
report proposed here (for example, call
center studies, appeals processing
analysis). With respect to those data
sets, we think it is appropriate to afford
MA organizations the opportunity to
challenge their accuracy during an
appeal. Therefore, we propose to limit
the scope of the hearing officer’s
consideration concerning the
underlying data sets to those that have
not been previously subject to
independent validation. We are
soliciting comments on whether this is
an appropriate limitation on the scope
of a QBP status appeal.
We expect that the appropriately
limited scope of the appeal means that
the relevant issues can be developed
sufficiently for review by a hearing that
would be conducted on the record,
unless the parties requested and the
hearing officer approved, a live or
telephonic hearing. Also, the parties
will not be permitted to conduct
discovery as the only facts at issue will
already have been sufficiently
developed by CMS and in the QBP
technical report contractor.
In determining the appropriate official
to conduct a QBP appeal, we must
consider issues of expertise and
efficiency. We are proposing to
designate a hearing officer who was not
directly involved in the QBP
determinations but who has sufficient
understanding of the QBP methodology
to promptly and effectively consider an
MA organization’s appeal. The
designated hearing officer for the
purpose of these appeals may or may
not be the CMS Hearing Officer.
The hearing officer would be required
to issue his or her decision on or before
May 15 of the year preceding the year
in which the plans for which the QBP
is to be applied will be offered. This
deadline is necessary to afford MA
organizations time to incorporate their
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
QBP status into their plan bids, due to
us by the first Monday in June. The
hearing officer’s decision would be final
and binding on both the MA
organization and CMS. In the event that
the hearing officer finds that CMS’ QBP
determination was incorrect, we would
be obligated to recalculate the
organization’s QBP status based on the
hearing officer’s findings.
We would have the right to revise, on
its own initiative, an MA organization’s
QBP status at any time after the initial
release of the QBP determinations
through May 15 of each year. We may
take this action on the basis of any
credible information, including the
technical report issued pursuant to the
process proposed here, which
demonstrates that the initial QBP
determination was incorrect.
At this time, we are not proposing
another level of administrative review
beyond the hearing officer. While many
of our administrative processes include
the potential for review by the CMS
Administrator, given the timing
considerations of concern for both CMS
and the MA organizations, we have
opted not to propose Administrator
review in these cases. We expect that
the time between our notification to MA
organizations of their QBP status and
the date by which organizations need to
have certainty concerning their QBP
status to develop their MA plan bids
each year may only be sufficient to
accommodate the completion of the
technical report and the hearing officer
review. We believe that it would not
benefit MA organizations to afford them
an appeal right which they likely may
not be able to avail themselves of in
time to affect their bid calculations.
However, we are soliciting comments on
the need for an independent contractor
level review prior to an appeal to be
conducted by a hearing officer
designated by CMS or an Administratorlevel review both in terms of its
contribution to administrative due
process and its impact on the annual
MA bid submission timeline.
C. Clarify Various Program Participation
Requirements
The proposed regulations in this
section clarify existing regulations or
implement new requirements consistent
with existing policy guidance to assist
sponsoring organizations with attaining
the goals envisioned by the Congress
when the legislation implementing the
Medicare Advantage and Prescription
Drug Benefit programs was first passed.
These clarifications are detailed in
Table 4.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Clarify Payment Rules for NonContract Providers (§ 422.214)
Section 1866(a)(1)(O) of the Act and
regulations at § 422.214(b) require that,
when paid by an MA organization for
services furnished to an MA plan
enrollee, a non-contracting provider of
services (for example, a hospital, skilled
nursing facility or home health agency)
must accept, as payment in full, the
amounts that the provider could collect
if the beneficiary were enrolled in
Original Medicare. While this provision
acts as a cap on what an MA
organization is required to pay a noncontracting provider of services, if the
provider of services bills the MA
organization an amount that is less than
the Original Medicare payment amount,
the MA organization is only obligated to
pay the amount billed.
Payment disputes have occurred in
recent years for services provided on a
non-contract basis to MA enrollees by
providers of services that are paid under
prospective payment (PPS)
methodologies, such as hospitals and
home health agencies. In several cases,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
MA organizations have interpreted
requests for payment by such providers
to be requests for amounts less than the
amount that would be paid under
Original Medicare. This is because,
under PPS methodologies, providers are
to submit estimated charges, which are
then combined with diagnostic
information in pricing software to
determine the PPS payment rate for the
service. Under Original Medicare, if
these estimated charges are less than the
PPS payment amount produced by the
Medicare pricing software, the higher
Medicare payment amount is paid.
Because this is the method for
requesting payment at the Original
Medicare payment amount under the
Original Medicare program, we believe
that the same information should
similarly be treated as a request for the
full Medicare payment amount when
submitted to an MA organization in a
request for payment unless the provider
has made clear that it intends to bill the
MA organization less than the Original
Medicare amount. Thus, if the provider
of services notifies the MA organization
in writing that it intends to bill less than
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71223
the payment amount it would receive
under Original Medicare, consistent
with longstanding policy, the MA
organization may pay the provider the
lower amount that is billed.
In response to questions about this
issue, CMS clarified its expectations for
plans and out-of-network providers in
its Out-of-Network Payment Guide
released February 25, 2010. This
guidance reflected CMS’ longstanding
policy that if a non-network facility
such as a hospital, skilled nursing
facility, or home health agency renders
services which were not arranged by the
plan, a non-private-fee-for-service MA
organization may pay the lesser of the
Original Medicare amount or a lower
billed amount if it is clear that the
provider is billing for less than the
Original Medicare rate. However, the
guide also clarified that when a provider
of services that is paid under a PPS
system under Original Medicare submits
the same information to an MA
organization that it would submit to
Original Medicare for the services in
question, this should be considered a
bill for the PPS amount (and not the
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.003
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
71224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
‘‘billed’’ or ‘‘charge’’ amount from the
claim) that Original Medicare would
pay in the case of the same submission.
We propose to reflect the policy set
forth in our February 25, 2010 guidance
in the regulations governing payment to
non-contract providers by adding a new
paragraph (c) to § 422.214 to provide
that a request for payment from an MA
organization by a non-contract provider
paid under a PPS methodology under
Original Medicare is deemed to be a
request to be paid at the Original
Medicare payment rate unless the
provider has notified the MA
organization in writing that it wishes to
bill less than the Original Medicare
payment amount.
We also think it is important to clarify
in this proposed rule that MA
organizations offering regional PPO MA
plans must always pay non-contract
providers the Original Medicare
payment rate in those portions of their
service area where they are meeting
requirements for access to services by
non-network means as described in
§ 422.111(b)(3)(ii). We believe this
requirement is justified under Medicare
access requirements at section
1852(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which specify
that an MA plan may meet access
requirements if it pays providers at the
Original Medicare payment rate.
We propose adding a new paragraph
(d) to § 422.214 clarifying that an MA
organization must always pay noncontract providers at least the Original
Medicare payment rate in those portions
of its service area where it is meeting
access to services requirements by nonnetwork means under § 422.111(b)(3)(ii).
2. Pharmacist Definition (§ 423.4)
Pursuant to our authority under
section 1860D–4(b)(3)(A)(i)and 1860D–
4(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we propose to
codify our understanding that, for
purposes of the Part D program, a
pharmacist is an individual with a
current, valid license to practice
pharmacy issued by the appropriate
regulatory authority of any of the states
or territories of the United States or the
District of Columbia (D.C.) (collectively
referred to as ‘‘United States
authorities’’). We propose adding a
definition for the word ‘‘pharmacist’’ to
§ 423.4 in Subpart A to reflect this
understanding.
The proposed change is prompted by
recent Medicare Part D sponsor audit
findings in which CMS found that at
least some Part D sponsors were relying
on pharmacists not licensed by United
States authorities to make clinical
judgments associated with the
administration of the Part D benefit. We
believe that there are potential threats to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
beneficiary safety and access when
decisions are made by clinicians who
are not licensed by United States
authorities. As Medicare provides
coverage for services throughout the
United States, beneficiaries should be
able to expect that individuals making
clinical decisions related to their access
to pharmaceuticals are experts in United
States pharmaceutical practice; make
clinical decisions consistent with the
Federal Drug Administration (FDA)
prescribing information for products;
and are knowledgeable about the range
of pharmaceutical products available on
the United States market, appropriate
generic substitutions, and over-thecounter and behind-the-counter
products. We believe that requiring
pharmacists to be licensed by United
States authorities will help guarantee
that Part D sponsors meet these
expectations.
3. Prohibition on Part C and D Program
Participation by Organizations Whose
Owners, Directors, or Management
Employees Served in a Similar Capacity
With Another Organization That
Terminated Its Medicare Contract
Within the Previous 2 Years (§ 422.506,
§ 422.508, § 422.512, § 423.507,
§ 423.508, and § 423.510)
In our final rule (75FR 19678) entitled
‘‘Policy and Technical Changes to the
Medicare Advantage and the Medicare
Prescription Drug Benefit Programs.’’
that appeared in the April 15, 2010
Federal Register, we modified § 423.508
by adding a paragraph (e) stating that as
a condition precedent to CMS’ consent
to a mutual termination, CMS requires
language in the termination agreement
prohibiting the sponsor from applying
for new contracts or service area
expansions for a period of up to 2 years,
absent circumstances warranting special
consideration. Similarly, in
§ 423.504(b), we added a new paragraph
(b)(6) stating that as a necessary
condition to contract as a Part D
sponsor, an organization must not have
terminated a contract by mutual consent
and, as part of that consent, agreed not
to apply for new contracts or service
area expansions for a period of up to 2
years. Similar modifications were made
for the MA regulations. Specifically, we
modified § 422.508 by adding paragraph
(c) and § 422.503(b) by adding a new
paragraph (b)(7). These changes ensured
consistency across all situations in
which a sponsor elects—through nonrenewal, termination, or mutual
termination—to discontinue its
participation in the Part C or D
programs.
In this rule we are proposing to
amend the 2-year new contract
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prohibition in both § 422.508 and
§ 423.507 by adding a new subsection
entitled ‘‘Prohibition of Part C and D
program participation by organizations
whose owners, directors, or
management employees served in a
similar capacity with another
organization that terminated its
Medicare contract within the previous 2
years.’’ We also propose adding similar
clarifying language to the existing
language at § 422.506, § 422.512,
423.508, and § 423.510. Under sections
1857(e)(1) and 1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of the
Act, the Secretary may add terms to the
contracts with MA and Part D sponsors
including requiring the organization to
provide the Secretary with such
information as the Secretary may find
necessary and appropriate. It is our
belief that to carry out the intentions of
the 2-year exclusion we need to ensure
that new contracting organizations are
not actually repackaged versions of the
same organizations that elected to
discontinue their participation in the
Part C and D programs. In order to meet
this goal we want to evaluate the new
organization’s management and
ownership to detect a situation in which
‘‘ABC, Inc.’’ applies for a new contract as
‘‘XYZ, Inc.’’ Therefore, we are proposing
a requirement which will allow us to
determine whether the primary players
in the organization submitting the new
application are the same as those in an
organization that has recently nonrenewed, terminated, or mutually
terminated a Medicare contract. We are
proposing to develop standards and
benchmarks regarding the percentage of
ownership or management control that
we would conclude is problematic.
This proposed requirement will assist
CMS in prohibiting and preventing such
organizations from gaming the Medicare
program by reapplying for a contract as
a new organization during the 2-year
ban, when the applying organization has
common ownership and management
control. Since the start of the Medicare
Advantage and Part D programs, we
have seen MA organizations and Part D
entities that terminated a contract for
various reasons apply as a new
organization with Medicare within the
2-year exclusion period with the same
ownership and management structure as
the previous organization. This
proposed requirement will help ensure
that the provisions of the 2-year
application prohibition are given full
effect.
Therefore, we are proposing that the
2-year ban on new Part C or D sponsor
contracts to which non-renewing,
terminating, or mutually terminating
organizations are currently subject
under the regulation be expanded to
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
include organizations owned or
managed by an individual (referred to as
a ‘‘covered person’’) who served in a
similar capacity for a previously
terminated or non-renewed Part C or D
organization. Under this proposed
regulation, we would then require as
part of the contract application process
that applicants supply CMS with full
and complete information as to the
identity of each ‘‘covered person’’
associated with the organization. For
this proposal we are defining ‘‘covered
persons’’ to include—
• All owners of applicant
organizations who are natural persons
(other than shareholders who: (1) Have
an ownership interest of less than 5
percent; and (2) acquired the ownership
interest through public trading). In
addition, is a natural person who is an
owner in whole or part interest in any
mortgage, deed of trust, note or other
obligation secured (in whole or in part)
by the entity or any of the property
assets thereof, which whole or part
interest is equal to or exceeds 5 percent
of the total property, and assets of the
entity; or
• An officer or member of the board
of directors or board of trustees of the
entity, if the entity is organized as a
corporation.
This standard for disclosure is
modeled after the authority granted to
the Secretary by section 1124(a) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–3) which provides
for disclosure standards for, among
other entities, Medicaid managed care
organizations and Medicare carriers and
fiscal intermediaries.
We solicit comments on whether plan
sponsors, or other stakeholders consider
the proposed definition of ‘‘5 percent or
more’’ truly represents current market
conditions. We are requesting comments
on this section because we do not want
to arbitrarily decide on the percentage of
interest the above mentioned persons
could have in an organization,
especially if this percentage does not
reflect standard business practices.
We are proposing to amend § 422.508
and § 423.507 to make the 2-year
exclusion applicable to organizations for
which any covered persons were also
covered persons for the excluded
organization. We are proposing to make
similar amendments to § 422.506,
§ 422.512, § 423.508, and § 423.510.
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
Federal regulations at § 423.509(a)(1)
through (a)(12) clearly defines the
circumstances under which we have the
authority to terminate a Part D sponsor’s
contract. When we terminate a contract,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
we must have assurances that the
terminated Part D sponsor will maintain
sufficient staff and operations to
effectuate a smooth transition of the
sponsor’s enrollees to new Part D
coverage in a fashion that facilitates
continuity of care and fiscal
responsibility. These responsibilities
include providing timely
documentation requested by CMS,
retaining all documents for the periods
specified in the Federal laws and CMS
regulations (see § 423.505(d) and (e))
and otherwise providing the resources
necessary for an orderly transition of
Medicare beneficiaries to their newly
assigned or selected plan.
In order for a timely and orderly
transition to occur, the terminated Part
D sponsor must provide us with certain
critical Medicare beneficiary data
including information to identify each
affected beneficiary, pharmacy claims
files, true out-of-pocket (TrOOP) cost
balances, and information concerning
pending grievances and appeals. Data
such as TrOOP balances are necessary to
correctly place the beneficiary in the
benefit and provide the catastrophic
level of coverage at the appropriate
time. This list is an example of various
required data and is not intended to be
all inclusive of the data necessary to
assure a timely and smooth transition
for the Medicare beneficiary when
leaving the terminated plan and
enrolling in a new plan.
The requirement to provide such data
and files is already clearly articulated
for voluntarily non-renewing Part D
plan sponsors (§ 423.507(a)(4)); for
contracts terminated by mutual consent
(§ 423.508(d)); and for contracts
terminated by the plan sponsor for
cause (§ 423.510(f)). However, the
regulation is currently silent regarding
contracts terminated by CMS. Therefore,
in order to protect both Medicare
beneficiaries and CMS and to ensure
that the requirement to provide such
data and files is clear for all types of
contract non-renewals and terminations,
we are proposing to add a new section
(e) ‘‘Timely transfer of data and files’’ to
§ 423.509 (Termination of Contract by
CMS) to state that should the Part D
plan sponsor’s contract be terminated by
CMS, the Part D sponsor must ensure
the timely transfer of any data or files.
This language will inform Part D
sponsors being terminated by CMS that
they are required by Federal regulation
to timely transfer all requested data and
files to CMS or its designee for the
required time as specified under
§ 423.505(d) and (e).
Sponsors that fail to provide the
necessary data directly harm
beneficiaries, as these individuals will
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71225
likely be charged incorrect amounts for
their medications when transferring to a
new Part D sponsor. Specifically,
beneficiaries may be forced to re-satisfy
deductible requirements under the new
plan, or prevented from moving into the
catastrophic phase of the benefit (where
there are minimal out-of-pocket costs)
when otherwise eligible. Therefore,
plans that do not comply with this
section may be subject to a Civil
Monetary Penalty as defined by
§ 422.752(c) and § 423.752(c).
5. Review of Medical Necessity
Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the
Employment of a Medical Director
(§ 422.562, § 422.566, § 423.562, and
§ 423.566)
Pursuant to our authority under
sections 1852(g) and 1860D–4(g) of the
Act, which incorporates by reference
paragraphs (1) through (3) of section
1852(g), CMS established procedures for
making organization determinations and
reconsiderations regarding health
services under Part C, and coverage
determinations and redeterminations
regarding covered drug benefits under
Part D. These requirements are codified
in our regulations at part 422 subpart M
part 423 subpart M, respectively.
Section 1852(g)(1)(A) of the Act gives
us broad authority to determine how
best to establish the procedures Part C
organizations must follow for processing
organization determinations.
Furthermore, section 1852(g)(2)(B) of
the Act requires Part C plan
reconsiderations related to medical
necessity determinations to be made by
physicians with appropriate expertise in
the applicable field of medicine, and
that those physicians be different from
a physician involved in the initial
determination. Although § 422.590(g)(2)
requires physician review of adverse
organization determinations that
involve medical necessity, we do not
specify in this provision or elsewhere in
part 422 subpart M who must conduct
the initial medical necessity
determinations. Given the language in
§ 422.590(g)(2), we believe Congress
expected that appropriate health care
professionals would review initial
determinations involving medical
necessity. Further, by requiring that all
organization determinations and plan
reconsiderations involving medical
necessity be reviewed by an appropriate
health care professional with sufficient
medical and other expertise, including
knowledge of the Medicare program,
enrolled beneficiaries would be assured
of consistent and accurate decisions by
Part C organizations. We propose to
modify our requirements in § 422.566 by
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71226
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
adding a new paragraph (d), which
would require organization
determinations that involve medical
necessity to be reviewed by a physician
or other appropriate health care
professional with sufficient medical and
other expertise, including knowledge of
the Medicare program. We also propose
to require the physician or other health
care professional to have a current and
unrestricted license to practice within
the scope of his or her profession in a
State, Territory, Commonwealth of the
United States (that is, Puerto Rico), or
the District of Columbia.
Consistent with the rationale for
requiring organization determinations
that involve medical necessity to be
reviewed by a physician or other
appropriate health care professional
with sufficient medical and other
expertise, including knowledge of the
Medicare program, and pursuant to our
authority under section 1857(e) of the
Act to add additional terms to our
contracts with MA organizations as
necessary and appropriate, we also
propose to revise § 422.562(a) by adding
paragraph (4), which will require each
MA organization to employ a medical
director who is responsible for ensuring
the clinical accuracy of all organization
determinations and reconsiderations
regarding medical necessity. Under our
proposal, the Medical Director must be
a physician with a current and
unrestricted license to practice
medicine in a State, Territory,
Commonwealth of the United States
(that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of
Columbia. Because the requirement to
employ a medical director will enhance
the coordination and accountability of
plan operations and strengthen quality
assurance activities across the
organization, we believe that this
proposal strikes the appropriate balance
between our interest in ensuring that
plans are properly administering the
Part C benefit, and the plans’ interest in
minimizing their administrative burden.
Section 1860D–4(g) of the Act
requires Part D plan sponsors to meet
the requirements for processing requests
for coverage determinations and
redeterminations in the same manner as
such requirements apply to Part C
organizations with respect to
organization determinations and
reconsiderations. As noted above, we
are proposing a requirement that Part C
organizations employ (1) physicians or
other appropriate health care
professionals with sufficient medical
and other expertise, including
knowledge of the Medicare program, to
review organization determinations
involving medical necessity; and (2) a
medical director who is responsible for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
ensuring the clinical accuracy of all
organization determinations and
reconsiderations regarding medical
necessity. Consistent with the proposed
changes to the Part C organization
determination process, we propose
adding paragraph (d) to § 423.566,
which will require Part D coverage
determinations involving medical
necessity to be reviewed by a physician
or other appropriate health care
professional with sufficient medical and
other expertise, including knowledge of
the Medicare program, and require the
physician or other health care
professional to have a current and
unrestricted license to practice within
the scope of his or her profession in a
State, Territory, Commonwealth of the
United States (that is, Puerto Rico), or
the District of Columbia. Also, we
propose revising § 423.562(a) by adding
paragraph (5), which will require each
Part D plan sponsor to employ a
Medical Director who is responsible for
ensuring the clinical accuracy of all
coverage determinations and
redeterminations that involve medical
necessity issues, and who must be a
physician with a current and
unrestricted license to practice
medicine in a State, Territory,
Commonwealth of the United States
(that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of
Columbia. In addition to being
consistent with the proposed changes to
the Part C organization determination
process, we believe that the proposed
changes are necessary under Part D to
prevent certain issues that have been
discovered while auditing plan
sponsors, such as: (1) Preventing
enrollees who were stable on a
protected-class drug from accessing that
drug; (2) applying inappropriate prior
authorization and step therapy criteria
when adjudicating prescriptions; (3)
issuing denials based on a lack of
medically accepted indications when
medically accepted indications were
specified in at least one of the
applicable compendia; and (4) failing to
provide transition supplies for existing
members who experienced formulary
changes across plan years. We believe
the proposed changes to § 423.562(a)
and § 423.566 will enhance Part D plan
sponsors’ ability to ensure consistent
formulary administration, application of
plan coverage rules, and assist in the
early identification and resolution of
potential quality concerns.
6. Compliance Officer Training
(§ 422.503 and § 423.504)
Pursuant to our authority under
sections 1860D–4(c)(1)(D) and 1860D–
12(b)(3)(C) of the Act which
incorporates by reference section
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1857(d) of the Act, we propose to clarify
that MA organization and Part D
sponsor compliance officers must
complete annual MA and/or Part D
compliance training starting in 2013.
Organizations applying for the 2013
contract year that are new to the MA or
Part D programs must have their
compliance officers obtain training in
2012 to prepare for the upcoming
contract year. We propose adding
§ 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(i) and (ii) to
subpart K and § 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(i)
and (ii) to subpart K to reflect this
clarification.
Under § 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(B) and
§ 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(B), MA organizations
and Part D sponsors (collectively
referred to as plan sponsors) must
designate a compliance officer to
oversee the day-to-day operations of the
compliance program. We are proposing
these training clarifications because our
reviews have found that many MA and
Part D compliance officers lack basic
knowledge about the requirements of
the MA and Part D programs.
Compliance officers are the individuals
whom we expect to be among the most
familiar of any sponsor’s executives
with basic program requirements. Our
reviews have also found that many
compliance officers do not seem to
understand that we expect sponsors to
actively ensure compliance with
Medicare program requirements; that
those requirements are distinct from any
commercial health or drug plan benefits
they may administer; and that they
should not solely rely on subcontractors
or CMS to identify and resolve Part C
and D contract compliance matters for
them.
We believe that requiring annual
training for compliance officers will
help to address these deficiencies by
emphasizing the critical role of the
compliance officer in maintaining and
ensuring program compliance. Our
expectations of Medicare plan sponsor
compliance officers are different from
what the expectations might be for a
commercial health insurance
compliance officer. We expect plan
sponsors’ compliance officers to have, at
minimum, a basic, working knowledge
of the MA and/or Part D programs and
an awareness of the corresponding
operational activities within their
organizations. Program knowledge and
operational awareness are necessary
skills for a compliance officer, in
addition to being able to implement an
effective compliance program. We rely
on the compliance officer to have the
authority and resources needed to foster
compliance-oriented organizational
processes and effectuate changes needed
to ensure sustained program
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
compliance. We will announce our
expectations regarding the content and
hours of annual training required in
forthcoming guidance. At this time, we
expect that one to two days of annual
Medicare Part C and D specific
compliance training offered by an entity
with expertise in MA and Part D
compliance will be sufficient. We are
exploring the current programs available
as well as considering offering CMSsponsored training.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
7. Removing Quality Improvement
Projects and Chronic Care Improvement
Programs From CMS Deeming Process
(§ 422.156)
We have delegated our authority to
evaluate whether an MA organization is
in compliance with certain Medicare
requirements to three private
accrediting organizations. This
evaluation method is known as
‘‘deeming,’’ and is conducted as a part of
the audit process. Currently, an MA
organization may be deemed to meet
requirements in the following areas:
• Quality improvement.
• Confidentiality and accuracy of
enrollee records.
• Anti-discrimination.
• Access to services.
• Information on advance directives.
• Provider participation rules.
• Access to covered drugs.
• Drug utilization management,
quality assurances measures and
systems, medication therapy
management, and a program to control
fraud, waste, and abuse.
• Confidentiality and accuracy of
enrollee prescription drug records.
We require all MA organizations to
submit their quality improvement
projects (QIPs) and chronic care
improvement programs (CCIPs) on an
annual basis. We propose to exclude the
QIPs and CCIPs as components of the
deeming process. Removing the QIPs
and CCIPs from the deeming process
avoids redundancy and reduces the
burden for the MA organizations.
Further, this process provides for
improved consistency in the evaluation
and assessment of the QIPs and CCIPS.
Improved consistency in the assessment
of the QIPs and CCIPs is important as
these elements may be incorporated into
future plan ratings. The QIPs and CCIPs
will be reviewed and evaluated by CMS
or an appropriate CMS contractor.
Therefore, we propose to amend
§ 422.156 to specify that the deeming
process should focus on evaluating and
assessing the overall quality
improvement (QI) program, but that
QIPs and CCIPs will be excluded from
the deeming process.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
8. Definitions of Employment-Based
Retiree Health Coverage and Group
Health Plan for MA Employer/UnionOnly Group Waiver Plans (§ 422.106)
As provided under section 1857(i) of
the Act and as codified at § 422.106(d),
we may waive or modify requirements
that hinder the design of, the offering of,
or the enrollment in, an MA plan
offered by one or more employers, labor
organizations, or combination thereof,
or that is offered, sponsored, or
administered by an entity on behalf of
one or more employers or labor
organizations, to furnish benefits to the
employers’ employees, former
employees (or combination thereof) or
members or former members (or
combination thereof) of the labor
organizations. The purpose of this
authority is to facilitate the offering of
MA plans under contracts between MA
organizations and employers, labor
organizations, or the trustees of a fund
established by one or more employers or
labor organizations (or combination
thereof). Following implementation of
the Medicare Modernization Act
(MMA), similar authority was
established with respect to Part D
sponsors in relation to employmentbased retiree health coverage at section
1860D–22(b) of the Act. In addition,
unlike the original authority established
for employment-based retiree health
coverage under the MA program at
section 1857(i) of the Act, section
1860D–22(c) of the Act establishes
definitions of terms related to this
authority, including of the terms
‘‘employment-based retiree health
coverage’’ and ‘‘group health plan.’’ The
definition of ‘‘group health plan’’ at
section 1860D–22(c)(3) of the Act refers
to the definition of such term in section
607(1) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Since the enactment of the MMA, we
have become concerned that MA
organizations have been contracting
with entities providing coverage that, in
some instances, cannot properly be
characterized as ‘‘employment-based’’
group health plan coverage—for
example, with professional or group
associations. Examples of existing
employer contracts furnished through
an association include a professional
trade association representing
employers and its employees within the
builders association; a professional
trade association representing new car
and heavy-duty truck dealers; and a
professional trade association
representing physicians and medical
students. As provided in our
subregulatory guidance on MA
employer group/union sponsored group
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71227
health plans, Chapter 9 of the Medicare
Managed Care Manual (https://
www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/
mc86c09.pdf ), entitled ‘‘Employer/
Union Sponsored Group Health Plans,’’
we restrict employer/union group health
plan enrollment in EGWPs and
individual MA plans to beneficiaries
who are Medicare eligibles of an
employer/union sponsored group health
plan. Thus, a beneficiary’s enrollment in
one of these MA plans must be based on
receiving ‘‘employment-based’’ health
coverage from an employer/union group
health plan sponsor that has entered
into a contractual arrangement with an
MA organization to provide coverage or
that has contracted directly with CMS to
provide coverage for its Medicare
eligibles. In that guidance, we also note
that coverage obtained through a
professional or other type of group
association would not make a
beneficiary eligible for these kinds of
plans, except to the extent that the
coverage obtained through the
association can properly be
characterized as ‘‘employment-based’’
group health plan coverage. We are
aware that some MA organizations have
contracted with professional or group
associations and offered coverage via
EGWPs to individuals who are
members, but not employees, of such
associations. While there is no reference
to the ERISA definition of group health
plan in section 1857(i) of the Act, we
believe Congress did not envision
granting access to EGWP waivers based
on membership in an association or any
entity that did not meet the definition
of a group health plan, as defined under
ERISA.
In order to provide clarification with
respect to our requirements for offering
employment-based retiree health
coverage via an MA plan, we propose to
codify—under the general authority
provided at section 1857(i) of the Act—
definitions of the terms ‘‘employersponsored group MA plan,
‘‘employment-based retiree health
coverage,’’ and ‘‘group health plan’’ at
§ 422.106(d)(4) through (6). These
proposed definitions are consistent with
those provided for Part D sponsors at
§ 423.454 and § 423.882. We also
propose to change the reference to an
MA plan at § 422.106(d) to a reference
to an employer-sponsored group MA
plan.
We solicit comment on our proposals
to revise these definitions.
D. Strengthening Beneficiary Protections
This section includes provisions
aimed at strengthening beneficiary
protections under Parts C and D. Some
of the proposals affecting both Parts C
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71228
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
organizations’ and Part D sponsors’
agents and brokers to receive training
and testing via a CMS endorsed or
approved training program and
extending the annual training and
testing requirements to all agents and
brokers marketing and selling Medicare
products.
This information is detailed in
Table 5.
they intend to sell. Since the training
and testing requirements were
implemented following the enactment
of MIPPA, MA organizations, and Part D
sponsors conducted training and testing
largely on their own or through third
party vendors. We have reviewed some
training programs upon request by third
party vendors, but we do not routinely
review MA organization, Part D sponsor,
or third party vendor training programs
to ensure their comprehensiveness or
accuracy.
To develop a uniform understanding
of the Medicare program requirements
and further ensure beneficiary
protection, we launched a pilot online
training and testing module on July 31,
2009 for the CY 2010 marketing season.
Twenty-six MA organizations and Part
D sponsors volunteered to participate in
the pilot, and about 3,700 agents and
brokers were trained and tested. About
85 percent of trained agents and brokers
passed the certification exam.
Based on our experience with the
pilot, we have concluded that we
should move toward greater
standardization of agent and broker
training and testing. We believe that it
is in the best interest of beneficiaries
who are educated about Medicare health
plan options by plan agents and brokers
that those agents and brokers be
consistently and thoroughly trained on
the fundamentals of Medicare
regulations. More specifically, we
believe that MA organizations’ and Part
D sponsors’ agents and brokers not only
should be annually trained and tested
on Medicare rules and regulations
specific to the products they intend to
sell, as currently provided under
§ 422.2274(b) and (c) and § 423.2274(b)
and (c), but that the training and testing
vehicles MA organizations and Part D
sponsors use meet our minimum
standards.
To that end, we are proposing to
revise § 422.2274(b) and (c) and
§ 423.2274(b) and (c) to require MA
organizations’ and Part D sponsors’
agents and brokers to receive training
and testing via a CMS-endorsed or
approved training program. Following
implementation of this proposal, we
a. CMS Approved or Endorsed Agent
and Broker Training and Testing
(§ 422.2274 and § 423.2274)
Section 1851(h)(2) of the Act requires
us to establish marketing standards for
Medicare Advantage organizations.
Section 1860D–1(b)(1)(B)(vi) of the Act
requires that we ensure that
beneficiaries are not misled or provided
inaccurate information by Part D
sponsors. Additionally, section
1851(j)(2)(E) of the Act provides the
Secretary the authority to establish
limitations with respect to agent and
broker training. Section 1860D–4(l)(2) of
the Act applies the same requirements
with respect to sales and marketing
activities to Part D sponsors.
Our current regulations at
§ 422.2274(b) and (c) and § 423.2264(b)
and (c), require MA plans and Part D
sponsors to ensure agents selling
Medicare products are trained and
tested annually on Medicare rules and
regulations specific to the plan products
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.004
Changes affecting Part C include our
proposal to extend the mandatory
maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP)
amount requirements to regional PPOs,
and prohibit the use of tiered cost
sharing by MA organizations. Under
Part D, we address the delivery of
adverse coverage determinations.
In the area of Parts C and D marketing,
proposals include requiring MA
1. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and D include requiring that MA
organizations and Part D sponsors must
provide interpreters for all non-English
speaking and limited English proficient
callers, and periodically disclose to each
beneficiary specific data for enrollees to
use to compare utilization and out-ofpocket costs in the current plan year to
the following plan year.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
would review and endorse or approve
one or more entities to provide
Medicare agents and brokers with their
annual testing and training. We would
review and approve or endorse
proposed training programs for
comprehensiveness and consistency
with marketing rules and policies. We
are considering implementing this
requirement through a request for
proposal (RFP) competitive process;
however, we seek comments and
suggestions about alternatives to using
the RFP competitive process. We note
that these proposed new requirements
would also be applicable to section 1876
cost contract plans, since in our April
15, 2010 final rule (75 FR 19784 through
19785), we extended the Part 422
requirements regarding MA marketing
to section 1876 cost contract plans by
cross-referencing the MA marketing
requirements at § 417.428.
We believe this proposed change
would ensure that agents and brokers
selling Medicare products have a
comprehensive and consistent base of
understanding of Medicare rules and
would eliminate the duplication of
training and testing requirements for
agents and brokers who contract with
multiple plans.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Extending Annual Training
Requirements to All Agents and Brokers
(§ 422.2274 and § 423.2274)
In addition to the proposed changes
specified above to require that MA
organization and Part D sponsor training
and testing programs be CMS endorsed
or approved, we propose a correction to
our current regulations at § 422.2274(b)
and (c) and § 423.2264(b) and (c), which
require MA plans and Part D sponsors
to ensure agents selling Medicare
products are trained and tested annually
on Medicare rules and regulations
specific to the plan products they intend
to sell. In our November 2008 interim
final rule implementing the MIPPA
agent/broker requirements (73 FR
67413), we inadvertently made a
drafting error and applied the annual
agent and broker training and testing
requirements only to independent (such
as, non-employee) brokers or agents.
Our intent, which was initially stated in
our September 2008 interim final rule
(73 FR 54239), was to require that all
agents and brokers, whether
independent or employed by a plan, be
subject to our annual training and
testing requirements. We believe it is
critical that all agents and brokers
selling Medicare products receive
training and testing on Medicare rules,
regulations and the plan-specific
products they intend to sell.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Consistent with our statutory
authority at sections 1851(j)(2)(E) and
1860D–4(l)(2) of the Act, we are
proposing to revise § 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274 to correctly apply these
requirements to all agents and brokers
marketing and selling Medicare
products. We also note that these
proposed new requirements would be
applicable to section 1876 cost contract
plans, since in our April 15, 2010 final
rule (75 FR 19784 through 19785), we
extended the Part 422 requirements
regarding MA marketing to section 1876
cost contract plans by cross-referencing
the MA marketing requirements at
§ 417.428.
2. Call Center and Internet Web Site
Requirements (§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
a. Extension of Customer Call Center
and Internet Web Site Requirements to
MA Organizations (§ 422.111)
As provided in section 1852(c)(1)of
the Act and as codified at § 422.111(b),
MA organizations must disclose in a
clear, accurate, and standardized form
to each enrollee, at the time of
enrollment and annually thereafter,
detailed information about the MA
plans they offer. Section 1860D–4(a)(1)
of the Act provides similar authority for
Part D sponsors, which is codified at
§ 423.128(b). Section 1860D–4(a)(3) of
the Act provides additional authority to
require that Part D sponsors provide
specific plan information on a timely
basis to plan enrollees upon request
through a toll-free telephone number,
and that they make available on timely
basis through an Internet Web site
information on specific formulary
changes under Part D plans. This
authority is codified at § 423.128(d)(1)
and § 423.128(d)(2), which require that
Part D sponsors operate a toll-free
customer service that is open during
usual business hours and provide such
service in accordance with standard
business practices, as well as an Internet
Web site that, at a minimum, provides
the information Part D sponsors are
required to provide enrollees at the time
of enrollment and annually thereafter
under § 423.128(b).
Although similar call center and
Internet Web site requirements were
never codified for MA plans, we have
required through subregulatory
guidance (the Medicare Marketing
Guidelines at https://www.cms.gov/
ManagedCareMarketing/Downloads/
R91MCM.pdf) that MA organizations
comply with the same requirements
regarding customer service call centers
as Part D sponsors, and—for those
offering Part D benefits through MA–PD
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71229
plans—all Part D sponsor Internet Web
site requirements.
We believe it is important to clarify
that current and prospective enrollees of
MA plans should have the same access
to customer service call centers and
information via an Internet Web site as
current and prospective enrollees of a
Part D plan in order to obtain more
information about plan coverage and
benefits. Furthermore, as a practical
matter, most MA organizations must
offer MA–PD plans in order to offer MAonly plans and are therefore already
operating customer service call centers
and Internet Web sites consistent with
our regulatory and subregulatory
requirements. Therefore, under our
authority at section 1852(c) of the Act to
require that MA organizations disclose
MA plan information upon request, as
well as our authority under section
1857(e) of the Act to specify additional
contractual terms and conditions the
Secretary may find necessary and
appropriate, we propose to extend call
center and Internet Web site
requirements to MA organizations.
Specifically, we propose to amend
§ 422.111 by adding a new paragraph (g)
to expressly require MA organizations to
operate a toll-free customer call center
that is open during usual business hours
and provides customer telephone
service in accordance with standard
business practices, as well as to provide
current and prospective enrollees with
information via an Internet Web site and
in writing (upon request). We also
propose deleting paragraph
§ 422.111(f)(12), which requires certain
information—including the evidence of
coverage, summary of benefits, and
information about network providers—
be posted to an Internet Web site in the
event that an MA organization has a
Web site or provides MA plan
information through the internet and
move these requirements to
§ 422.111(g)(2)(i).
b. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
Pursuant to our authority under
sections 1852(c)(1) and 1860D–
4(a)(3)(A) of the Act to specify
additional contractual terms and
conditions the Secretary may find
necessary and appropriate, we propose
to clarify Medicare Part C and D
requirements regarding current and
prospective enrollee toll-free customer
call centers. Specifically, we propose
clarifying that MA organizations and
Part D sponsors must provide
interpreters for all non-English speaking
and limited English proficient (LEP)
callers. We propose adding new
paragraphs § 422.111(g)(1)(iii) and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71230
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 423.128(d)(1)(iii), respectively, to
reflect this clarification.
This proposed clarification is a result
of findings from our call center
monitoring, which revealed that a
significant percentage of Medicare Part
C and D sponsors were not providing
foreign language interpreters for nonEnglish speaking callers. For example,
only 65 percent of Spanish speaking
callers in our monitoring study were
connected with an interpreter, and only
60 percent of Mandarin or Russian
speaking callers were connected with an
interpreter. The results varied widely
among plan sponsors of all enrollment
sizes. Some plan sponsors did not
provide any interpreters at all. The
preamble to our January 28, 2005 final
rule (70 FR 4223) stated, ‘‘Call centers
must be able to accommodate nonEnglish speaking/reading beneficiaries.
Plan sponsors should have appropriate
individuals or translation services
available to call center personnel to
answer questions that beneficiaries may
have concerning aspects of the drug
benefit.’’ Subsequently, the August 15,
2005 Medicare Marketing Guidelines
contained this statement from the
preamble. When we followed up with
sponsors and discussed the lack of
interpreters for LEP callers, many
indicated they were unaware of the
requirement to provide interpreters to
LEP callers. This clarification addresses
the problem by explicitly codifying the
requirement to provide interpreters for
LEP callers in regulations. The origin of
this requirement to serve LEP
individuals is Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which, in part, prohibits
discrimination in federal programs
based upon national origin.
Additionally, this clarification is
consistent with fulfilling the goals of
Executive Order 13166, Improving
Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency, and with
the HHS Secretary’s implementation of
the Executive Order as described in the
Strategic Plan for Implementing Access
to HHS Programs and Activities by LEP
Persons and the CMS Language Access
Plan. Providing interpreters for LEP
beneficiaries is a key component of the
CMS Language Access Plan and helps
ensure that beneficiaries have access to
all of the information they need to make
appropriate decisions about their health
care. Our rules do not require
translation of marketing materials into
all languages; therefore, call center
interpreters are a safety net in
geographic areas where only a few
beneficiaries are LEP because
interpreters can help answer questions
and translate marketing materials over
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the phone. Compliance with the Civil
Rights Act is included in plan sponsors’
contractual requirements in accordance
with § 422.503(h)(1) and § 423.505(h)(1).
3. Require Plan Sponsors To Contact
Beneficiaries To Explain Enrollment by
an Unqualified Agent/Broker
(§ 422.2272 and § 423.2272)
The regulations implementing section
103 of MIPPA (§ 422.2268, § 422.2272,
§ 422.2274, § 422.2276, § 423.2268,
§ 423.2272, § 423.2274, and § 423.2276),
included a number of provisions that
prohibited or limited certain sales and
marketing activities by MA
organizations and PDPs. Specifically,
§ 422.2272 and § 423.2272 require plan
sponsors that used independent agents
and brokers for their sales and
marketing to only use State licensed and
appointed agents or brokers. Under
these provisions, plan sponsors must
also report the termination of agents or
brokers to the State.
We have become aware through
recent audits that when plan sponsors
discover that an unlicensed agent has
assisted with an enrollment, they are
not notifying the beneficiary involved
that the agent representing them was
unlicensed. Beneficiaries rely heavily
on information they receive from agents
regarding plan benefits and costs and
should have the opportunity to ask
additional questions or reconsider their
enrollment when they have been
enrolled in a plan by an unlicensed
agent. Therefore, we are proposing to
revise § 422.2272(c) and § 423.2272(c) to
require that MA organizations and Part
D sponsors must terminate unlicensed
agents upon discovery and notify any
beneficiaries who were enrolled in their
plans by an unlicensed agent in order to
give them the option of confirming
enrollment in the plan or making a plan
change.
We believe that the proposed changes
are consistent with the statute and with
the beneficiary protections we specified
in our regulations implementing
MIPPA. We also note that these
proposed requirements would be
applicable to section 1876 cost contract
plans, since in our April 15, 2010 final
rule (75 FR 19784 and 19785), we
extended the Part 422 requirements
regarding MA marketing to section 1876
cost contract plans.
4. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
Section 1852(c) of the Act requires
MA organizations to disclose a detailed
plan description in a clear, accurate,
and standardized form to each Medicare
enrollee in a MA plan offered by the
organization. The plan description is to
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be provided at the time of enrollment
and annually thereafter and includes
items such as service area, premium,
benefits, plan providers and coverage.
Additionally, section 1860D–1(c)(3) of
the Act requires Part D sponsors to
provide comparative information to
beneficiaries about their qualified
prescription drug benefits, premiums,
cost sharing, quality and performance,
and results of consumer satisfaction
surveys. Specifically, the Part D plan
description includes items such as
service area, benefits, premium,
formulary, network pharmacies, and
coverage. These requirements are
codified at § 422.111 and § 423.128 and
are implemented through the annual
notice of change (ANOC) and evidence
of coverage (EOC) documents, which
must be furnished to all plan enrollees
at least 15 days before the annual open
election period.
While the ANOC describes plan
benefit and cost sharing changes for the
coming year, we are concerned that this
information alone may not be enough to
prompt enrollees to actively evaluate
their plans annually with respect to
plan costs, benefits, and overall value.
In addition, we have received requests
from the beneficiary advocacy
community that MA organizations and
Part D sponsors provide enrollees with
a personalized dollar estimate of their
out-of-pocket costs in the coming
contract year based on their use of
services in the current contract year.
Therefore, in accordance with authority
cited above, we propose to also require
MA organizations and Part D sponsors
to periodically provide each enrollee
with enrollee specific data to use to
compare utilization and out-of-pocket
costs in the current plan year to
projected utilization and out-of-pocket
costs for the following plan year. We
propose to add new paragraphs (12) and
(11) to § 422.111(b) and § 423.128(b),
respectively, to specify this
requirement. Plans would disclose this
information to plan enrollees in each
year, in which a minimum enrollment
period has been met, in conjunction
with the annual renewal materials
(currently the ANOC and EOC).
We are considering several options for
implementing this data disclosure
requirement, and we note that this
proposal would only specify our
authority to require such a disclosure.
As we contemplate implementation and
model designs moving forward, we seek
suggestions and comments from MA
organizations, Part D sponsors, the
beneficiary community, and other
external stakeholders related to the
design, content, and the cost
calculations to assist us in
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
implementing these provisions. In
addition, we are considering running a
pilot program for CY 2012 with a few
MA organizations and Part D sponsors
to test approaches to conveying
customized beneficiary data, based on
the comments and suggestions that we
receive.
One option we are considering is a
customized statement of the
beneficiary’s estimated out-of-pocket
costs in the following year based on
utilization of the same health care
services as in the prior year. We
recognize that projecting past health
care utilization as a predictor of future
use would yield only an estimate of
enrollee out-of-pocket costs. However,
we believe that such an estimate, with
appropriate caveats, would illustrate in
real dollar terms how the member’s
costs are likely to change in the coming
year, and what this means for them.
Such a statement would enable plan
members to better understand how the
costs of their plan are changing in the
upcoming contract year and what that
means for them if they remain in the
plan and use similar services. This
customized out-of-pocket cost statement
would supplement general plan
information in the ANOC and EOC
documents as well as enhance the
currently available information through
tools such as Medicare Options
Compare (MOC) and the Medicare
Prescription Drug Plan Finder (MPDPF),
which provide general information
about plan costs. For example, the MOC
approximates out-of-pocket costs based
on self-selected health status and a
national cohort sample of information
calculated using data from the Medicare
Current Beneficiary Survey. MPDPF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
allows a beneficiary to select certain
drugs and calculate annual out-ofpocket costs, based on their expected
use of those drugs. We intend for any
customized out-of-pocket cost statement
to provide personal information to
beneficiaries that would help them
consider using other tools and
resources, including MOC and MPDPF,
to determine whether to select a new
plan. Such a statement would also
include information for accessing these
tools.
We are considering several different
designs for showing enrollees how their
expenses would change in the following
year, in addition to changes in the
maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP)
amount and network service area for the
next year (see Tables 6 through 8).
Options for categorizing services that we
are considering include the following:
(1) Premium; a summation of costsharing for all MA services; all
prescription drug costs; and the total
out-of-pocket costs for the enrollee;
(2) premium; MA cost-sharing detailing
inpatient care (Part A), outpatient care
(Part B), and supplemental benefits;
prescription drug costs; and total costs;
and (3) premium; a more detailed
breakdown of costs for services,
including information specifying the top
5 services utilized by each individual
enrollee; as well as prescription drug
costs and total costs. We seek comments
on the categorizations described above.
We also seek comments on including
mandatory and/or optional
supplemental benefits in the document,
given their variety for individual
enrollees or plan and impact on the
overall premium cost.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71231
Since all MA organizations must
currently track utilization and
beneficiary responsibility related to the
MOOP and, in some cases, catastrophic
limits, we do not anticipate that they
will have difficulty in determining at
least 6 months of actual beneficiary outof-pocket cost liability. Since this
statement is intended to be distributed
in conjunction with the other renewal
materials each fall, we understand that
MA organizations and Part D sponsors
will have only partial year data on
beneficiary costs. Moreover, we also
understand that people tend to incur
increased utilization of services during
the second half of the year, adding
another trending factor to a calculation
of average monthly or yearly cost.
Therefore, we also seek comment as to
whether the customized statement of
costs should include six months of
actual costs for each category described,
an average monthly cost for each
category described, or an estimated
yearly cost for each category. Regardless
of the time period, we would require
that any costs be represented as
estimates and that the notice clearly
indicate to enrollees the time period on
which the estimates are based. Tables 6
through 8 describe possible types of
service categorization, and each table
includes a different option for
representing the cost calculation
(average monthly, actual 6 months, and
yearly estimated costs). Dollar figures
are for illustrative purposes only and do
not reflect any decision on final
document design or any calculation of
actual beneficiary costs.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.005
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71232
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
Another, but potentially
complementary, option would be to
require a periodic EOB for MA plans,
similar to the EOB that Part D sponsors
provide to Part D enrollees. This EOB
would include a specific list of services
and the enrollee’s utilization and out-ofpocket costs during a period of time to
assist him or her in evaluating their
options for the future. It would be
furnished periodically throughout the
contract year and could include current
as well as cumulative data on utilization
and costs for that period. It could also
present data by service categories as a
percentage of total costs. We also
understand that there would be data
collection and timing concerns for
plans, and the frequency of the
distribution of the EOB would affect the
time period of the data collected. For
example, an annual notice distributed at
the end of the contract year would not
arrive in sufficient time for a beneficiary
to make determinations during an
enrollment period. However, a notice
furnished just prior to the open
enrollment period could only contain
partial year actual data, unless plans use
12 months of data over two contract
years. An EOB as described above could
be used in conjunction with a
customized annual out-of-pocket cost
statement to fine-tune an enrollee’s
search for another plan that might be a
better fit for his or her particular health
care needs. We seek comments and
suggestions for implementing an EOB
for MA enrollees, including suggestions
for design, calculation of data and
frequency of disclosure to enrollees.
We note that we are considering
exempting dual eligible special needs
plans (D–SNPs) from the requirement to
provide such customized enrollee data
through a customized out-of-pocket cost
statement or an EOB, since enrollees in
these plans generally do not incur outof-pocket costs. We seek comment on
exempting D–SNPs from this proposed
requirement.
In summary, we seek comments and
suggestions regarding our proposal to
add to the current disclosure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
requirements in § 422.111 and
§ 423.128, a new requirement that MA
organizations and Part D plan sponsors
periodically disclose to each beneficiary
specific data for enrollees to use to
compare utilization and out-of-pocket
costs in the current plan year to
utilization and out-of-pocket costs for
the following plan year. Such data
would be disclosed to plan members
periodically in conjunction with other
annual plan renewal materials
(currently the ANOC and EOC). In
addition, we seek comments and
suggestions on the topics discussed
above, including the number of
disclosures per year, document design
models, categories of services included,
calculation, and presentation of costs,
and standardization of information.
5. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
In our April 15, 2010 final rule (75 FR
19709 through 19711), we established a
new mandatory maximum out-of-pocket
(MOOP) requirement for local MA plans
effective contract year 2011. As
provided at § 422.100(f)(4), all local MA
plans, including HMOs, HMOPOS, local
PPO (LPPO) plans and PFFS plans, must
establish an annual MOOP limit on total
enrollee cost sharing liability for Parts A
and B services, the dollar amount of
which will be set annually by CMS. As
provided at § 422.100(f)(5), effective for
contract year 2011, LPPO plans are
required to have a catastrophic limit
inclusive of both in- and out-of-network
cost sharing for all Parts A and B
services, the dollar amount of which
also will be set annually by CMS. All
cost sharing (that is, deductibles,
coinsurance, and copayments) for Parts
A and B services must be included in
plans’ MOOPs. In our April 15, 2010
final rule (75 FR 19709 through 19711),
we stated that for contract year 2011, we
would implement a mandatory MOOP
limit in accordance with the
requirements at § 422.100(f)(4), as well
as continue to allow MA organizations
the option of adopting a lower,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71233
voluntary MOOP limit. MA
organizations that adopt the lower
voluntary MOOP are provided more
flexibility in establishing cost sharing
amounts for Parts A and B services than
those that do not elect the voluntary
MOOP. However, we did not include
regional PPOs in the mandatory MOOP
and catastrophic limit requirements, as
discussed below.
Since implementation of the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003, RPPOs have
been required under section 1858(b)(2)
of the Act to establish a MOOP for innetwork cost sharing and a catastrophic
limit inclusive of both in- and out-ofnetwork cost sharing for Parts A and B
services; however, those amounts are
currently at the discretion of MA
organizations offering RPPO plans.
Because the statutory MOOP
requirement was already in effect with
respect to RPPO plans, we applied the
new mandatory MOOP requirement
only to local MA plans in our final rule
(75 FR 19711). We stated that for
contract year 2011, RPPOs would
continue to be permitted to establish
their own in-network MOOP and
catastrophic limits without a maximum
limit set by CMS, but we encouraged
them to adopt either the mandatory or
voluntary MOOPs established in CMS
guidance. We stated that, to the extent
an RPPO sets its MOOP and
catastrophic limits above the mandatory
amounts set by CMS for other plan
types, it may be subject to additional
CMS review of its proposed Parts A and
B services cost sharing amounts.
However, we also stated that, while we
believe RPPOs should be subject to the
same requirements with respect to a
MOOP as local PPO plans, we would
address this discrepancy in future
notice-and comment rulemaking, since
our proposed rule did not give MA
organizations offering RPPOs an
opportunity to comment on such a
proposal. We have concluded that, in
order to make it easier for beneficiaries
to understand and compare MA plans,
RPPO plans should also be subject to
the mandatory maximum MOOP
requirements that currently apply to
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.006
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
71234
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
local PPO plans. Therefore, we propose
to extend the mandatory MOOP and
catastrophic limit requirements to RPPO
plans. Each RPPO plan would establish
an annual MOOP limit on total enrollee
cost sharing liability for Parts A and B
services, the dollar amount of which
would be set annually by CMS. All cost
sharing (that is, deductibles,
coinsurance, and copayments) for Parts
A and B services would be included in
RPPO plans’ MOOPs. We propose to
codify this requirement by revising
§ 422.100(f) (CMS review and approval
of MA benefits and associated cost
sharing), in paragraphs (f)(4) and (5) to
include regional MA plans. In addition,
we propose to revise paragraphs (d)(2)
and (d)(3) of § 422.101(d) (Special costsharing rules for MA regional plans), to
specify that the catastrophic limits set
by RPPOs may not be greater than the
annual limit set by CMS.
6. Prohibition on Use of Tiered Cost
Sharing by MA Organizations
(§ 422.262)
As provided in section 1854(c) of the
Act and implemented at § 422.100(d)(2),
an MA organization offering an MA plan
must offer it to all Medicare
beneficiaries residing in the service area
of the MA plan at a uniform premium,
with uniform benefits and levels of cost
sharing throughout the plan’s service
area, or segment of the service area, as
provided at § 422.262(c)(2). In spite of
this regulatory guidance, we have
become aware that an increasing
number of plans are charging
beneficiaries different amounts of cost
sharing for services depending on, for
example, which provider group the
beneficiary selects, the plan’s network
of hospitals, or how frequently the
beneficiary uses selected services.
Program experience has demonstrated
that differential, or ‘‘tiered,’’ cost sharing
is simply not transparent and can be
deceptive and misleading in terms of
the cost to beneficiaries. We do not
believe it is consistent with the intent of
the uniformity requirement in section
1854(c) of the Act for MA organizations
to impose such differential benefit cost
sharing, or to differentially design innetwork health care benefits, network
access, or cost sharing for covered
benefits in a manner that is not uniform
or transparent to the beneficiary. We
believe that MA organizations should
impose uniform plan care, cost sharing
and MA benefits throughout the plan’s
service area. Furthermore, we believe
that tiered cost sharing in certain
circumstances may deter beneficiaries
from seeking care, otherwise negatively
affect beneficiaries who are sicker, or
impose greater cost sharing on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
beneficiaries who utilize services
infrequently.
As a consequence of MA
organizations’ increasing and
inappropriate imposition of differential
or ‘‘tiered’’ cost sharing, we have become
increasingly concerned and believe that
revisions to the regulations are
warranted. Accordingly, we propose to
revise § 422.262 to stipulate that MA
organizations cannot vary the level of
cost sharing for basic or supplemental
benefits for any reason, including based
on provider groups, hospital network, or
the beneficiary’s utilization of services.
7. Delivery of Adverse Coverage
Determinations (§ 423.568)
Section 1860D–4(g) of the Act
requires Part D plan sponsors to
establish procedures for processing
requests for coverage determinations
and redeterminations. Those procedures
must apply to Part D plan sponsors in
the same manner as they apply to MA
organizations with respect to
organization determinations and
reconsiderations under Part C. Under
§ 422.568(d), an MA organization must
provide written notice when it makes an
unfavorable standard organization
determination.
In accordance with section 1860D–
4(g) of the Act, we created a parallel
notice provision for unfavorable Part D
standard coverage determinations in
§ 423.568(f). Neither § 422.568(d) nor
§ 423.568(f) allow an MA organization
or Part D plan sponsor to make the
initial notice of an adverse standard
organization/coverage determination
orally. However, for the reasons noted
below, we propose to revise § 423.568(f)
by allowing a Part D plan sponsor to
first provide notice of an adverse
standard coverage determination
decision orally, so long as it also
provides a written follow-up notice
within 3 calendar days of the oral
notification.
We believe that the proposed change
is necessary because the timeframe for
providing notice of an adverse standard
determination is much shorter under
Part D than under Part C. Under
§ 422.568(a) and (e), MA organizations
provide enrollees with written notice of
adverse standard organization
determinations within 14 calendar days,
but pursuant to § 423.568(a) and (c), Part
D plan sponsors must provide written
notice of adverse standard coverage
determinations within 72 hours. While
MA organizations are largely able to
meet the 14-calendar day timeframe for
providing written notice of adverse
standard organization determinations,
we believe many Part D plan sponsors
are having difficulty providing written
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
notice of adverse standard coverage
determinations within the 72-hour
timeframe given the significant number
of coverage determination requests that
are auto-forwarded to the Part D
Independent Review Entity (IRE)
because decisions were not issued
timely. Thus, we believe plan sponsors
need the ability to first provide oral
notice in order to meet the very short
72-hour timeframe.
We also believe the proposed change
is consistent with the Part C
organization determination process. An
MA organization is required under
§ 422.572(a) to make an expedited
organization determination and provide
notice of its decision within 72 hours
after receiving a request. Consistent
with § 422.572(c), an MA organization
may choose to meet the 72-hour
timeframe by providing oral notice of its
decision within 72 hours, so long as it
also sends a written follow-up notice
within 3 calendar days after providing
oral notice. Given that MA organizations
are permitted under the regulations to
meet the 72-hour timeframe by first
providing oral notice and following up
with written notice, we believe giving
Part D plan sponsors the same option
when required to provide notice within
72 hours is consistent with the Part C
organization determination process and
section 1860D–4(g) of the Act.
Therefore, we propose to revise
§ 423.568(f) by allowing a Part D plan
sponsor to provide initial notice of an
adverse standard coverage
determination decision orally, so long as
it also provides a written follow-up
notice within 3 calendar days of the oral
notice.
8. Extension of Grace Period for Good
Cause and Reinstatement (§ 422.74 and
§ 423.44)
Section 1851(g)(3)(B)(i) of the Act
provides that MA plans may terminate
the enrollment of individuals who fail
to pay basic and supplemental
premiums after a grace period
established by the plan. Section 1860D–
1(b)(1)(B) of the Act generally directs us
to use disenrollment rules for Part D
sponsors that are similar to those
established for MA plans under section
1851 of the Act. Consistent with these
sections of the Act, the Part C and D
regulations set forth our requirements
with respect to involuntary
disenrollment procedures under
§ 422.74 and § 423.44, respectively.
Currently, § 422.74(d)(1)(i)(B)
specifies that an MA organization must
provide, at minimum, a 2-month grace
period before disenrolling individuals
for failure to pay the premium.
Similarly, under current regulations at
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 423.44(d)(1)(ii), Part D sponsors must
also provide a 2-month minimum grace
period before disenrolling individuals
for failure to pay the premium. For both
Part C and D, involuntary
disenrollments are not mandatory and,
thus, organizations may choose to
implement longer grace periods or forgo
involuntary disenrollments entirely as
long as they apply their policy
consistently.
Thus, MA and Part D plans that
choose to disenroll beneficiaries for
failure to pay premiums must notify the
beneficiary of the delinquency and
provide the beneficiary a period of no
less than 2 months in which to resolve
the delinquency. The plan must also be
able to demonstrate to us that it has
made reasonable efforts to collect the
unpaid premium amounts.
Consistent with the provision for
delinquent premium payments for
Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part
B of Medicare), we propose to permit
reinstatement of enrollment in an MA or
Part D plan for instances in which the
individual was involuntarily
disenrolled for failure to pay plan
premiums but had demonstrated good
cause for failing to submit the premium
payment timely. We propose that good
cause would be established only when
an individual was prevented from
submitting timely payment due to
unusual and unavoidable circumstances
beyond his or her control. For example,
if an individual failed to pay plan
premiums due to an unexpected and
extended hospital stay, we would
encourage a plan to consider
reinstatement of the individual’s
enrollment on the basis that he or she
had good cause for failing to submit the
payment timely. However, we would
not expect a plan to find good cause in
instances where an individual’s legal
guardian or authorized representative
was responsible for making premium
payments but failed to do so in a timely
manner. We would hold the beneficiary
accountable for the actions, or inactions,
of his or her representative. We also
propose that good cause would not exist
if the only basis for requesting
reinstatement was a change in the
individual’s circumstances subsequent
to the involuntary disenrollment
resulting in his or her ability to pay the
premiums.
Examples of circumstances that may
establish good cause include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1) Serious
illness, such that the illness prevented
the enrollee from making payment or
contacting the plan by telephone, in
writing, or through a friend, relative, or
other person; (2) a government
employee, government contractor (for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
example, 1–800–MEDICARE
representative), or plan representative
gave the enrollee incorrect or
incomplete information about when
premium payments were due and how
to make payments; (3) the enrollee did
not receive premium billing statements
and/or delinquency notices due to an
error on the part of the plan or the U.S.
Post Office; or (4) premium payments
were sent, or requested by the enrollee
to be sent, but were not received by the
plan due to an error on the part of the
U.S. Post Office or the enrollee’s
financial institution.
Since a beneficiary who is disenrolled
from an MA or Part D plan for failure
to pay premiums is not eligible for a
special enrollment period, the
beneficiary’s only opportunity to enroll
in another plan is during the annual
election period in the fall. As a result,
these beneficiaries may lose their
prescription drug coverage for the
remainder of the year, and may incur a
late enrollment penalty if they
subsequently choose to re-enroll in Part
D. Therefore, we are proposing to
amend the regulations at § 422.74(d)(1)
and § 423.44(d)(1) regarding
disenrollment for non-payment of
premiums to allow for the reinstatement
of enrollment for good cause subsequent
to an involuntary disenrollment
associated with the failure to pay
premiums within the grace period. A
reinstatement of enrollment would
remove the involuntary disenrollment
from the enrollment record, resulting in
continuous coverage as if the
disenrollment never occurred. Further,
before such reinstatement could occur,
we would require an individual to pay
in full all premium arrearages on which
the disenrollment was based, as well as
all other premiums that would have
been due since the disenrollment.
Consistent with the provision for
delinquent premium payments for
Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part
B of Medicare), the disenrolled
individual would have a maximum of 3
months from the disenrollment date in
which to request the good cause
reinstatement and resolve all premium
delinquencies.
9. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
Pursuant to our authority under
sections 1851(d)(2)(C), 1860D–1(c), and
1860D–4(a) of the Act, we propose to
clarify MA and Part D requirements for
marketing materials in markets with a
significant non-English speaking
population or large percentage of
limited English proficient (LEP)
individuals. We propose to clarify that
plan sponsors must provide translated
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71235
marketing materials in any language that
is spoken by more than 10 percent of the
general population in a plan benefit
package (PBP) service area. We propose
revising § 422.2264(e) of Subpart V and
§ 423.2264(e) of Subpart V to reflect this
clarification.
The proposed clarification codifies
existing guidance regarding translated
marketing materials. We are codifying
this guidance as a result of frequent
complaints to CMS from beneficiaries
and advocacy organizations that
revealed plan sponsors were not
providing translated marketing
materials upon request in languages
spoken by more than 10 percent of the
general population of a particular PBP
service area. The August 15, 2005
version of the Medicare Marketing
Guidelines and every version thereafter,
included language stating,
‘‘Organizations/plan sponsors should
make marketing materials available in
any language that is the primary
language of more than 10 percent of a
plan’s geographic service area.’’
Nevertheless, plan sponsors have
indicated they were uncertain whether
translating marketing materials were
required. For example, plan sponsors
we talked to were confused whether the
10 percent threshold applied to a
specific age group (for example, only
those 65+, which does not take into
account younger beneficiaries who are
Medicare-eligible based on disability).
Other plan sponsors assumed they did
not have to conduct a language analysis
for their plan because they were not
aware of any LEP enrollees in their
plans. This clarification addresses the
problem by explicitly codifying the
requirement to translate marketing
materials for LEP individuals. The
origin of the requirement to provide
translated materials is derived from
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which prohibits discrimination in
federal programs based upon national
origin. Compliance with the Civil Rights
Act is included in plan sponsors’
contractual requirements under
§ 422.503(h)(1)and § 423.505(h)(1).
Additionally, this clarification is
consistent with fulfilling the goals of
Executive Order 13166, Improving
Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency, and with
the HHS Secretary’s implementation of
the Executive Order as described in the
Strategic Plan for Implementing Access
to HHS Programs and Activities by LEP
Persons and the CMS Language Access
Plan. Providing translated materials for
LEP beneficiaries is a key component of
the CMS Language Access Plan and
helps ensure that beneficiaries have
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
access to all of the information they
need to make appropriate decisions
about their health care.
E. Strengthening Our Ability To
Distinguish for Approval Stronger
Applicants for Part C and Part D
Program Participation and To Remove
Consistently Poor Performers
This section addresses a number of
proposals designed to strengthen our
ability to approve strong applicants and
remove poor performers in the Part C
and D programs. Since the
implementation of revisions to the MA
and initial implementation of the
prescription drug programs in January
2006 as a result of the MMA, we have
steadily enhanced our ability to measure
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Expand Network Adequacy
Requirements to Additional MA Plan
Types (§ 422.112)
In our April 15, 2010 final rule (75 FR
19678 through 19826), we established
criteria that Medicare Advantage (MA)
coordinated care (CCP) plans and
Private Fee-for-Service (PFFS) plans
must meet so that we can ensure that
the network availability and
accessibility requirements specified in
section 1852(d)(1) of the Act are met.
We focused on specifying benchmarks
in community patterns of health care
delivery that we would use to evaluate
any proposed MA plan health care
delivery networks. As provided under
§ 422.112(a)(10) these benchmarks
include, but are not limited to—
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
MA organization and PDP sponsor
performance through efforts such as the
analysis of data provided routinely by
sponsors and by our contractors, regular
review of beneficiary complaints,
marketing surveillance activities, and
routine audits. This information,
combined with feedback we have
received from beneficiary satisfaction
surveys, HEDIS data, and information
from MA organizations and PDP
sponsors themselves, has enabled us to
develop a clearer sense of what
constitutes a successful Medicare
organization capable of providing
quality Part C and D services to
beneficiaries. This information has also
allowed us to identify and take
appropriate action against organizations
that are not meeting program
requirements and not meeting the needs
of beneficiaries.
As our understanding of Part C and D
program operations has deepened since
implementation of the MMA, our use of
our authority to determine which
organizations are qualified to offer MA
and PDP sponsor contracts, evaluate
their compliance with Part C and D
requirements, and make determinations
concerning intermediate sanctions,
contract nonrenewals and contract
terminations has evolved as well. The
changes we propose below will further
allow us to make these determinations
more effectively. These provisions are
described in detail in Table 9.
• The number and geographical
distribution of eligible health care
providers available to potentially
contract with an MA organization to
furnish plan-covered services in the
proposed area of the MA plans;
• The prevailing market conditions in
the service area of the MA plan—
specifically, the number and
distribution of health care providers
contracting with other health care plans
(both commercial and Medicare)
operating in the service area of the plan;
• Whether the service area is
comprised of rural or urban areas or
some combination of the two;
• Whether the MA plan’s proposed
provider network meets Medicare time
and distance standards for member
access to health care providers
including specialties; and
• Other factors that we determine to
be relevant in setting a standard for an
acceptable health care delivery network
in a particular service area.
As noted in our April 15, 2010 final
rule, our operational experience has
demonstrated that community patterns
of health care delivery provide useful
benchmarks for measuring a proposed
provider network, permitting varying
geographical and regional conditions to
be taken into consideration when
determining ‘‘reasonable’’ access in a
given area. Our final rule provides a
detailed discussion of our proposal and
the response to public comments on the
factors making up community patterns
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.007
71236
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of care that we established as
benchmarks for evaluating proposed
MA plan health care delivery networks.
We did not include MA MSAs in the
regulation proposal initially because
MSA plans historically have not had
networks and enrollees in a MSA plan
thus were able to may see any provider.
However, MSA plans are not prohibited
from having networks as long as
enrollee access is not restricted to
network providers. While there are
currently no Medicare MSA network
plans, we are aware of possible interest
in offering such plans. As a result, we
want to ensure that any MA plan that
meets Medicare access and availability
requirements through direct contracting
network providers does so consistent
with the requirements at
§ 422.112(a)(10). Therefore, we are
proposing to apply the network
adequacy standards at § 422.112(a)(10)
to all MA plans that meet Medicare
access and availability requirements
through direct contracting network
providers, including MSAs, should
MSAs choose to develop contracted
networks of providers. This proposed
change would put all MA plans with
contracted networks, and their
enrollees, on a level playing field with
respect to network access.
2. Maintaining a Fiscally Sound
Operation (§ 422.2, § 422.504, § 423.4,
and § 423.505)
Sections 1857(d)(4)(A)(i) and 1860D–
12(b)(3)(C) of the Act establish
requirements for MA organizations and
PDP sponsors to report financial
information demonstrating that the
organization has a fiscally sound
operation. This reporting requirement is
separate from the requirement that MA
organizations and PDP sponsors must be
organized and licensed under State law
as a risk-bearing entity eligible to offer
health insurance or health benefits
coverage in each State in which it offers
a Medicare product.
The authority to license an MA
organization or PDP sponsor and set
solvency standards rests with the State
licensing authority (sections 1856(b)(3)
and 1860D–12(g) of the Act). Sections
1855(a)(3) and 1860D–12(e) of the Act,
however, establish that licensure does
not substitute for or constitute
certification. Specifically, licensure
does not deem the organization to meet
other requirements imposed on the
organization under Part C or Part D.
Furthermore, sections 1857(d)(2)(B)
and 1860D–12(b)(3)(C) of the Act grant
us the authority to audit and inspect any
books and records of the ‘‘* * *
organization that pertain (i) to the
ability of the organization to bear the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
risk of potential financial losses, or (ii)
to services performed or determinations
of amounts payable under the contract.’’
The States’ oversight and enforcement
of financial solvency of MA
organizations and PDP sponsors
provides an important protection for
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA
and Part D plans. We consult regularly
with state insurance regulators to ensure
that sponsoring organizations are
meeting state reserve requirements and
solvency standards required for state
licensure, as this is a key component of
the organization or sponsor’s contract
with CMS. However, we interpret the
requirement for plans to report financial
information demonstrating that the
organization has a fiscally sound
operation and CMS’ authority to audit
and inspect any books and records, as
described above, as an indication that
we have an interest in the organization
maintaining a fiscally sound operation
and that this interest is separate and
apart from the State licensure
requirements for an organization.
We are concerned that some
organizations or sponsors may not have
a positive net worth, may be fiscally
unsound, and may be therefore unable
or unwilling to expend resources
necessary to continue to provide
adequate care and services to their
members. However, we have historically
been limited in our ability to take
compliance and enforcement action
against an organization solely on the
basis of these financial problems if the
organization is still licensed by the state
and is not otherwise out of compliance
with CMS requirements. In some cases,
we have been aware that an organization
would inevitably lose its state licensure
because of its poor financial condition,
but we were unable to take action to
terminate the organization’s contract
and ensure that beneficiaries were
smoothly transitioned to a new
organization or sponsor, rather than
waiting for the state to act. We believe
that an organization’s failure to
maintain a fiscally sound operation
constitutes a failure to substantially
carry out the terms of its contract with
CMS.
Therefore, we are proposing to modify
the definitions at § 422.2 and § 423.4 to
define a fiscally sound operation as one
which, at the very least, maintains a
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities). In addition, sections
1857(e)(1) and 1860D–12(b)(3)(D) of the
Act afford the Secretary the authority to
include terms and conditions in the
contract that are necessary and
appropriate. Thus, we are proposing to
add a contract provision at § 422.504(a)
and § 423.505(b)(23), under which the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71237
MA organization or Part D sponsor
agrees to maintain a fiscally sound
operation by at least maintaining a
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities).
We believe these changes will ensure
that we have the authority to take the
steps necessary to protect beneficiaries
enrolled in organizations or sponsors
that encounter financial difficulties.
3. Release of Part C and Part D Payment
Data
This proposed rule would allow the
Secretary to release Part C and D
summary payment data for research,
analysis, and public information
functions. The Secretary believes these
data should be made available because
other publicly available data are not, in
and of themselves, sufficient for the
studies and operations that researchers
want to undertake to analyze the
Medicare program and federal
expenditures, and to inform the public
on how their tax dollars are spent.
In keeping with the President’s
January 21, 2009, Memorandum on
Transparency and Open Government
(74 FR 26277), CMS is proposing to
routinely release Part C and Part D
payment data. These data would be
routinely released on an annual basis in
the year after the year for which
payments were made. The data release
would occur after final risk adjustment
reconciliation has been completed for
the payment year in question and, for
Part D, after final payment
reconciliation of the various subsidies.
Thus, we would release data for
payment year 2010 in the fall of 2011.
This timeframe would not apply to
the release of RDS payment data, since
we do not reconcile RDS payment
amounts until 15 months following the
end of the plan year. The majority of our
sponsors provide retiree drug coverage
on a calendar year basis. If an applicable
plan year ended December 31, 2010, the
payment reconciliation would not be
due until March 31, 2012, which would
be after the fall 2011 target for other Part
C and D payment data. We propose to
release the most current RDS payment
data available at the time Part C and D
payment reconciliation has been
completed and those data are compiled
and released.
For Part C, we are proposing the
release of payment data summarized at
the plan benefit package level.
Specifically, we would release average
per member per month (PMPM)
payments for A/B (Medicare covered)
benefits and average PMPM rebate
amounts for each MA plan. These
payments and amounts would be
standardized to the 1.0 (average risk
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71238
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
score) beneficiary. Given that we
already make Part C enrollment data
publicly available, interested parties
could readily calculate gross Part C
payments to MA organizations and for
the specific plan benefit packages
offered by these organizations. As part
of the annual release, we would also
release the average Part C risk score for
each plan benefit package for the
payment year in question. In addition,
we would also release aggregated Part C
payment data by county. Specifically,
we would release county-level average
PMPM payment amounts for A/B
benefits and average rebate amounts at
the MA plan type level (that is, HMO,
PPO, etc.) for each county in which
such plan types are represented.
For Part D, we are also proposing the
release of payment data summarized at
the plan benefit package level.
Specifically, we would release average
per member per month (PMPM)
payments for the direct subsidy, the
low-income cost sharing subsidy, and
the Federal reinsurance subsidy. Given
that we already make Part D enrollment
data publicly available, with these new
data interested parties could readily
calculate gross Part D payments to Part
D sponsors and for the specific plan
benefit packages offered by these
sponsors. In addition, as part of the
annual release, we would release the
average Part D risk score for each plan
benefit package for the payment year in
question.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
have reached catastrophic coverage; and
(3) the low-income cost-sharing subsidy,
which covers the Federal Government’s
portion of the cost-sharing payments for
certain low-income beneficiaries.
After the close of the plan year, CMS
must reconcile these prospective
payments with sponsors’ actual costs to
determine whether sponsors owe money
to Medicare or Medicare owes money to
sponsors. In 2007 and 2008 (for Part D
plan years 2006 and 2007) CMS
published Part D reconciliation payment
data. See, for instance, https://www.cms.
gov/MCRAdvPartDEnrolData/
Downloads/Part_D_2007_
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Reconciliation.pdf and https://www.
cms.gov/MCRAdvPartDEnrolData/
Downloads2006_Part_D_Payment_
Recon.pdf CMS is proposing to resume
this disclosure in the late summer/early
fall of 2011, for payment data related to
Part D reconciliation payments/
recoveries for CY 2010. These data are
different than the Part D data discussed
above since they represent final end of
year adjustments to the prospective
payments made to a Part D plan sponsor
based on the difference between the
plan’s estimated revenue needs and it’s
actual revenue needs. The prospective
Part D payment amounts we propose to
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.009
CMS makes monthly prospective
payments to sponsors for providing
prescription drug coverage to Medicare
beneficiaries. These payments are based
on estimates that sponsors provide in
their approved bids prior to the
beginning of the plan year. CMS makes
prospective payments to sponsors for
three subsidies based on sponsors’
approved bids. These subsidies are:
(1) The direct subsidy which, together
with beneficiary premiums, is designed
to cover the sponsor’s cost of providing
the benefit; (2) the reinsurance subsidy,
which covers the Federal Government’s
share of drug costs for beneficiaries who
EP22NO10.008
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 12: Part D
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
71239
Finally, we are proposing to release
retiree drug subsidy (RDS) data. These
data will be released as a dollar amount
of the gross aggregate subsidy amount
paid to the eligible sponsors of qualified
retiree prescription drug coverage and
the total number of unduplicated
Medicare eligible retirees for each
sponsor.
We are not proposing to release
detailed data that have been provided to
CMS by MA organizations or Part D
sponsors as part of their annual bids.
The payment data we will release are
quite different than the bid data plans
submit. Furthermore, the gross payment
data we are proposing to disclose cannot
be disaggregated to derive the
components of plan bids, nor can it be
used to generate meaningful estimates of
any nominally proprietary bid
component such as profitability,
administrative load, medical expenses,
and projected utilization. By releasing
payment data at an aggregate level, we
believe we are protecting not only the
proprietary interests of MA and Part D
plan sponsors, but that we are also
protecting the privacy rights of
individual MA plan enrollees.
The differences between bidding data,
which MA organizations and Part D
sponsors submit to CMS, and payment
data, which CMS computes and from
which it makes payments to plan
sponsors, are meaningful and significant
in the context of this proposal for two
basic reasons. The first is that since
CMS is not releasing data provided by
plan sponsors, the release of proprietary
information provided by plan sponsors
in the course of bidding is not
implicated. The second is that we are
releasing payment data in such a way
that individual components of plan bids
cannot be derived. We are not providing
information in sufficient detail to allow
others to disaggregate the information
we are providing in such a way as to
compromise information provided by
plan sponsors in the course of bidding.
Under the Act, the Secretary has the
authority to include in MA organization
and Part D sponsor contracts any terms
or conditions the Secretary deems
necessary and appropriate. (See section
1857(e)(1) of the Act and 1860D–
12(b)(3)(D) of the Act, which
incorporates section 1857(e) into Part
D.) Our regulations at § 422.504(j) and
§ 423.505(j) also permit us to include
other terms and conditions in these
contracts that we find necessary and
appropriate to implement the Part C and
D programs. Similarly, under
§ 423.884(c)(3)(i), RDS sponsors agree to
comply with the terms and conditions
for eligibility for a subsidy payment in
our regulations and in related CMS
guidance. Accordingly, we propose to
amend Part C and Part D contracts (and,
in the case of RDS sponsors,
agreements) to include a statement
informing such sponsors that CMS
payment data, as discussed in this
notice, will be released as indicated
above for research, analysis, and public
information purposes. The purposes
underlying such release include
allowing public evaluation of the MA,
prescription drug benefit, and RDS
programs, including their effectiveness,
and reporting to the public regarding
expenditures and other statistics
involving these programs.
In addition, we believe the
availability of the payment data we are
proposing to release would permit
potential plan sponsors to better
evaluate their participation in the Part C
and D programs, as well as facilitate the
entry into new markets of existing plan
sponsors. In other words, we believe the
availability of plan payment data will
enhance the competitive nature of these
programs. In knowing the per member
per month payment amounts and other
components of plan payment (plan
rebates and risk scores), new business
partners might emerge, and better
business decisions might be made by
existing partners. As a result, we believe
including a provision in our contracts
with plan sponsors regarding the release
of payment information is both
necessary and appropriate for the
effective operation of these programs.
We note that because this proposed
rule would apply to all Part C and Part
D sponsors, it would apply to any entity
offering either Part C or Part D plans,
including MA organizations offering
and not offering prescription drug plans,
as well as all Part D drug plan sponsors.
It would also apply to sponsors entitled
to federal RDS subsidies.
We solicit comment generally on the
public release of Part C and Part D
payment data as outlined above. We
also specifically solicit comment on
whether any of the Part C and Part D
payment data we propose to release
contain proprietary information, and if
they do, what safeguards might be
appropriate to protect those data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4. Required Use of Electronic
Transaction Standards for MultiIngredient Drug Compounds; Payment
for Multi-Ingredient Drug Compounds
(§ 423.120)
Section 1860D–4(b)(2)(A) of the Act,
as codified in § 423.120(c), requires Part
D sponsors to issue (and reissue, as
appropriate) a card or other technology
that may be used by an enrollee to
assure access to negotiated prices under
section 1860D–2(d) of the Act. Section
1860D–4(b)(2)(B) of the Act requires
CMS to provide for the development,
adoption, or recognition of standards
relating to a standardized format for the
card or other technology that are
compatible with the HIPAA
administrative simplification
requirements of part C of Title XI of the
Act and to consult with the NCPDP and
other standard setting organizations, as
appropriate. Pursuant to this authority,
we recently added a new paragraph
(c)(2) to § 423.120 to codify existing
guidance that Part D sponsors utilize
standard electronic transactions
established by 45 CFR 162.1102 for
processing Part D claims (75 FR 19726).
We noted that we routinely work with
the NCPDP and industry representatives
in arriving at recommendations relating
to the use of the HIPPA standard
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.010
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
report above are different from the
reconciliation data proposed to be
reported here in the sense that these
specific reconciliation data provide a
summary of a Part D plan sponsor’s
ability to accurately predict Part D costs.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71240
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
transactions when necessary to improve
administration of the Part D benefit.
The NCPDP Telecommunications
Standard Version D.0 (Version D.0) is an
updated version of the HIPAA standard
for retail pharmacy drug claims
transactions. Version D.0 was adopted
as the HIPAA standard that must be
used by HIPAA covered entities for
retail pharmacy drug claims on and after
January 1, 2012. Version D.0 includes a
modification from the current version of
the standard to standardize the claims
processing for compounded drugs.
Unlike the current version of the
standard, all components of drug
compounds will now be reflected on a
pharmacy claim. Since under
§ 423.120(c)(2) Part D sponsors will be
required to adhere to the new standard,
we are undertaking additional
rulemaking in order to provide further
guidance to Part D sponsors on how to
appropriately treat compounded
products under the Part D program.
Historically, compounds have filled
an important role in pharmacy practice
by providing medically necessary drug
therapies that would otherwise be
unavailable to patients. We believe the
main use of compounded products
under Part D has been associated with
home infusion therapy. The appropriate
role of compounded products is less
clear to us when compounds are used
outside of home infusion therapy. With
this proposed rule, it is not our intent
to incentivize the use of compounded
drug products as a substitute for FDA
approved products.
Under Part D, compounded products
as a whole generally do not satisfy the
definition of a Part D drug. Under
section 10.4 of Chapter 6 of the
Medicare prescription Drug Benefit
Manual (https://www.cms.gov/
PrescriptionDrugCovContra/Downloads/
Chapter6.pdf), CMS clarified that only
those costs associated with those
components of a compounded product
that satisfy the definition of a Part D
drug are allowable costs under Part D.
Since pharmacy transactions up to this
point have not captured all components
of a billed compounded drug, our policy
clarification has generally resulted in
Part D plans’ paying for the most
expensive Part D drug component in a
compound and submitting that
component on the prescription drug
event record transmitted to CMS for Part
D payment reconciliation purposes.
Generally, our policy guidance has been
limited to clarifying that the dispensing
fee may include the labor costs
associated with mixing the compounded
product (provided that at least one
component of the compound was a Part
D drug) and to providing guidance on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
appropriate cost-sharing that may be
charged. With respect to the latter, we
have specified that in the case of a
compounded product that contains all
generic products, the generic costsharing should be applied. However, if
a compounded product contains any
brand name products, the Part D
sponsor may apply the higher brand
name cost-sharing to the entire
compound. Beyond these requirements,
we have not provided more explicit
guidance.
As noted above, the adoption under
HIPAA of Version D.0 for retail
pharmacy claims transactions will
require the inclusion of individual
components that make up a
compounded product. Because, as a
result, plan sponsors will have access to
more complete information regarding
the components of a compound, we
believe it is appropriate to provide
additional clarification with respect to
the treatment under Part D of
compounds in general and with respect
to the treatment of compounded
products that include non-Part D drugs
in particular.
First, we propose to codify our
existing guidance—which will comprise
the general rule—that only compounded
products that contain at least one
component that independently meets
the definition of a Part D drug may be
covered under Part D. Such
compounded products may, for
example, contain all Part D drug
components or some Part D
components. Consistent with our
current policy, we propose to clarify
that sponsors may cover the Part D
components even if the compounded
product as a whole does not satisfy the
definition of a Part D drug (subject to
the exception for Part B drug
compounds described below). For
purposes of this preamble, these
compounds are referred to as ‘‘Part D
compounds.’’ As specified in our
existing guidance, and consistent with
the statute, however, components of a
Part D compound that do not
independently meet the definition of
Part D drug are not allowable costs
under Part D, so, non-Part D drug
components of these compounds are not
covered under Part D.
An exception to our general policy
will apply to those compounds that
include a drug component that is
covered under Part B. If a compound
includes a Part B drug component, no
components of the compound may be
covered under Part D, even if one or
more components of the compound
would meet the definition of Part D drug
if the component were dispensed or
administered separately. This exception
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the general rule is based both on
current Part B payment policy and
Section 1860D–2(e)(2)(B) of the Act.
Section 1860D–2(e)(2)(B) specifies that a
drug prescribed to a Part D eligible
individual cannot be considered a Part
D drug if payment for such drug, as
prescribed and dispensed or
administered to the beneficiary, is
available under Medicare Part A or B. In
general under Part B, when a
compounded product meets the
definition of a drug in section 1861(t)(1)
of the Act, fits within a Part B benefit
category, and otherwise meets coverage
requirements, then payment is available
for that compounded product.
Therefore, in our view, when a
compound that otherwise would be a
Part D compound contains a Part B
component that meets the above
requirements, the exclusion of section
1860D–2(e)(2)(B) of the Act applies—in
other words, because payment for such
a compound is available under Part B,
the compound as a whole is excluded
from Part D. We propose to codify this
exception to the general rule for Part D
compounds.
We also propose a requirement that
the Part D sponsor make a
determination as to which copayment or
coinsurance applies to a Part D
compound. In making this
determination, we propose that a flat
copay amount submitted and approved
under § 423.104, must represent the
copay of the tier for the most expensive
Part D ingredient and a coinsurance
amount, submitted and approved under
§ 423.104, must be applied to the cost of
all Part D ingredients of the Part D
compound. In either case, we are
proposing to applying the cost sharing
to the whole amount of the claim,
having selected the cost sharing amount
based on the tier of the most expensive
ingredient. In the case of low income
subsidy (LIS) beneficiaries, the costsharing amount (either copayment or
coinsurance) is based on whether the
most expensive Part D component is a
generic or brand drug (as described
under § 423.782). In the case of non-Part
D components that could otherwise be
covered under a supplemental benefit
for excluded drugs as described under
423.104(f)(1)(ii)(A), we clarify that the
sponsor may not apply cost-sharing for
these covered excluded drug
components in addition to the most
expensive Part D components.
An underlying premise of our policy
is that if a compound as a whole is
considered by a Part D sponsor to be onformulary at the time of adjudication,
for the sake of consistency, then all Part
D components of that compound should
be considered on-formulary, even if
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
individual Part D components would be
considered nonformulary as a single
drug claim. Accordingly, we propose
that if a Part D compound as a whole is
considered by a Part D sponsor to be onformulary, the Part D sponsor must
adjudicate the Part D components as
formulary drugs. Alternatively, if a Part
D compound as a whole is considered
by the Part D sponsor to be nonformulary, but is later approved for a
beneficiary under a coverage
redetermination or appeal, we propose
that the Part D sponsor must apply CMS
transition rules such that all Part D
components in the compound are
covered in the event of a transition fill
under § 423.120(b)(3) of the compound.
We note that while Part D sponsors
may elect to contract with pharmacies to
pay the additional ingredient costs of
Part D compounds that are not Part D
drugs and are not reimbursable by the
government, they are not required to do
so. Thus, the majority of the
compounded ingredients may not be
reimbursable to pharmacies in
accordance with payment terms
between sponsors and pharmacies. We
propose to clarify that for a Part D
compound otherwise determined to be
payable under Part D, the sponsor may
either contract with the pharmacy to
pay for the non-Part D components
without charging the beneficiary for
these amounts or reporting these costs
to CMS; deny payment to the pharmacy
for any non-Part D components, but
allow these components to be balance
billed by the pharmacy to the
beneficiary; or deny payment to the
pharmacy for any non-Part D
components and prohibit these
components from being balance billed
by the pharmacy. In proposing these
requirements, we are considering
whether the financial impact of
unreimbursed compound components
may deter pharmacies from continuing
to provide compounding services,
subsequently affecting beneficiary
access to drugs. We invite comment on
whether this policy is technically
feasible at point-of-sale and/or
otherwise appropriate.
We note that we will separately issue
guidance on the treatment of PDEs in
light of Version D.0. We expect that,
consistent with the treatment of
compounds under current guidance,
Part D sponsors will likely continue
reporting the National Drug Code (NDC)
and quantity associated with the most
expensive Part D ingredient on the PDE.
However, we envision that the total cost
will represent the sum of the individual
Part D components that make up the
compounded product.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Based on the preceding, we propose
to add a new paragraph (d) to § 423.120
to clarify the aforesaid proposals
effective January 1, 2012.
5. Denial of Applications Submitted by
Part C and D Sponsors With Less Than
14 Months Experience Operating their
Medicare Contracts (§ 422.502 and
§ 423.503)
Pursuant to § 422.502(b) and
§ 423.503(b) applicants with current or
prior contracts with CMS are subject to
CMS denial of their applications if they
fail during the preceding 14 months to
comply with the requirements of the
Part D program even if their
applications otherwise demonstrate that
they meet all of the Part D sponsor
qualifications. In the final rule, entitled
‘‘Policy and Technical Changes to the
Medicare Advantage and the Medicare
Prescription Drug Programs’’ (75 FR
19678), that appeared in the April 15,
2010 Federal Register, we modified
existing provisions at § 422.502(b) and
§ 423.503(b) concerning our ability to
deny an application for a Part C or Part
D contract or service area expansion
based on the applicant’s failure to
comply with the requirements of the
Part C or Part D program under any
current or prior contract with CMS. The
two modifications we made to the prior
language concerned: (1) Revising the
language to refer to ‘‘any current or prior
contract’’ held by the organization,
instead of the former language referring
to a ‘‘previous year’s contract;’’ and (2)
clarifying that the period that will be
examined for past performance
problems will be limited to those
identified by us during the 14 months
prior to the date by which organizations
must submit contract qualification
applications to CMS.
At this time, we are proposing to
further refine our intended approach to
using past performance in making
application determinations.
Specifically, we are concerned about
entities submitting applications to us
where the entity has operated its
contract(s) with us for less than 14
months at the time it submits a new
application or service area expansion
request. Practically speaking, an entity
contracting with us for the first time
would have merely 2 months experience
before applications would be due for the
following contract year. Two months is
an inadequate amount of time for the
entity to demonstrate its ability to
comply with all Part C and/or Part D
requirements.
As such, we are faced with two
options—either to assume full
compliance and exempt the entity from
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71241
the past performance review, or to deny
additional applications from such
entities until the applicant has
accumulated 14 months experience
during which it complied fully with the
requirements of the Part C and/or Part
D programs.
Our interest in protecting Medicare
beneficiaries and limiting program
participants to the best performing
organizations possible strongly suggests
that we take the latter approach. The
practical effect of denying applications
from entities with less than 14 months
experience operating a Medicare
contract is that new entrants to the Part
C or Part D programs would not be
permitted to expand their operations
(either via a new contract or a service
area expansion of an existing contract)
until the beginning of their third year of
experience with CMS. As an example,
an entity that submits an application for
its first Part C or Part D contract in
February 2010 is approved and begins
delivering Part C or D services on
January 1, 2011. Because 2012
applications would be due in February
2011, when the applicant has only two
months experience with the Part C or
Part D programs, its applications would
be denied. The next opportunity to
submit a viable application would be in
February 2012 for the 2013 contract
year. At that point, the entity would
have exactly 14 months performance
history for CMS to consider in making
application determinations.
By making this change, we will
ensure that new entrants to the Part C
or Part D program can fully manage
their current contracts and books of
business before further expanding. This
change will also require that entities
rightfully focus their attention on
launching their new Medicare contracts
in a compliant and responsible manner,
rather than focusing attention almost
immediately on further expansions.
Therefore, we propose to modify
§ 422.502(b) and § 423.503(b) by adding
additional language at § 422.502(b)(2)
and § 423.503(b)(2) that in the absence
of 14 months performance history, we
may deny an application based on a lack
of information available to determine an
applicant’s capacity to comply with the
requirements of the Part C or Part D
program, respectively.
F. Other Clarifications and Technical
Changes
We propose seven technical changes
in this section, affecting as noted in
Table 14 below, cost contract plans, MA
plans, or Part D plans.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1. Clarification of the Expiration of the
Authority To Waive the State Licensure
Requirement for Provider-Sponsored
Organizations (§ 422.4)
We propose to clarify in this section
that we will no longer waive the state
licensure requirement for organizations
seeking to offer a provider-sponsored
organization (PSO) because, under
section 1855(a)(2)(A) of the Act and
§ 422.370 of our regulations, we had the
authority to waive the state licensure
requirement for PSOs only for requests
for waivers submitted prior to
November 1, 2002. While we currently
contract with organizations that have
previously met the conditions for
becoming a PSO and will continue to
contract with these organizations,
organizations that do not meet state
licensure requirements can no longer
offer new PSOs because waiver of state
licensure laws is necessary in order to
offer a PSO.
Section 1851(a)(2)(A) of the Act
allows for the participation of a PSO in
the MA program as a coordinated care
plan. A PSO is defined in section
1855(d) of the Act and codified in
§ 422.350 as a public or private entity
that—
• Is established or organized, and
operated, by a provider or group of
affiliated providers;
• Provides a substantial proportion
(as defined in § 422.352) of the health
care services under the MA contract
directly through the provider or
affiliated group of providers; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
• When it is a group, is composed of
affiliated providers who share, directly
or indirectly, substantial financial risk,
as determined under § 422.356, for the
provision of services that are the
obligation of the PSO under the MA
contract, and have at least a majority
financial interest in the PSO.
As provided under § 422.352, an
organization is considered a PSO for
purposes of a MA contract if the
organization—
• Has obtained a waiver of State
licensure as provided for under
§ 422.370;
• Meets the definition of a PSO set
forth in § 422.350 and other applicable
requirements of this subpart; and
• Is effectively controlled by the
provider or, in the case of a group, by
one or more of the affiliated providers
that established and operate the PSO.
Section 1855(a)(1) of the Act requires
that MA organizations be licensed as
risk-bearing entities under the laws of
the state, but section 1855(a)(2)(A) of the
Act establishes an exception to this
requirement by allowing PSOs to obtain
a Federal waiver of the state licensure
requirement from the Secretary under
certain circumstances. Accordingly, we
specified in § 422.370 that CMS may
waive the state licensure requirement
for PSOs if the organization requests a
waiver no later than November 1, 2002,
and we determine there is a basis for a
waiver under § 422.372.
Even though the authority to waive
the state licensure requirement for PSOs
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expired on November 1, 2002, and we
have not granted waivers of state
licensure requirements since that time,
we are taking the opportunity to clarify
this policy in this proposed rule because
of questions we have received.
Accordingly, we propose to revise
paragraph (a) of § 422.4 to clarify that
we no longer have the authority to
waive the state licensure requirement
for PSOs.
2. Cost Plan Enrollment Mechanisms
(§ 417.430)
As part of the enrollment process,
§ 417.430 requires that application
forms be submitted to an HMO or CMP
and must include a beneficiary’s
signature. The organization must
provide the beneficiary with written
notice of acceptance or rejection of the
application. We are proposing changes
to § 417.430(a)(1) that would allow us to
approve other enrollment mechanisms
for cost plans in addition to paper
forms, such as electronic enrollment.
We are also proposing to streamline
§ 417.430(b)(3) and § 417.430(b)(4)(i) to
allow for notice delivery options other
than the traditional mailing of
documents. These proposed changes
take into consideration the advancement
of communication technology and
comport with revisions we made with
respect to the MA program under
§ 422.50(a)(5) and § 422.60(e).
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.011
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
3. Fast-Track Appeals of Service
Terminations to Independent Review
Entities (IREs) (§ 422.626)
To correct a typographical error in
§ 422.626(f)(3), we propose removing
the word ‘‘to’’ before the word ‘‘may.’’
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Part D Transition Requirements
(§ 423.120)
Pursuant to our authority under
section 1860D–11(d)(2)(B) of the Act, we
previously codified plan transition
policies at § 423.120(b)(3). For enrollees
residing in a long-term care (LTC)
facility, a Part D sponsor is required to
provide a LTC resident enrolled in its
Part D plan at least a 31 day supply of
a prescription when presenting in the
first 90 days of enrollment (unless the
prescription is written for less) with
refills provided, if needed, up to a 93
day supply. As a result of section 3310
of the ACA and the proposed rule at
§ 423.154 for dispensing brand-name
medications in increments of 7 days or
less, we are proposing to revise the
existing transition policy for LTC
facilities to be more consistent with 7
day or less dispensing. Consistent with
our proposed rule that would require
Part D sponsors to require all
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities to
dispense no more than a seven-day
supply of brand-name medication when
dispensing covered Part D drugs to
enrollees who reside in LTC facilities,
with certain exceptions for specific
types of drugs and certain waivers of the
requirement for specific types of
pharmacies, we propose revising the
transition fill supply from 93 days to 91
days to accommodate multiple fillings
of 7 days or less in the LTC setting
whenever § 423.154 (a) applies to drugs
dispensed in 7-day-or-less supplies. The
proposed change to a 91-day supply
would permit exactly 13 weeks of 7-day
transition fills. Under this revised
requirement, a Part D sponsor would be
required to provide a LTC resident
enrolled in its Part D plan a temporary
supply of a prescription when
presenting in the first 90 days of
enrollment up to a 91-day supply, with
supply increments consistent with
§ 423.154 (unless the prescription is
written for less), with refills provided, if
needed.
We also propose to amend
§ 423.120(b)(3)(iii) to clarify transition
notice requirements that must be sent to
beneficiaries within 3 business days of
adjudication of a temporary fill. Upon
review of the regulatory language, we
believe revisions are needed in the case
of multiple dispensing of 7 days or less
of a single prescription. While we
continue to believe that written notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
must be sent to each affected enrollees,
in the case of a LTC enrollee impacted
by the 7-day-or-less dispensing
requirement, we believe that the written
notice should be sent within 3 business
days after adjudication of the first
transition fill. Otherwise, we are
persuaded based on feedback from the
LTC industry that beneficiaries may be
confused when receiving multiple
transition notices within 7 to 10 days of
each 7-day or-less dispensing. We solicit
comments on this proposed revision.
Accordingly, based on the preceding,
we have proposed revisions to
423.120(b)(3)(iii)(B) and (iv) to be
consistent with the proposed
requirements related to dispensing
brand-name medications in 7-day-orless increments effective January 1,
2012.
5. Revision to Limitation on Charges to
Enrollees for Emergency Department
Services (§ 422.113)
As provided under section 1852(d)(1)
of the Act and codified at
§ 422.113(b)(2)(v), MA organizations are
financially responsible for emergency
and urgently needed services, with a
limit on charges to enrollees for
emergency department services of $50
or what an MA organization would
charge an enrollee if he or she obtained
the services through the MA
organization, whichever is less. The
limit on cost sharing at the lesser of $50
or what the plan would charge the
enrollee if he or she obtained the
services through the organization was
first included in the regulations at
§ 422.112(b)(4) in the June 26, 1998
interim final rule (63 FR 35081) as the
cost sharing limit for emergency
services received out-of-network.
Subsequently, new section § 422.113
was added to the regulations in the June
29, 2000 final rule (65 FR 40322) and
required that same limit on cost sharing
for emergency services regardless of
whether they were received in- or outof-network.
We are proposing to revise the
regulations to remove the $50 cost
sharing amount for CY 2012 because we
believe that it is outdated considering
the increasingly higher costs of
emergency care during the past decade.
The relatively low cost-sharing limit for
emergency department services has
constrained MA organizations’ ability to
control unnecessary use of emergency
departments. We believe that we are in
a position to evaluate the cost-sharing
limit for emergency care as part of our
annual benefits review process to strike
a balance between reasonable costsharing amounts and MA organizations’
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71243
ability to appropriately control
utilization and costs.
Therefore, we propose revising
§ 422.113(b)(2)(v) to remove the $50
amount and replace it with language
indicating that we will evaluate and
determine the appropriate enrollee costsharing limit for emergency department
services. We would annually evaluate
the emergency department cost sharing
limit and inform MA organizations of
any changes to the limit in annual
guidance, such as the Call Letter.
6. Clarify Language Related to
Submission of a Valid Application
(§ 422.502 and § 423.503)
Since the enactment of the MMA in
2005, we have adapted our processes for
reviewing applications for qualification
for contracts to operate as Medicare Part
C or D sponsoring organizations to
accommodate the timely review of large
numbers of applications each year. That
adaptation has included the
establishment of strict deadlines for the
initial submission of applications and
the resubmission of materials needed to
cure identified deficiencies. We do not
review applications that are submitted
after the established deadline, meaning
that an organization that misses the
deadline would not receive a Part C or
D sponsor contract for the following
benefit year. Because we do not review
such applications, we do not provide a
notice of intent to deny under
§ 422.502(c)(2) or § 423.503(c)(2), nor is
the organization entitled to a hearing
under § 422.660 or § 423.650.
To avoid the consequences of missing
the initial submission deadline, some
organizations have submitted
applications that we considered so
lacking in required information or
correct detail as to fail to constitute a
valid, timely submission. We suspect
that in many instances, these
organizations expected to take
advantage of our policy of affording
applicants two later opportunities
during the review process (including the
10-day cure period following the
issuance of a notice of intent to deny an
application issued under § 422.502(c)(2)
and § 423.503(c)(2)) to make their
applications complete by providing
information that had been omitted from
the initial submission. We established
the submission deadline to ensure that
all organizations had the same amount
of time in which to develop their
materials and that the agency could
provide each applicant a fair and timely
review of its application. Our adoption
of a policy of strict enforcement of
application submission deadlines is
entirely consistent with our regulatory
authority, stated at § 422.501(b) and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 423.502(b), to require organizations to
submit applications in a form and
manner required by CMS. Organizations
that provide substantially incomplete
applications are effectively submitting
‘‘placeholders’’ designed to save their
eligibility to participate in the
application review process until they
can produce all the required materials.
We find this practice to be an abuse of
the application review process that
defeats the purpose of the established
deadline. As a result, in the CY 2010
Call Letter, we informed all current and
potential Part C and D organizations that
we would not review any application
for contract qualification that amounted
to a ‘‘placeholder’’ application. We
inadvertently stated in the Call Letter
that we would deny such applications
pursuant to § 423.503(c), which could
have been interpreted to mean that we
were providing an opportunity for an
administrative appeal. This was not our
intent as we do not accept invalid
applications, and where there is no
valid application, we have no obligation
to issue a notice of intent to deny or a
right to appeal under § 422.660 or
§ 423.650.
In addition, we believe that confusion
about our authority to enforce the
application deadline may be created by
the provisions of § 422.502(c)(2)(i) and
§ 423.503(c)(2)(i), which state that we
will provide an applicant a notice of
intent to deny when the organization
‘‘has not provided enough information
to evaluate the application.’’ We
intended this language to afford an
organization that had made a good faith
effort to complete a contract
qualification application the
opportunity to provide the materials
necessary to cure a discrete application
deficiency. It now appears that this
language could provide an unintended
protection to an organization that
circumvented our established
application deadline by submitting a
‘‘placeholder’’ application.
We believe that the language in
§ 422.502(c)(2)(i) and § 423.503(c)(2)(i),
stating that the agency will issue a
notice of intent to deny if CMS finds
that the applicant does not appear
qualified to contract as a Part C or D
sponsor, combined with the language of
§ 422.502(c)(2)(ii) and § 423.503(c)(2)(ii)
allowing the organization to ‘‘revise its
application to remedy any defects CMS
identified’’ is sufficient to authorize us
to consider additional curing materials
submitted by a good faith applicant.
Therefore, to remove all ambiguity that
may exist concerning our authority to
decline to accept or review substantially
incomplete applications, we propose to
revise the provisions of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 422.502(c)(2)(i) and § 423.503(c)(2)(i)
to delete the phrase, ‘‘and/or has not
provided enough information to
evaluate the application.’’
7. Modifying the Definition of
Dispensing Fees (§ 423.100)
As stated in our August 3, 2004
proposed rule, MMA does not define the
term ‘‘dispensing fee,’’ although the
terms ‘‘dispensing fee’’ and ‘‘dispense’’
appear several times throughout the Act.
Because the statute is ambiguous on the
meaning of ‘‘dispensing fee,’’ in the
August 3, 2004 proposed rule we offered
three options and sought comments on
the proposed definitions. ‘‘Dispensing
fees’’ as defined in our final rule,
January 28, 2005, distinguished between
pharmacies owned and operated by a
Part D plan itself and all other
pharmacies.
‘‘Dispensing fees,’’ as defined in the
final rule issued January 28, 2005,
implied that the salaries of pharmacists
and other pharmacy workers were
reasonable pharmacy costs only for
pharmacies owned and operated by a
Part D plan itself. We propose to clarify
that the salaries of pharmacists and
other pharmacy workers may be
reasonable pharmacy costs for any
pharmacy. Consistent with that
clarification, we simplify the definition
of ‘‘dispensing fees’’ and remove
reference to ‘‘pharmacies owned and
operated by a Part D plan itself.’’
We propose to modify the definition
of ‘‘dispensing fee’’ under § 423.100 to
include costs associated with the
acquisition and maintenance of
technology to maintain reasonable
pharmacy costs. We also propose to add
to the definition of ‘‘dispensing fees’’ a
restocking fee associated with return for
credit and reuse in long-term care
pharmacies when return for credit and
reuse is permitted under state law and
is allowed under the contract between
the Part D sponsor and the pharmacy.
Although it is not our intent to include
all activities that are ‘‘reasonable costs’’
in the definition of ‘‘dispensing fees,’’ in
light of the statutory requirements
regarding LTC pharmacy dispensing, we
believe that it is particularly important
to highlight the potential pharmacy
costs aimed at reducing waste and
increasing efficiency of dispensing. We
also believe dispensing fees should
differentiate among the costs associated
with different dispensing methodologies
and appropriately address costs that are
incurred to offset waste.
We now propose to simplify and
clarify the definition of ‘‘dispensing
fees’’ by modifying § 423.100 and
eliminating the distinction between
pharmacies owned and operated by a
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Part D plan itself and all other
pharmacies. We also propose modifying
§ 423.100 by adding to the definition
that dispensing fees should take into
consideration the number of dispensing
events in a billing cycle, the incremental
costs associated with the type of
dispensing methodology, and with
respect to Part D drugs dispensed in
LTC facilities, the techniques to
minimize the dispensing of drugs that
go unused. Dispensing fees may also
take into account restocking fees
associated with return for credit and
reuse in long-term care pharmacies,
when return for credit and reuse is
permitted under State law and is
allowed under the contract between the
Part D sponsor and the pharmacy.
III. 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:
• 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.
The following sections of this
document contain paperwork burden
but not all of them are subject to the
information collection requirements
(ICRs) under the PRA for reasons noted.
A. ICRs Regarding Cost Sharing for
Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (§ 417.101 and § 422.100)
Under proposed § 417.101(g) and
§ 422.100(g) and (h), we would clarify
that MA organizations may not impose
cost sharing that exceeds that required
under Original Medicare. We would
evaluate the following services annually
to ensure that MA plans are charging
cost sharing in the upcoming contract
year that does not exceed cost sharing
in Original Medicare. Specifically,
chemotherapy administration services
that include chemotherapy drugs and
radiation therapy integral to the
treatment regimen, renal dialysis as
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
defined at section 1881(b)(14)(B) of the
Act, and skilled nursing care defined as
services provided during a covered stay
in a skilled nursing facility would be
subject to this limitation. The burden
associated with this proposed
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for MA organizations and
section 1876 cost contracts to submit
their benefit designs, including costsharing amounts, via the Plan Benefit
Package (PBP) software. While this
proposed requirement is subject to the
PRA, the burden associated with it is
currently approved under OMB control
number (OCN) 0938–0763 with a May
31, 2011, expiration date.
B. ICRs Regarding SNP Provisions
(§ 422.101, § 422.107, and § 422.152)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With
State Medicaid Agencies (§ 422.107)
Proposed § 422.107(d)(ii) would
extend the time allowed for the
continuance of existing SNPs that do
not have contracts with the State
Medicaid agencies in which they
operate. For new and existing dual
eligible SNPs seeking to expand in
contract years 2011 through 2013, the
burden associated with this requirement
is the time and effort put forth by each
dual eligible SNP to confer and develop
a contract with the State Medicaid
agency. While this requirement is
subject to the PRA, we do not expect the
burden to change from the existing
burden estimate, as currently approved,
under OCN 0938–0753, with a
November 30, 2011, expiration date.
2. ICRs Regarding NCQA Approval of
SNPs (§ 422.101 and § 422.152)
Proposed § 422.101 and § 422.152
provide for the approval of all SNPs,
existing and new, by the National
Commission for Quality Assurance
(NCQA) beginning in 2012. The burden
associated with this requirement is the
time and effort put forth by MA
organizations offering SNPs to submit
their overall quality improvement (QI)
program and the model of care (MOC)
to CMS for NCQA evaluation and
approval as per CMS guidance.
Although the submission of the MOC
and the QI program documents is
already part of the application process,
scrutiny of these documents by NCQA
for approval is a new requirement.
Additionally, in the past all SNPs were
not required to complete the SNPs
proposal portion of the application each
year, resulting now in all SNPs, (that is,
all of the SNP plans offered by an MA
organization) being required to complete
the SNPs proposal within the
application and possibly provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
documentation external to the existing
electronic application process. It is
estimated that it will take each SNP
plan 40 hours to complete the annual
application. Within those 40 hours, the
SNP portion of the burden is 6 hours.
For the existing 544 SNPs, the burden
associated with completing the SNP
section only is estimated to be 3,264
hours.
The number of new plans each year
will vary and cannot easily be
predicted. However, based on the
number of new plans that submitted
SNP Proposals during the application
period in February 2010 for operation in
2011, we estimate that approximately 15
new applications will be submitted
annually. Thus, for 15 new plans at 40
hours each, we estimate the total annual
burden hours to be 600. The burden
associated with the proposed
requirement for the new plans is
currently approved under OCN 0938–
0935 with a January 21, 2011 expiration
date.
C. ICRs Regarding Voluntary De
Minimis Policy for Subsidy Eligible
Individuals (§ 423.34 and § 423.780)
Our proposed regulatory
modifications pursuant to section 3303
of the ACA ensure that our regulations
reflect the new statutory prohibition on
reassigning low-income subsidy (LIS)
beneficiaries from Part D plans that
waive a de minimis amount of their
premium. Further, the proposed
regulatory modifications reflect
statutory discretion for us to autoenroll
or reassign LIS beneficiaries to Part D
plans that waive the de minimis amount
of the premium. The proposed
modifications to § 423.34 do not by
themselves impose any new information
collection requirements on any external
entity.
However, related proposals to modify
§ 423.780 do impose new information
collection requirements. Specifically,
the proposed modifications provide for
the process for a Part D plan to
volunteer to waive a de minimis amount
over the monthly beneficiary premium
for certain low income subsidy eligible
(LIS) individuals. As specified in
proposed changes to § 423.34, we are
prohibited from reassigning LIS
beneficiaries from Part D plans that
waive the de minimis amount of the
premium based on the fact that their
premiums exceed the LIS benchmark
premium amount, and we may choose
to autoenroll or reassign LIS
beneficiaries to such plans.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a Part D plan to submit
data to us indicating its decision to
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71245
volunteer to waive the de minimis
amount. Since we will collect this
information as part of an already
established system, we estimate that
annually, it will take an additional 10
minutes for plans to read the
instructions, select an online check box,
and submit the information. The de
minimis amount will be established
each year, and the amount may vary
among years. For purposes of estimating
the burden, we assume that the de
minimis amount will be $1.00, and that
all Part D plans with premiums within
the de minimis amount over the regional
LIS benchmark will volunteer to waive
it. We estimate 150 Part D plans will
qualify for de minimis in a given fiscal
year. For 150 plans at 10 minutes each
fiscal year, we estimate the total annual
burden hours to be 25. We assume an
hourly wage of $23.92 for a compliance
officer, resulting in a total annual labor
cost of $598.
D. ICRs Regarding Increase in Part D
Premiums Due to the Income Related
Monthly Adjustment Amount
(D—IRMAA) (§ 423.44)
Proposed § 423.44(e)(4) would require
PDPs to provide Part D enrollees with a
notice of termination in a form and
manner determined by CMS. We
estimate that approximately 1.05
million of the 29.2 million Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in the Part D
program will exceed the minimum
income threshold amount and will be
assessed an income related monthly
adjustment amount. We also estimate
that approximately 80,000 beneficiaries
will be directly billed for the Part D—
IRMAA because they are not receiving
monthly benefit payments from SSA,
the Office of Personnel Management, or
the Railroad Retirement Board, or the
monthly benefit payment is not
sufficient to have the Part D—IRMAA
withheld.
Of the 80,000 Part D enrollees who
will be directly billed for the Part D—
IRMAA, CMS cannot estimate how
many might accrue Part D—IRMAA
arrearages and be subsequently
terminated. However, in the event that
the 80,000 Part D enrollees who pay the
Part D—IRMAA through direct billing
become delinquent, PDPs would be
required to send all 118,000 enrollees a
notice of termination in accordance
with § 423.44(e)(4), and the burden
associated with this requirement would
be the time and effort that it takes a PDP
to populate the notice with a
beneficiary’s information. Termination
notices are generally automated;
therefore, CMS estimates that it will
take 1 minute to generate a termination
notice. As such, the total maximum
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
annual hourly burden associated with
this requirement is 1,333 hours (1
minute multiplied by 80,000 enrollees,
divided by 60 minutes). We estimate
that the hourly wage paid to an
individual tasked with generating the
automated letters is $40 (based on U.S.
Department of Labor statistics for hourly
wages for administrative support). The
associated burden amount for this work
is $53,320. Additionally, Part D plan
sponsors will have to retain a copy of
the notice in the beneficiary’s records.
We estimate 5 minutes multiplied by
80,000 enrollees divided by 60 minutes.
This equates to 6,666 hours at
approximately $40 an hour (based on
U.S. Department of Labor statistics for
hourly wages for administrative
support). This associated burden
amount is $266,640. We estimate the
total maximum annual burden for all
Part D plan sponsors resulting from this
proposed provision to be $319,960.
E. ICRs Regarding Elimination of
Medicare Part D Cost-Sharing for
Individuals Receiving Home and
Community-Based Services (§ 423.772
and § 423.782)
We proposed to amend § 423.772 and
§ 423.782 in accordance with section
3309 of the ACA. Specifically, the
proposed changes provide for a
definition of an individual receiving
home and community based services,
and for zero cost-sharing for Medicare
Part D prescriptions filled by full-benefit
dual eligible beneficiaries receiving
such services.
To carry out these provisions, we
would require State Medicaid Agencies
to submit data at least monthly
identifying these individuals. There is
an already established data exchange for
States to identify their dual eligible
individuals to CMS at least monthly. We
would leverage that data exchange by
adding a new value for the existing
institutional field, which also prompts
CMS to set a zero copayment liability
for full benefit dual eligible
beneficiaries. The estimated size of the
population to be reported as being full
benefit dual eligible and receiving home
and community-based services is
600,000.
The burden associated with the
requirement for States to provide CMS
with the specified information is
estimated to include a one-time
development cost as well as ongoing
annual costs. The startup development
effort is estimated at 20 hours per State,
or an additional 1,020 hours for all 51
State Medicaid Agencies (50 states and
the District of Columbia), in the fiscal
year prior to the effective date of this
provision. Assuming an hourly salary of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
$34.10 for computer programmers, this
results in a development cost of
$34,782. Once implemented, the
information collection burden is
estimated to be 1 hour each month, or
612 hours in each fiscal year for 51 State
Medicaid Agencies. Assuming an hourly
salary of $34.10 for computer
programmers, we estimate an ongoing
cost of $20,862 per fiscal year.
F. ICRs Regarding Appropriate
Dispensing of Prescription Drugs in
Long-term Care Facilities under PDPs
and MA–PD plans (§ 423.154) and
Dispensing Fees (§ 423.100)
Under § 423.154(a), we propose to
implement provisions of section 3310 of
the ACA, which require Part D sponsors
to use specific, uniform dispensing
techniques such as weekly, daily, or
automated dose dispensing when
dispensing covered Part D drugs to
enrollees who reside in long-term care
facilities in order to reduce waste
associated with 30-day fills. The
collection burden associated with this
proposed provision is the reporting
requirement and re-negotiation of
contracts.
We are proposing a new requirement
under § 423.154(a)(3) for Part D
sponsors to collect and report to CMS
the method of dispensing technique
used for each dispensing event
described under § 423.154(a). We
anticipate a billing standard that
incorporates the collection of this
information. While the requirements
under this proposed section are subject
to the PRA, should the rule be finalized,
the reporting requirement will be
proposed under currently approved
OCN 0938–0992.
The proposed requirements will
necessitate the renegotiation of contracts
between Part D sponsors and the
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities. We
anticipate dispensing fees will increase,
consistent with our proposed change in
the definition of dispensing fees
(§ 423.100), with the relative investment
in the dispensing technologies and
corresponding dispensing efficiencies
associated with the dispensing
technologies used in § 423.154.
We estimate that the total annual
hourly burden for negotiating a contract
between the Part D sponsors and entity
contracting with the pharmacies
servicing long-term care facilities (for
example, PBM) to be equal to the
number of Part D sponsors (731)
multiplied by the average estimated
hours per sponsor (10), equaling 7,310
hours. We estimate the number of
entities contracting with pharmacies
servicing long-term care facilities to be
40 (28 processors and 12 other entities).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We estimate the total annual hourly
burden for negotiating a contract
between the entity described above and
the pharmacies servicing long-term care
facilities to be the number of entities
(40) multiplied by the average estimated
hours per entity (80), which is 3,200
hours. The total number of hours for
contract renegotiation is estimated to be
10,510 hours (7,310 hours + 3,200
hours). The estimated hourly labor cost
for reporting is $150.20. The total
estimated cost associated with these
requirements is $1,578,602. This is a
one-time contract negotiation cost.
G. ICRs Regarding Complaint System for
Medicare Advantage Organizations and
PDPs (§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
Under proposed § 422.504(a) and
§ 423.505(b) we would require MA
organization and Part D sponsors to
address and resolve all complaints in
the CMS complaint tracking system and
to include a link to the electronic
complaint form at https://
www.medicare.gov on their main Web
page. This requirement would allow
thorough monitoring of complaints
through the tracking system by
identifying how plan sponsors resolve
and close complaints and allow
members to access complaint forms
electronically on https://
www.medicare.gov.
The burden associated with this
proposed provision is the time and
effort of the MA organizations and Part
D sponsors in recording complaint
closure documentation in the CTM and
training staff, as well as posting and
maintaining a link from their Web site
to the electronic complaint form at the
Medicare.gov Internet Web site. While
this requirement is subject to the PRA,
we believe this burden is exempt as
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). That is,
the time, effort, and financial resources
necessary to comply with the
requirement would be incurred by the
Part D sponsors in the normal course of
their business activities.
H. ICRs Regarding Uniform Exceptions
and Appeals Process for Prescription
Drug Plans and MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128
and § 423.562)
In accordance with the new section
1860D–4(b)(3)(H) of the Act, we propose
to revise § 423.128 at paragraphs (b)(7)
and (d) to specifically provide three
mechanisms that plan sponsors must
have in place in order to meet the
uniform appeals requirements of
1860D–4(b)(3)(H) of the Act.
At § 423.128(b)(7), we proposed
adding paragraph (i) to require that plan
sponsors make available standard forms
to request coverage determinations and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
redeterminations (should this be
determined feasible and to the extent
that standard request forms have been
approved for use by CMS).
We also propose to add paragraph (ii)
to § 423.128(b)(7), which would require
sponsors to develop a Web-based
electronic interface that allows an
enrollee (or an enrollee’s prescriber or
representative) to immediately request a
coverage determination or
redetermination via a plan’s secure Web
site. The interface would be the
‘‘electronic equivalent’’ of the paper
coverage determination and appeals
forms proposed at § 423.128(b)(7)(i).
Similarly, we propose to revise
§ 423.128(d) by requiring sponsors to
provide a toll-free telephone line for
requesting coverage determinations and
redeterminations. The burden
associated with these proposed
requirements involves collecting the
coverage determination request
information submitted through the
various proposed processes.
We estimate that all 731 plan
sponsors will receive a total of 484,468
coverage determination requests
submitted by mail, with some using the
standardized coverage determination
request form if available, and that it will
take 10 minutes to enter the information
submitted from each request into a
claims processing system, for a potential
total annual burden of 80,745 hours. We
also estimate that all plan sponsors will
receive a total of 52,086 coverage
determination requests submitted
through secure websites, but that this
process will not create an additional
burden for plan sponsors beyond that
required for requests submitted by mail
because enrollees will enter information
into a claims processing system
themselves. Finally, we estimate that all
plan sponsors will receive a total of
690,064 coverage determination
requests submitted by telephone, and it
will take 10 minutes to enter the
information submitted by phone into
the claims processing system, for a total
annual burden of 115,011 hours. The
burden associated with the
redetermination process is exempt
under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2) because a
redetermination is an administrative
action and information collected when
conducting an administrative action is
not subject to the PRA.
We also proposed to require Part D
sponsors to modify their electronic
transactions to pharmacies so that they
can transmit codes instructing
pharmacies to distribute notices at the
point-of-sale (POS). That is, pharmacies
and processors will be required to
program their systems to relay the
message at the pharmacy to distribute
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the appeal notice. In cases when a
prescription cannot be filled as written,
Part D sponsors are required under
§ 423.562(a)(3) to arrange with their
network pharmacies to distribute a
pharmacy notice advising the enrollee
of his or her right to contact the plan to
request a coverage determination. We
estimate that the burden on processors
will be the programming to send the
code or billing response to the
pharmacy, as well as revisions to the
contract requirement with the
pharmacy. We estimate that the number
of hours for each processor (28 PBMs
and 12 plan organizations) to perform
these tasks will be 40 hours per
processor, for a total one-time burden of
1,600 hours. The estimated one-time
cost associated with the processor tasks
is $64,000 (1600 hours × $40). Each
pharmacy will need to program to
receive the code and print the response.
Programming by the pharmacies (40
pharmacy software vendors) in order to
receive the code by each pharmacy will
be 10 hours, for a total of 400 hours. The
estimated one-time cost associated with
the processor tasks is $16,000 (400
hours × $40).
We estimated that the average time to
process a coverage determination is 10
minutes (0.167 hours) and that the
average number of coverage
determination requests received by mail
or secure Web site processed for each
respondent (n=731) was 734. Requiring
plan sponsors to process the
information submitted in standardized
coverage determination requests forms
(§ 423.128(b)(7)(i)) is, therefore,
estimated to result in an annual burden
of 89,605 hours (731 entities × 734
contracts per entity × .167 hours per
contract to process). At an estimated
cost of $40.00 per hour, the estimated
total annual cost of this change is $3.2
million. We estimated that processing
coverage determination requests that are
received by telephone (§ 423.128(d))
will take an average of 10 minutes
(0.167 hours) per request and that
entities (n = 731) would process on
average 944 coverage determination
requests. This is estimated to result in
an annual burden of 115,240 hours (731
entities × 944 determination requests
per entity × 0.167 hours per
determination request). At an estimated
cost of $40.00 per hour, the estimated
total annual cost of this change is $4.6
million (115,240 hours × $40.00 per
hour). We estimated that contacting
entities (n = 731) would distribute an
average of 2,200 pharmacy notices.
Therefore, requiring plan sponsors to
arrange with their network pharmacies
to distribute pharmacy notices at the
point-of-sale when prescriptions cannot
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71247
be filled as written (§ 423.562(a)(3)) is
estimated to result in an annual burden
of 53,071 hours (2 minutes or 0.033
hours at point-of-sale × 731 contracts ×
2200 pharmacy notices per contract). At
an estimated cost of $40.00 per hour, the
estimated total annual cost of this
change is $2.1228 million.
I. ICRs Regarding Including Costs
Incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance
Programs and the Indian Health Service
Toward the Annual Part D Out-ofPocket Threshold (§ 423.100 and
§ 423.464)
Our revised definition of ‘‘incurred
cost’’ at § 423.100 to include the costs
associated with IHS/ADAPs as a cost
that counts towards TrOOP does not
impose new information collection for
CMS’ COB contractor or ADAPs. The
COB contractor currently collects datasharing agreements from ADAPs under
the MSP information collection process.
The burden associated with this
collection is accounted for under OMB
0938–0214.
J. ICRs Regarding Improvements to
Medication Therapy Management
Programs (§ 423.153)
We propose to amend § 423.153(vii) to
require the Part D sponsor use a
standardized format for the action plan
and summary resulting from the annual
comprehensive medication review,
permit the use of telehealth technology
in the conduct of the CMR, and require
sponsors to contract with LTC facilities
to utilize independent consultant
pharmacists to perform the targeted
medication reviews that are required at
least quarterly.
The burden associated with a number
of the new MTM program requirements
in the ACA, including the requirement
for a written summary of the CMR, was
summarized in our April 2010 final rule
(75 FR 19678 through 19826) and
approved under OCN 0938–0964 with
an expiration date of September 30,
2012). We believe the burden associated
with requirement in
§ 423.153(d)(1)(vii)(D) to provide an
action plan and summary in a
standardized format is generally part of
that burden; therefore, no additional
burden is estimated. Further, since the
use of telehealth technology to conduct
the CMR is permitted but not required,
there is no burden associated with this
change.
The proposed rule also requires Part
D sponsors to coordinate MTM program
quarterly medication reviews with LTC
consultant pharmacist monitoring for
Part D enrollees in LTC facilities. The
ICR burden associated with this
requirement is related to developing and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
executing contracts with all the LTC
facilities in which Part D enrollees
reside to provide appropriate MTM
services in coordination with LTC
consultant pharmacist evaluation and
monitoring. Although all Part D plan
sponsors would need to contract with
all the LTC facilities in which their
enrollees reside, for purposes of
determining the ICR burden, we assume
that the contracts would be negotiated,
drafted and executed by the sponsors’
parent organization on behalf of all the
parent’s Part D contracts. In the absence
of a parent organization, the sponsor
would undertake the contracting
activity directly. We expect a total of
240 parent organizations and sponsors
would have a contract with an average
of 802 LTC facilities.
We expect that complying with this
requirement would primarily require
the involvement of the parent
organization’s or the sponsor’s general
counsel to negotiate, draft and execute
the contract. We estimate that
complying with this requirement would
require 4,812 burden hours (6 burden
hours × 802 LTC facilities) for each
parent organization or sponsor to
execute a contract with a average of 802
LTC facilities at an estimated cost of
$402,957 (4,812 burden hours × $83.74
estimated hourly cost). Thus, it would
require 1,154,880 hours (4,812 burden
hours per parent organization or
sponsor × 240 parent organizations or
sponsors with Part D LTC residents) for
all Part D sponsors to comply with this
requirement at an estimated cost of
$96,709,680 ($402,957 estimated cost
per parent organization or sponsor × 240
parent organizations or sponsors with
Part D LTC residents).
After the first fiscal year, we estimate
that continued compliance with this
requirement would require 1,604
burden hours in each fiscal year (2
hours × 802 LTC facilities) per parent
organization or sponsor general counsel
to review the contract and, if necessary,
execute updated contracts with the LTC
facilities at an estimated cost of
$134,319 per parent organization or
sponsor. Thus, it would require 384,960
burden hours per fiscal year (1,604
annual burden hours per parent
organization or sponsor × 240 parent
organizations or sponsors with Part D
LTC residents) for all Part D sponsors
with Part D LTC residents to comply
with this requirement at an estimated
cost of $32,236,560 ($134,319 estimated
cost per parent organization or sponsor
× 240 parent organizations or sponsors
with Part D LTC residents).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
K. ICRs Regarding Changes To Close the
Part D Coverage Gap (§ 423.104 and
§ 423.884)
M. ICRs Regarding Quality Bonus
Appeals § 422.260
We propose to add a new § 422.260 to
state that each MA organization is
afforded the right to request an
administrative review of CMS’
determination concerning the
organization’s qualification for a quality
bonus payment. The burden associated
with this proposed provision is the time
and effort of the MA organizations in
developing and presenting their case to
a CMS official and, ultimately, the CMS
Administrator, to demonstrate that they
in fact should qualify for the quality
bonus payment. Eligibility for quality
bonus payments will be based largely on
CMS’ application of a publicized
methodology for assigning star ratings to
MA organizations. These star ratings
will be calculated using a combination
of the MA organization’s performance
scores across a variety of quality
assessment measures. MA organizations
will have the opportunity to challenge
CMS’ application of the methodology to
their performance.
We estimate that the total hourly
burden in a fiscal year for developing
and presenting a case to us for review
is equal to the number of organizations
likely to request an appeal multiplied by
the number of hours for the attorneys of
L. ICRs Regarding Medicare Advantage
each appealing MA organization to
Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments,
research, draft, and submit their
and Rebate (§ 422.252, § 422.258 and
arguments to CMS. Based on the star
§ 422.266)
rating distributions of previous contract
years, out of the approximately 350 MA
Under § 422.258(d)(6) we propose to
contracts that are subject to star rating
base the 5-star rating system for quality
analysis (that is, those not excluded
bonus payments on a modified version
from analysis because of low
of the plan ratings published each fall
enrollment, contract type not required
on https://www.medicare.gov. The 5 star
to report data, or new contract with no
rating system for quality bonus payment performance history), approximately
will require no additional burden. The
250 may receive less than a four-star
data collection for the 5 star rating is
rating. We estimate that 10 percent of
currently approved under the following those contracts (25) will request an
OCNs.
appeal of their rating under the
proposed rule. We further estimate that
OCNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 5-STAR one attorney working for 8 hours could
RATING SYSTEM FOR QUALITY complete the documentation to be
BONUS PAYMENTS
submitted to CMS for each contract,
resulting in a total burden estimate of
OCN
Expiration date
200 hours (8 hours × 25 contracts = 200
hours). The estimated fiscal year cost to
0938–1028 ................ November 30, 2011.
MA organizations associated with this
0938–0732 ................ November 30, 2010.
provision (assuming an attorney billing
0938–0701 ................ August 31, 2010.
rate of $250 per hour) is $50,000 (200
hours × $250).
We have also proposed new calculations
N. ICRs Regarding Timely Transfer of
for the benchmarks and rebates in
§ 422.252, § 422.258, and § 422.266. The Data and Files When CMS Terminates a
Contract With a Part D Sponsor
burden associated with the bid data
used in these calculations is included in (§ 423.509)
the burden estimate associated with the
We propose to amend § 423.509 to
Bid Pricing Tool which is currently
state when CMS terminates a contract
approved under OCN 0938–0944 with a with a Part D plan sponsor, the Part D
May 31, 2011, expiration date.
plan sponsor must ensure the timely
Proposed § 423.104(d)(4) would
require the approximately 40 pharmacy
claims processors currently responsible
for adjudication of pharmacy benefits to
identify the applicable Part D covered
drugs in their systems and apply a
different cost-sharing percentage when
processed in the coverage gap than the
percentage applied to non-applicable
drugs. We estimate a one-time burden to
be 12,000 hours per processor to make
the initial coding changes necessary to
implement this requirement and an
annual burden of 250 hours per
processor to perform periodic updates of
the applicable drugs in their systems.
There are an estimated 40 processors. At
an average labor cost of $105 per hour
for a senior computer programmer, we
estimate the first fiscal year annual
burden associated with this requirement
to be 480,000 hours (12,000 hours × 40
processors) at an estimated total cost of
$50.4 million. After the first fiscal year,
the estimated burden associated with
this requirement would be 10,000 hours
(250 hours × 40 processors) at an
estimated total annual cost of
$1,050,000.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
transfer of any data or files. Our intent
is to ensure that terminated Part D plan
sponsors transfer to CMS the necessary
data to provide a smooth transition for
beneficiaries into a new Part D plan
similar to when the Part D sponsor
terminates the contract or CMS and the
Part D plan sponsor mutually terminate
the contract. The burden associated
with this proposed provision is the time
and effort that Part D plan sponsors
must undertake to transfer the requisite
data and files to CMS. We have not
developed a burden estimate for this
requirement because we do not believe
that we will exceed the PRA threshold
of 9 organizations per any 12-month
period.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
O. ICRs Regarding Compliance Officer
Training (§ 422.503 and § 423.504)
The proposed
§ 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(b) and
§ 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(b) regarding
compliance officer training will clarify
existing requirements by providing
additional guidance with respect to the
particular training requirements. The
burden associated with this requirement
is the time and effort put forth by the
plan sponsor to train a compliance
officer to meet the existing training
requirements of this section. The
proposed clarification is related only to
the content and timing of the existing
training requirement. While these
requirements are subject to the PRA, the
burden associated with them is
currently approved under OCN 0938–
1000 with an expiration date of
February 28, 2010.
P. ICRs Regarding Agent and Broker
Training Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
Proposed § 422.2274(b) and (c) and
§ 423.2274(b) and (c) would require MA
organizations’ and Part D sponsors’
agents and brokers to receive training
and testing via a CMS endorsed or
approved training program. We are
considering implementing this
requirement through a Request for
Proposal (RFP) competitive process. The
burden associated with this requirement
is the time and effort put forth by plan
sponsors and/or third party vendors to
submit their proposals for CMS review.
We estimate that about 12 entities (plan
sponsors and/or third party vendors)
will submit a proposal and the average
estimated hours per entity to complete
the proposal is 100 hours. The total
estimated hourly burden associated
with this requirement is equal to the
estimated number of entities (12)
multiplied by the estimated hours per
entity (100) resulting in a total of 1200
hours. We estimate the hourly labor cost
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
for the preparer of the proposal will be
$59.20 (based on hourly wages for
management analysts reported by the
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of
Labor Statistics). The total annual labor
cost of this proposal preparation is
estimated to be $71,040 ($59.20 × 1200
hours) per fiscal year.
Also at § 422.2274 and § 423.2274, we
propose to clarify that the annual agent
and broker training requirements apply
to all agents and brokers selling
Medicare products and not just
independent agents and brokers. The
burden associated with this requirement
is the time and effort put forth by the
MA organization or Part D sponsor to
ensure all agents and brokers selling
Medicare products are trained and
tested training annually. While this
requirement is subject to the PRA, we
burden is exempt as defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2). The time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply
with the requirement would be incurred
by persons in the normal course of their
business activities.
Q. ICRs Regarding Call Center and
Internet Web Site Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
We propose in § 422.111(g)(1)(2)(3) to
require MA organizations to operate a
toll-free customer call center that is
open during usual business hours and
provides customer telephone service in
accordance with standard business
practices, as well as to provide current
and prospective enrollees with
information via an Internet Web site and
in writing (upon request). We propose
in § 422.111(g)(1)(iii) and
§ 423.128(d)(1)(iii) to codify provisions
from the Medicare Marketing Guidelines
(August 15, 2005 version and all
subsequent versions) that require plan
sponsors to provide call center
interpreters for non-English and limited
English proficient (LEP) beneficiaries.
The burden associated with this
proposed requirement is the time and
effort necessary to maintain a customer
call center and Internet Web site, to
provide information to beneficiaries in
writing upon request, and to provide
call center interpreters. While this
requirement is subject to the PRA, we
believe this burden is exempt as defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). The time, effort,
and financial resources necessary to
comply with the requirement would be
incurred by persons in the normal
course of their business activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71249
R. ICRs Regarding Requiring Plan
Sponsors To Contact Beneficiaries To
Explain Enrollment by an Unqualified
Agent/Broker (§ 422.2272 and
§ 423.2272)
Proposed § 422.2272(e) and
§ 423.2272(e) would require MA
organizations and Part D sponsors,
respectively, to notify Medicare
beneficiaries upon discovery that they
were enrolled in a plan by an
unqualified agent. While this
requirement is subject to the PRA, we
burden is exempt as defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2). The time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply
with the requirement would be incurred
by persons in the normal course of their
business activities.
S. ICRs Regarding Customized Enrollee
Data (§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
Proposed § 422.111(b)(11) and
§ 423.128(b)(12) would require MA
organizations and PDP sponsors to
periodically provide each enrollee with
enrollee specific data to use to compare
utilization and out-of-pocket costs in the
current plan year to projected utilization
and out-of-pocket costs for the following
plan year. Plans would disclose this
information to plan enrollees in each
year in which a minimum enrollment
period has been met, in conjunction
with the annual renewal materials
(currently the ANOC and EOC).
Plan sponsors already collect enrollee
utilization and cost-sharing information
as part of their claims processing
operations. Therefore, the burden
associated with this proposed
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a plan sponsor to complete
program development and testing, and
to disclose (print and mail) this
information to each beneficiary. We
anticipate that it would take 30 hours
per MA organization and 20 hours per
Part D sponsor to develop and submit
the required information. This includes
2 hours for reading CMS’ published
instructions, 20 hours per MA
organization and 10 hours per Part D
sponsor generating the document or
documents, and 8 hours printing and
disclosing to beneficiary. We developed
this burden estimate using our burden
estimates for the ANOC/EOC documents
under OCN 0928–1051 as a baseline,
then expanding on that baseline, and
factoring in expected programming and
development costs to provide
beneficiary specific information. We
estimate 564 MA organizations and 85
Part D sponsors would be affected
annually by this requirement. The total
annual burden associated with this
requirement is 18,620 hours in a fiscal
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71250
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
year. In subsequent years, the burden
associated with this proposed
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a plan sponsor to disclose
(print and mail) this information to each
beneficiary. We anticipate that it would
take 20 hours per MA organization and
15 hours per Part D sponsor to develop
and submit the required information.
This includes 1 hour for reading CMS’
published instructions, 10 hours per
MA organization and 5 hours per Part D
sponsor generating the document or
documents, and 6 hours printing and
disclosing to beneficiary. We estimate
564 MA organizations and 85 Part D
sponsors would be affected annually by
this requirement. The total annual
burden associated with this requirement
is 12,555 hours in a fiscal year (20 hours
for each of the 564 MA organizations +
15 hours for each of the 85 Part D
sponsors).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
T. ICRs Regarding Extending the
Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket
(MOOP) Amount Requirements to
Regional PPOs (§ 422.100(f) and
§ 422.101(d))
We propose at § 422.100(f) and
§ 422.101(d) to extend the mandatory
MOOP and catastrophic limit
requirements to RPPO plans. Each RPPO
plan would establish an annual MOOP
limit on total enrollee cost sharing
liability for Parts A and B services, the
dollar amount of which would be set
annually by CMS. All cost sharing (that
is, deductibles, coinsurance, and
copayments) for Parts A and B services
would be included in RPPO plans’
MOOPs. Our proposal would not result
in an additional data collection burden
for RPPOs since they already collect this
data to establish their own in-network
MOOP and catastrophic limits under
§ 422.101(d)(4). While this requirement
is subject to the PRA, the burden is
exempt as defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2). The time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply
with the requirement would be incurred
by persons in the normal course of their
business activities.
U. ICRs Regarding Prohibition on Use of
Tiered Cost Sharing by MA
Organizations (§ 422.100 and § 422.262)
Under our proposed revision to
§ 422.262, we would clarify that MA
organizations may not impose cost
sharing that varies across enrollees for
any reason, including provider group,
hospital network or enrollees’
utilization of services. The burden
associated with this proposed revision
is the time and effort necessary for MA
organizations and section 1876 cost
contracts to submit their benefit designs,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
including cost-sharing amounts, via the
Plan Benefit Package (PBP) software.
While this proposed requirement is
subject to the PRA, the burden
associated with it is currently approved
under OCN 0938–0763 with a May 31,
2011 expiration date.
V. ICRs Regarding Translated Marketing
Materials (§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
This proposed clarification at
§ 422.2264(e) and § 423.2264(e) does not
impose any additional burden upon MA
organizations because they have been
required to provide translated marketing
materials pursuant to § 422.2264(e) and
§ 423.2264(e) (previously numbered
§ 422.80(c)(5) and § 423.50(d)(5)). We
believe the burden associated with these
proposed requirements is exempt from
the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) as defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) because the time,
effort, and financial resources necessary
to comply with the requirement would
be incurred by persons in the normal
course of their activities.
W. ICRs Regarding Expanding Network
Adequacy Requirements to Additional
MA Plan Types (§ 422.112)
Our proposed amendment to
§ 422.112(a)(10) would ensure that any
MA plan that meets Medicare access
and availability requirements through
direct contracting network providers
does so consistent with the
requirements at § 422.112(a)(10). We did
not include MA MSAs in
§ 422.112(a)(10) because MSA plans
historically have not had networks and
enrollees in MSA plans may see any
provider. However, MSA plans are not
prohibited from having networks as long
as enrollee access is not restricted to
network providers. While there are
currently no MA MSA network plans,
we are aware of possible interest in
offering such plans.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
required by MA organizations to submit
network adequacy data to CMS for
review and approval as part of the
application process. This burden is
already accounted for under OCN
0938–0935. However, since this
proposal would extend the current
network adequacy requirements only to
Medicare MSA plans and there is
currently only one Medicare MSA
contract (which does not use a network
of providers), we believe that fewer than
10 applications would be subject to this
proposed requirement in each fiscal
year.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
X. ICRs Regarding Maintaining a
Fiscally Sound Operation (§ 422.2,
§ 422.504, § 423.4, and § 423.505)
Proposed § 422.504(a) and
§ 423.505(b) would add a contract term
under which an MA organization or
PDP sponsor agrees to maintain a
fiscally sound operation by at least
maintaining a positive net worth. A
determination of whether there is a
positive net worth will be made from
the financial reports submitted under
the current financial reporting
requirements. The burden associated
with this proposed requirement is the
time and effort necessary to submit
these financial reports. While this
proposed requirement is subject to the
PRA, the associated burden is currently
approved under OCN 0938–0469 with
an expiration date of April 30, 2013.
Y. ICRs Regarding Release of Part C and
Part D Payment Data (Parts 422 and
423, Subpart K)
This proposed rule would allow the
Secretary to release Part C and D
summary payment data for research,
analysis, and public information
functions. The Secretary believes these
data should be made available because
other publicly available data are not, in
and of themselves, sufficient for the
studies and operations that researchers
want to undertake to analyze the
Medicare program and Federal
expenditures, and to inform the public
on how their tax dollars are spent.
These data would be routinely
released on an annual basis in the year
after the year for which payments were
made. The data release would occur
after final risk adjustment reconciliation
has been completed for the payment
year in question and, for Part D, after
final payment reconciliation of the
various subsidies. Thus, we would
release data for payment year 2010 in
the fall of 2011. This timeframe would
not apply to the release of RDS data,
since we do not reconcile RDS payment
amounts until 15 months following the
end of the plan year. The majority of our
sponsors provide retiree drug coverage
on a yearly basis. If an application plan
year ended December 31, 2010, the
payment reconciliation is not due until
March 31, 2012, which would be after
the fall 2011 target for other Part C and
D payment data. We proposed to release
the most current RDS payment data
available at the time Part C and D
payment reconciliation has been
completed and those data are compiled
and released.
Since we are not seeking additional
information from MA organizations or
from Part D sponsors, there are no PRA
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
implications. Payment data are quite
different than the bid data plans submit
and for which we have existing OMB
authority for collection (OCN
0938–0944). The gross payment data we
are proposing to disclose are not derived
from information plans submitted to us,
but rather are compiled and derived
solely from CMS internal payment files.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Z. ICRs Regarding Revision to Limitation
on Charges to Enrollees for Emergency
Department Services (§ 422.113)
We are proposing at § 422.113(b)(2)(v)
to eliminate the current $50 cost-sharing
limit on emergency department services
and, instead, to require CMS to evaluate
and determine the appropriate enrollee
cost sharing limit for emergency
department services on an annual basis.
The burden associated with this
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71251
proposed requirement is the time and
effort necessary to for MA organizations
to submit their benefit designs,
including cost-sharing amounts, via the
Plan Benefit Package (PBP) software.
While this proposed requirement is
subject to the PRA, the associated
burden is currently approved under
OCN 0938–0763 with an expiration date
of May 31, 2011.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.012
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71252
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71253
EP22NO10.013
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
71254
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
V. 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).
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
entities, if a rule has a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, small
entities include 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
organizations or by meeting the SBA
definition of a small business (having
revenues of less than $7.0 million to
$34.5 million in any 1 year). Individuals
and States are not included in the
definition of a small entity.
MA organizations and Part D
sponsors, the entities that will largely be
affected by the provisions of this rule,
are not generally considered small
business entities. They must follow
minimum enrollment requirements
(5,000 in urban areas and 1,500 in
nonurban areas) and because of the
revenue from such enrollments, these
entities are generally above the revenue
threshold required for analysis under
the RFA. While a very small rural plan
could fall below the threshold, we do
not believe that there are more than a
handful of such plans. A fraction of MA
organizations and sponsors are
considered small businesses because of
their non-profit status. HHS uses as its
measure of significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, a change in revenue of more
than 3 to 5 percent. We do not believe
that this threshold would be reached by
the proposed requirements in this
proposed rule because this proposed
rule will have minimal impact on small
entities. Therefore, an analysis for the
RFA will not be prepared because the
Secretary has determined that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires us to prepare an analysis if a
rule may have a significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number
of small rural hospitals. This analysis
must conform to the provisions of
section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of
section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a
small rural hospital as a hospital that is
located outside of a metropolitan
statistical area and has fewer than 100
beds. We are not preparing an analysis
for section 1102(b) of the Act because
the Secretary has determined that this
rule will not have a 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 by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. In 2010, that
threshold is approximately $135
million. This proposed rule is expected
to reach this spending threshold.
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.
Based on CMS Office of the Actuary
estimates, we do not believe that this
proposed rule imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
We note that we have estimated that our
proposal to eliminate, pursuant to
section 3309 of the ACA, Medicare Part
D cost-sharing for full-benefit dual
eligible individuals receiving home and
community based services at § 423.772
and § 423.782 will have a very small
cost impact on States resulting from the
need to identify eligible individuals and
provide data to CMS. As discussed
elsewhere in this RIA, we estimate the
annual cost associated with the
requirement for States to provide CMS
with this data to be $34,782 in the first
year and $20,869 for subsequent years.
The CMS Office of the Actuary has
estimated savings and costs to the
Federal government as a result of
various provisions of this proposed rule.
As detailed in Table 17, we expect
savings to the Federal government of
approximately $83.75 billion for fiscal
years (FYs) 2011 through 2016 as a
result of the implementation of the
following provisions:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Payment Changes Related to MA benchmarks, Quality Bonus Payments, Rebates, and Application of Coding Adjustment.
Increase in Part D premiums Due to Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (D—IRMAA) .................................
Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription Drugs in Long-term Care Facilities under PDPs and MA–PD plans and Dispensing Fees.
Elimination of the Stabilization Fund ..................................................................................................................................
In Table 16, we present Federal
transfers, as well as total costs to the
States, Part D sponsors, MA
organizations, and other private sector
entities, in the aggregate, as a result of
various provisions of this proposed rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
As detailed in Table 16, we expect costs
of approximately $5.57 billion for FYs
2011 through 2016 as a result of the
implementation of various additional
provisions of this proposed rule.
Following are the provisions with the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$76.47 billion.
$4.77 billion.
$2.33 billion.
$181 million.
most significant costs (that is, costs
greater than $100 million between FY
2011 and FY 2016) in this proposed
rule:
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Changes to Close the Part D Coverage Gap ...........................................................................................................................
Determination of Part D Low-Income Benchmark Premium ...............................................................................................
Including Costs Incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) Toward
the Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket Threshold.
Voluntary De Minimis Policy for Subsidy Eligible Individuals ..........................................................................................
Cost-Sharing for Medicare Covered Preventive Services .....................................................................................................
Tables 17, 18, and 19 detail the
breakdown of costs by cost-bearing
entity. Specifically, Table 17 describes
costs and savings to the Federal
government, Table 18 describes
estimated administrative costs to MA
organizations and/or PDP sponsors and
third party entities, and Table 19
describes costs to States.
Taking into account both costs and
savings estimated in this RIA, we
estimate a net savings of $78.18 billion
as a result of the provisions in this
proposed rule over FYs 2011 to 2016.
Therefore, this proposed rule is
’’economically significant’’ as measured
by the $100 million threshold, and is a
major rule under the Congressional
Review Act. Accordingly, we have
prepared an RIA that details anticipated
effects (costs, savings, and expected
benefits), and alternatives considered by
proposed requirement. For collection of
information burden associated with our
proposed requirements and the bases for
our estimates, refer to of the collection
of information section of this proposed
rule.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Anticipated Effects Associated With
This Proposed Rule
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
We estimate that our proposed
implementation of section 3202 of the
ACA will result in minimal additional
program costs. In addition to our
proposal to implement the ACArequired limits on cost sharing in MA
plans for chemotherapy services, renal
dialysis services, and skilled nursing
facility care, we also are proposing to
require the same cost sharing limits for
in-network home health services
provided under MA plans. We estimate
that the Federal fiscal year 2012 (FY
2012) costs to Medicare of limiting cost
sharing in MA plans for the three
service categories specified in the ACA
(that is, chemotherapy services, renal
dialysis, and skilled nursing facility
care) will be zero because we already
require plans to charge in-network cost
sharing for these three service categories
that reflects, or is equivalent to, cost
sharing under Original Medicare. In
fact, we believe that Congressional
intent was to require that CMS maintain
the limits on in-network cost sharing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
that we had already implemented for
SNF care, renal dialysis services, and
Part B chemotherapy services. Thus, we
expect that there will be no effect on
plans or beneficiaries as a result of our
proposed implementation of the cost
sharing limits specified in section 3202
of the ACA.
We estimate that the cost of our
proposal to also limit MA plan cost
sharing for in-network home health
services so that it does not exceed that
required under Original Medicare will
not be significant. Cost sharing for home
health services under Original Medicare
is zero. In previous years, we have
allowed increased flexibility in benefit
package design for MA plans that
establish a maximum out-of-pocket limit
on beneficiary cost sharing for Parts A
and B services (for example, $3,400 or
less for contract year 2010). As a result,
in contract year 2010, of the 2535 MA
plans, 167 charged some beneficiary
cost sharing (usually $15) for home
health services. Those plans enrolled
less than 4 percent of all MA enrollees.
Given that, on average, home health
visits account for less than 5 percent of
total MA expenditures, only a small
share (about 0.2 percent) of MA
expenditures will be subject to the home
health cost sharing prohibition.
For two reasons, we believe that the
proposed home health policy will have
a negligible impact on MA plans. First,
as mentioned above, only a small share
of expenditures will be subject to the
cost sharing prohibition so that any
increase in plan costs related to this
provision can be absorbed through
modest increases in cost sharing for
other services, administrative
efficiencies, and/or small increases in
the plan premium. Also, as evidenced
by the large proportion of plan enrollees
not subject to home health cost sharing
in contract year 2010, MA organizations
should be able to adequately manage the
use of home health services absent
enrollee cost sharing.
To estimate the cost to the MA
program for the loss of beneficiary cost
sharing for home health services, we
assumed that the enrolled beneficiaries’
utilization of home health services is
lower than that of the Medicare
population in general due to the
required copayment, and used $15 as
the estimated copayment amount.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71255
$3.67 billion.
$770 million.
$460 million.
$170 million.
$148 million.
Approximately 9 percent of Original
Medicare beneficiaries use home health
services, and the average number of
visits per user is 37, resulting in 3.3
visits per beneficiary per year. We
assume that utilization of home health
services by enrollees in the MA plans
that charge cost sharing is one-third of
that for beneficiaries under Original
Medicare, or 1.1 visits per MA enrollee.
The resulting FY 2012 estimated cost to
the MA program is $6.8 million, which
is derived using the assumptions of $15
copayment for the 1.1 visits per
beneficiary for the 414,000 MA
enrollees subject to in-network home
health cost sharing in contract year
2010. However, we estimate that the
impact of having to provide home
health services without cost sharing
would be minimal because we expect
that the costs would be reallocated
across other plan benefits. We believe
that the affected plans would
accomplish that reallocation without
affecting their actuarial equivalence
relative to Original Medicare and that
there would be no impact on these MA
plans for FY 2012. Consequently,
because we estimate that there would be
only minor reallocation of the costs and
zero impact on MA plans for FY 2012,
we estimate zero impact for MA plans
in all subsequent years.
2. Approval of SNPs by NCQA (§ 422.4,
§ 422.101, and § 422.152)
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort put
forth by MA organizations offering SNPs
to submit their overall quality
improvement (QI) program and the
model of care (MOC) to CMS for NCQA
evaluation and approval as per CMS
guidance. Although the submission of
the MOC and the QI program documents
is already part of the application
process, scrutiny of these documents by
NCQA for approval is a new
requirement. This requirement is for all
SNPs, new and existing. We estimate
that it will take each SNP plan 40 hours
to complete the annual application.
Within, those 40 hours, we estimate the
SNP portion of the burden is 6 hours.
Currently, there are 544 existing SNP
plans. For the existing plans to complete
the SNP sections only, the burden
associated with this new requirement is
3,264 hours.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71256
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The estimated costs associated with
the burden hours are summarized in
Tables 16 through 18. The costs in Table
17 reflect the contract award to NCQA
for $1 million and a contract award at
the level of $500,000 for years 2012 to
2016. The additional costs incurred in
this table are for the Federal salaries for
two GS–13 step 10 analysts and a
GS–15 manager. Table 18 contains the
projected administrative costs to the
SNPs for preparing the SNP sections of
the application. These costs are
primarily labor costs for staff employed
by the plans to complete the required
materials. The salaries are proposed
equivalent to that of one GS–13 step-10
analyst at a salary of $55.46 an hour.
some organizations will be induced to
bid even lower, while other
organizations will give up on this
population and bid higher.
We expect this rule will reduce the
administrative costs for plan sponsors
associated with the reassignment of LIS
beneficiaries. These costs include the
production of new member
informational materials by the new
plan, increased staffing of call centers to
field beneficiary questions, and costs
associated with implementing transition
benefits for new enrollees. The cost
estimate for the LIS benchmark
methodology change in Table 16 does
not include a projection for
administrative savings.
3. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
Beginning in 2011, section 1860D–
14(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act requires CMS
to calculate the LIS benchmarks using
basic Part D premiums before the
application of Part C rebates each year.
This proposed rule would update our
regulations at § 423.780(b)(2)(ii)(C) to
codify this provision. This provision
will decrease the number of
reassignments of low-income
beneficiaries from plans that are above
the low-income benchmark because it
will increase the benchmark, thereby
producing more zero-premium plans.
We believe this proposal will lead to
additional costs to the Federal
government of approximately $90
million for FY 2011. The estimated cost
to the Federal government between FY
2011 and FY 2016 is $770 million. The
year-by-year impacts in millions of
dollars are shown in Tables 16 through
18. Table 17 shows that the bulk of this
total cost is due to increased Federal
premium subsidy payments, which are
the result of generally increasing the
low-income benchmarks. The higher
benchmarks allow a greater number of
low-income beneficiaries to remain in
their current plan, rather than
reassigning them to a lower cost plan. In
each region, the low-income benchmark
essentially functions as a ceiling for the
Federal premium subsidy for lowincome beneficiaries. That is, the
Federal premium subsidy covers the full
cost of the plan’s basic Part D premium
for a full-subsidy beneficiary, up to the
low-income benchmark amount.
This approach maintains a strong
incentive to bid low to keep and
possibly add LIS beneficiaries. Absent
the provision, there may be a ‘‘winner
take all’’ outcome in certain regions with
one organization acquiring all of the LIS
beneficiaries in the region. It is difficult
to predict what will happen in the
absence of this provision, but we expect
4. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
The proposed new voluntary de
minimis provisions in § 423.34(d) and
§ 423.780(f) would permit Part D plans
to volunteer to waive a de minimis
amount of the Part D premium above the
LIS benchmark. We expect that the only
Part D plans that will volunteer to do so
would be those PDPs that would
otherwise lose LIS beneficiaries to
reassignment. We will establish a new
de minimis amount in August of each
year, and the de minimis amount may
vary by year. For purposes of
illustration, if the de minimis amount
were $1.00, we would estimate 800,000
LIS beneficiaries would have an average
of $0.50 per month waived by Part D
plans, resulting in a total annual cost to
all de minimis plans of $5 million per
year. Table 18 shows that this would
result in a total cost of $30 million to
PDPs during from FY 2011 to 2016. If
the de minimis amount were $2.00, we
would estimate that 1,200,000 LIS
beneficiaries would have an average of
$0.93 per month waived by Part D
plans, resulting in a total annual cost to
all de minimis plans of $10 million per
year.
Our proposed voluntary de minimis
provisions are estimated (based on the
assumption of a $1.00 de minimis
amount) to cost the Medicare Trust
Fund $140 million over the 6-year
period from FY 2011 to FY 2016. Tables
17 and 18 illustrate how these costs are
borne by the Federal government and
PDPs, respectively. PDPs that volunteer
to waive a de minimis amount will not
have their LIS beneficiaries reassigned
to a zero premium plan. The additional
costs are attributable to low-income
beneficiaries staying in higher cost
plans. The result of staying in higher
cost plans is that Medicare’s lowincome cost-sharing subsidy and
reinsurance payments will be greater
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
than would have been the case if CMS
reassigned these beneficiaries to lowercost plans.
5. Increase In Part D Premiums Due to
the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D—IRMAA)
(§ 423.44)
Proposed § 423.44(e)(3) would require
PDPs to provide Part D enrollees with a
notice of disenrollment in a form and
manner determined by CMS. PDPs will
provide disenrollment notices to
enrollees who were required to pay the
Part D—IRMAA because their modified
adjusted gross income exceeded the
income threshold amounts set forth in
20 CFR 418, but failed to pay it after a
grace period and appropriate notice has
been provided.
Consistent with data from individuals
paying the Part B IRMAA (1.8 million)
and enrolled in a Part D plan, we
estimate that approximately 1.05
million of the 29.2 million Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in the Part D
program will exceed the minimum
income threshold amount and will be
assessed an income related monthly
adjustment amount. Out of the 1.05
million affected beneficiaries, we
estimate that 0.22 million will drop the
Part D coverage in 2011. Under Part B,
approximately 122,000 (14.8 percent) of
the 1.8 million beneficiaries assessed an
IRMAA are billed directly. This
constitutes 5.17 percent of the Medicare
population. We estimate that
approximately 80,000 (7.6 percent) of
the 1.05 million beneficiaries enrolled
in Part D who must pay the Part D—
IRMAA will be directly billed for the
Part D—IRMAA either because they are
not receiving monthly benefit payments
from SSA, OPM, or the RRB, or the
monthly benefit payment is not
sufficient to have the Part D—IRMAA
withheld.
Of the 80,000 Part D enrollees who
will be directly billed for the Part D—
IRMAA, we cannot estimate how many
might accrue Part D—IRMAA arrearages
and be subsequently terminated.
However, in cases where the PDP is
required to send an enrollee a notice of
termination in accordance with
§ 423.44(e)(4), and all 80,000 Part D
enrollees that have a Part D—IRMAA
become delinquent, the burden
associated with this requirement would
be the time and effort it takes the PDP
to populate the notice. Termination
notices are generally automated;
therefore, we estimate 1 minute × 80,000
enrollees divided by 60 minutes. This
equates to an annual burden for PDP
sponsors of 1,333 hours at
approximately $40/hour (based on U.S.
Department of Labor statistics for hourly
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wages for administrative support). The
associated burden amount for this work
is $53,320. Additionally, Part D plan
sponsors would have to retain a copy of
the notice in the beneficiary’s records.
We estimate 5 minutes × 80,000
enrollees divided by 60 minutes. This
equates to 6,666 hours at approximately
$40/hour (based on U.S. Department of
Labor statistics for hourly wages for
administrative support). This associated
burden amount is $266,640. We
estimate the total maximum annual
burden for all Part D plan sponsors
resulting from this proposed provision
to be $319,960. Therefore, as shown in
Table 18, we estimate this proposed
provision to result in a maximum
burden cost, to PDP sponsors, in the
amount of $1.92 million for FYs 2011
through 2016. We believe this proposal
will lead to Federal government savings
of approximately $4.77 billion from FY
2011 through FY 2016 from increased
premium payments by Medicare
beneficiaries. We describe these savings
to the Federal government in Table 17.
Also, because the income thresholds do
not increase between 2011 and 2019, we
anticipate that more beneficiaries will
be affected by the IRMAA provision
over time and this, in turn, will produce
significant growth in the savings
associated with this program.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6. Elimination of Medicare Part D CostSharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
We propose amending § 423.772 and
§ 423.782 pursuant to section 3309 of
the ACA. Specifically, the proposed
changes provide for a definition of an
individual receiving home and
community based services, and for zero
cost-sharing for Medicare Part D
prescriptions filled by full-benefit dual
eligible beneficiaries receiving such
services. As illustrated in Table 18, this
provision will not increase
administrative costs for MA
organizations or PDP sponsors. The
affected beneficiaries already have LIS
as full duals and are, therefore, lowincome individuals. Their Part D
copayment level is likely to be low prior
to the elimination of copayments. The
elimination of copayments will allow
them additional disposable income for
other expenses. The reduction in the
copayments to zero will be fully offset
by increasing low income subsidy cost
sharing subsidy payments we make to
their Part D plans. We believe the
impact on the Federal government will
be minimal given that most of the
impacted individuals are already at a
low copayment level and the shift from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the low copayment level to zero
copayment is small.
This provision will impact States, as
they will have to identify eligible
individuals and provide data to CMS.
They will send the new data on an
existing monthly data exchange already
used to identify dual eligible
beneficiaries. We estimate the cost for
States to comply with this requirement
to include a one-time development cost
of $34,782 in FY 2011, and as well as
an ongoing annual cost of $20,869
starting in FY 2012.
7. Appropriate Dispensing of
Prescription Drugs in Long-Term Care
Facilities Under PDPs and MA–PD
Plans (§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
In our discussions with the industry,
we learned that 75 percent to 80 percent
of the cost related to drug waste arises
from 20 percent of the drugs. That 20
percent is made up of brand name
medications. In an effort to target the
drugs resulting in the most financial
waste and to lessen burden for facilities
transitioning from 30-day supplies to 7day supplies, we propose initially
limiting 7-day-or-less dispensing to
brand name drugs as defined in § 423.4.
Pharmacies servicing LTC facilities
may have the upfront costs associated
with software upgrades, packaging and
hardware changes, and ongoing costs of
transaction fees, and additional
deliveries. These costs are not reflected
in Table 16, and we are soliciting
comment on these costs. We expect
some of these expenses to be offset by
an increase in dispensing fees consistent
with § 423.100. In addition, a decrease
in volume of drugs dispensed may
result in lower revenues and rebates.
We learned from the industry that
many pharmacies already have 7-day-orless dispensing techniques in place for
their Part A population. Most
pharmacies not already using a 7-dayor-less dispensing technique will
generally be converting from their
existing 14- or 30-day dispensing
technique down to a 7-day-or-less
dispensing technique. Based on
discussions with the industry, we
expect most pharmacies to initially
convert from a 14- or 30-day punch card
system to a 7-day punch card system.
Our conversations with manufacturers
of the 30-day punch card systems have
indicated that there is minimal capital
investment conversion needed for the
transition from 30-day to 7-day
packaging. We expect only a small
number of pharmacies will convert to an
automated dose dispensing system in
the short-term. The industry tells us that
the major barrier to adopting is
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71257
automated dose dispensing technologies
cost approximately $100,000 to
$150,000 in capital acquisition costs per
machine.
Regardless of the dispensing
technique used, pharmacies will likely
have to change or update software.
There will be a cost associated with the
change in software and training of
pharmacy staff associated with the
change. We are soliciting comment on
these costs.
We expect some pharmacies to incur
a small additional expense related to the
number of deliveries required to service
a facility with a 7-day-or-less dispensing
technique. However, given the existing
widespread agreements between
pharmacies and skilled nursing facilities
to dispense in 7-day-or-less packages for
Part A residents and the pharmacy’s
responsibility to deliver at least 5 to 6
days a week to accommodate new
residents, emergency supplies and
changes in therapy, we expect only a
small number of pharmacies to be
adversely effected.
LTC facilities will need to
accommodate 7-day-or-less dispensing
techniques for their Part D population.
We anticipate LTC facilities will be
impacted by an increase in the number
of medication check-ins for those
facilities and pharmacies not already
using automated dispensing
technologies. Based on conversations
with the industry, we also anticipate
that the LTC facility staff will require
varying amounts of additional training.
Training time will vary based on the
extent to which the dispensing
technique changes to accommodate 7day-or-less dispensing.
The costs associated with this
proposed provision is the additional
costs of dispensing fees to account for
software upgrades, packaging and
hardware changes, transaction fees,
additional deliveries, and the time and
effort of Part D sponsors to re-contract
with entities (for example, pharmacy
benefit managers) which contract with
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities.
We anticipate that dispensing fees
will be developed to take into account
of the marginal costs associated with
additional dispensing events in a single
billing cycle for a single prescription
and consider costs undertaken to
acquire and maintain technology aimed
at reducing waste. Part D plans have the
flexibility to vary the actual dispensing
fees paid to pharmacies. We project
dispensing fees to pharmacies servicing
LTC facilities to be between 50 percent
and 100 percent higher for contract year
2012 than in previous contract years,
with increases in the lower end for the
large majority of the claims. For
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71258
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
example, we would expect dispensing
fees to be greater when a Part D drug is
dispensed using automated dose
dispensing technology as opposed to a
Part D drug dispensed via a 7-day blister
pack.
We estimate the total yearly burden
for negotiating a contract between the
Part D sponsor and the entity (for
example, PBM) contracting with the
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities to be
equal to the number of the Part D
sponsors (731) × the average estimated
hours per sponsor (10). This equals
7,310 hours. We estimate the number of
entities contracting the pharmacies
servicing LTC facilities to be 40 (28
processors and 12 sponsors). We
estimate the total yearly hourly burden
for negotiating a contract between the
entity described above and the
pharmacies servicing LTC facilities to be
the number of entities (40) × the average
estimated hours per entity (80). This is
3200 hours. The total number of hours
for contract negotiation is estimated to
be 10,510 hours. The estimated hourly
labor cost for reporting is $150.20. This
estimate is a compilation of the hourly
rate for a lawyer and support staff from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total
estimated cost associated with these
requirements is $1,578,602 ($150.20 ×
(3,200 + 7,310 hours) = $1,578,602) and
is described in Table 18. This is a onetime contract negotiation cost.
We anticipate that the initial upfront
costs to convert to a 7-day-or-less
dispensing technique will eventually be
more than offset by the savings to the
Federal government associated with
dispensing. Initial industry estimates
suggest that approximately 10 percent of
the total LTC drug costs could be
avoided through the adoption of 7-dayor-less dispensing methodologies. One
7-month analysis using data from 36
skilled nursing facilities suggested at
least a 17 percent to 25 percent savings
with 7-day dispensing and almost 26
percent savings associated with
automated dose dispensing when
compared to 30-day dispensing for Part
D drugs.4 Given that we are not aware
of additional studies to determine the
cost savings, we conservatively estimate
a 10 percent savings for overall costs,
and therefore estimate an overall
savings associated with this provision
(see Table 16 for estimates of the yearby-year savings). We solicit comments
on this estimate.
4 James W. Moncrief, Advanced Pharmacy, data
from a seven month study of 36 LTC facilities
presented at the NCPDP Dispensing Meeting.
Sheraton Hotel BWI, March 19, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
8. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504 and § 423.505)
The burden associated with this
proposed provision is the time and
effort of the MA organizations and Part
D sponsors in training staff and
recording complaint closure
documentation in the CTM, as well as
posting and maintenance of a link from
their Web site to the electronic
complaint form at https://
www.medicare.gov. We estimate that the
total annual hourly burden for training
staff and recording complaint closure in
the CTM is equal to the average
estimated hours per sponsor for
documentation for each complaint
closure (.25) × the average number of
complaints per sponsor (102) plus the
average estimated hours per sponsor for
training (8 hours), multiplied by the
average cost of a technical health care
worker ($15) × the number of Part C and
D contracts (757). We also estimate that
the total annual hourly burden for
posting and continued maintenance of a
link is 20 hours × the average cost of a
Web site developer ($34) × the number
of Part C and D contracts (757). We
estimate the annual burden associated
with all these changes equals 40,500
hours. The average cost per hour is
approximately $22.10. The estimated
annual cost associated with these
requirements is $895,160.
9. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans § 423.128 and § 423.562)
We expect that streamlining the
appeals and exceptions process will
allow beneficiaries to access appeals
more quickly and will ensure
beneficiaries have access to covered
medications in a timely manner MA
organizations and Part D sponsors will
be required to process coverage
determination requests submitted by
mail or via an internet Web site
(§ 423.128(b)(7)(i) and (ii)), which is
estimated to result in an annual burden
of 80,745 hours. At an estimated cost of
$40.00 per hour, the estimated total
annual cost of this requirement is $3.23
million. Also, processing coverage
determination requests that are received
by telephone (§ 423.128(d)) is estimated
to result in an annual burden of 115,010
hours. At an estimated cost of $40.00
per hour, the estimated total annual cost
of this requirement is $4.6 million.
In cases when a prescription cannot
be filled as written, Part D sponsors are
required under § 423.562(a)(3) to
arrange with their network pharmacies
to distribute a pharmacy notice advising
the enrollee of his or her right to contact
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the plan to request a coverage
determination. Under this proposal, Part
D sponsors would be required to modify
their electronic transactions to
pharmacies so that they can transmit
codes instructing pharmacies to
distribute notices at the point-of-sale
(POS). That is, pharmacies and PBMs
will be required to program their
systems to relay the message at the
pharmacy to distribute the appeal
notice.
We estimate the burden on plan
processors will be the programming to
send the code or billing response to the
pharmacy, as well as revising the terms
of their contracts with pharmacies. We
estimate that the number of hours for
each processor (28 PBMs and 12 plan
organizations) to perform these tasks
will be 40 hours per processor, for a
total one-time burden of 1600 hours.
The estimated one-time cost associated
with the processor tasks is $64,000
(1600 hours × $40). Each pharmacy will
need to program to receive the code and
print the response. Programming by the
pharmacies (40 pharmacy software
vendors) in order to receive the code by
each pharmacy will be 10 hours, for a
total of 400 hours. The estimated onetime cost associated with the processor
tasks is $16,000 (400 hours × $40).
We estimate that the 731 contracting
entities would distribute an average of
2,200 pharmacy notices. Therefore,
requiring plan sponsors to arrange with
their network pharmacies to distribute
pharmacy notices at the point-of-sale
when prescriptions cannot be filled as
written (§ 423.562(2)(3)) would result in
an annual burden of 53,071 hours (2
minutes or 0.033 hours at point-of-sale
× 731 contractors × 2,200 pharmacy
notices per contract). At an estimated
cost of $40.00 per hour, the estimated
total annual cost of this change would
be $2.14 million.
10. Including Costs Incurred by the
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP)
and the Indian Health Services (IHS)
Toward the Annual Part D Out-ofPocket Threshold (§ 423.100 and
§ 423.464)
This proposed requirement would
allow Part D sponsors to count ADAP
and IHS costs towards a beneficiary’s
TrOOP costs, allowing the beneficiary to
move through the coverage gap portion
of the benefit and into catastrophic
coverage phase. There is no burden on
IHS facilities since claims will be
identified as IHS provider claims by the
National Provider Identifier (NPI).
However, ADAPs will be requested to
submit information to CMS
Coordination of Benefits (COB)
contractor via a voluntary data sharing
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
agreement (VDSA), which will be sent
to the TrOOP facilitator to ensure proper
calculation of the TrOOP amounts.
Several ADAPs already participate in
the COB file exchange and have
submitted their VDSAs. The
approximate cost associated with this
submission is 30 minutes to complete
the VDSA per entity. We estimate a onetime annual cost of $1,000 (50 entities
(ADAPs that require VDSAs) × 5 hours
× $40.00/hour = $1,000.
The burden associated with this
proposed provision is not expected to
impact sponsor organization costs, with
the exception of up-front programming
costs, which we estimate will be 1 hour
per sponsor for an approximate cost of
$40 per sponsor. Including these costs
toward TrOOP impacts how fast a
beneficiary will reach the catastrophic
limit, which is largely funded by the
Federal government, with the exception
of relevant beneficiary copays. Sponsors
will not incur additional costs due to
this requirement. The Federal cost
impact is estimated at $460 million from
FY 2011 to FY 2016. The additional cost
to the Federal government (Medicare
program) is due to more individuals
reaching the catastrophic coverage
phase under the Part D benefit.
11. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
We estimate that our proposed
implementation of sections 4103, 4104,
and 4105 of the ACA will result in
additional program costs as
beneficiaries will pay no portion of the
costs for the Personalized Prevention
Plan Services, the Initial Preventive
Physical Exam and Medicare-covered
preventive services for which cost
sharing is waived under Original
Medicare (§ 417.101 and § 422.100). We
estimate that the FY 2012 costs to
Medicare for increasing access to
clinical preventive services in accord
with sections 4103, 4104, and 4105 of
ACA will be $410 million.
Although slightly less than 30 percent
of Medicare expenditures for Parts A
and B are for MA enrollees, we estimate
that the cost to the MA program of
increasing access to clinical preventive
services as described by sections 4103,
4104, and 4105 of the ACA will be
significantly less than 30 percent of the
estimated cost to the Medicare program
for implementation of these provisions.
In contrast to the Original Medicare
program, most MA plans already
provide some in-network preventive
services without charging beneficiary
cost sharing. In contract year 2010, at
least 78 percent of plans provide many,
or all, of the Medicare-covered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
preventive services without charging
beneficiary cost sharing. In fact, almost
all MA plans currently provide a few of
the Medicare-covered preventive
benefits without cost sharing. Therefore,
we estimate that our proposal to require
MA plans to provide the Medicarecovered preventive services without
beneficiary cost sharing will not
increase plan costs by a significant
amount.
Based on our finding that 78 percent
of plans provide some preventive
benefits without cost sharing in contract
year 2010, we estimate that for FY 2012
plans will incur approximately $27.1
million in costs by providing in-network
Medicare preventive services without
charging beneficiary cost sharing. Over
time, we estimate that the relative cost
to the MA program for provision of
improved access to Medicare-covered
preventive services will be consistent
with the estimated cost for Medicare,
which increases with growth in the
Medicare population. We estimate the
total cost of this provision to be $147.9
million between FYs 2011 and 2016.
Further, although not included in our
estimates, we believe that the increased
emphasis on provision of preventive
services may also result in improved
beneficiary well-being and subsequently
decrease their need for, and utilization
of, more costly medical and surgical
interventions and may decrease overall
program costs.
12. Elimination of the Stabilization
Fund (§ 422.458)
Section 10327(c) of the ACA repealed
section 1858(e) of the ACA, eliminating
the stabilization fund. Therefore, we are
proposing to delete paragraph (f) from
§ 422.458, since the statutory basis for
the Fund no longer exists. The
elimination of the stabilization fund
will have the effect of savings for the
Federal government, but will also result
in a loss of financial incentives for
regional plans to operate in regions with
no or low MA penetration.
We expect the Federal government to
save approximately $181.2 million for
the fiscal years 2011 through 2016 from
the implementation of this provision.
The savings are a result of the
elimination of the national bonus
payment and recruitment and retention
bonus payments to MA plans that
would operate in regions with no or low
MA penetration.
The fund will no longer offer a
financial incentive for regional
organizations to offer plans in regions
with low or no MA penetration. The
funds have never been accessible,
however, because, since the fund’s
inception, payments have been delayed
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71259
through legislation. Therefore, the
formal elimination of the fund will have
little or no impact on the current
operation of the MA program.
13. Improvements to Medication
Therapy Management Programs
(§ 423.153)
We estimate first year costs associated
with the requirement for Part D
sponsors to contract with all LTC
facilities in which their Part D enrollees
reside to provide appropriate MTM
services in coordination with
independent consultant pharmacist
evaluation and monitoring is
$96,709,680 ($402,957 estimated cost
per parent organization or sponsor × 240
parent organizations or stand alone
sponsors with Part D LTC residents =
$96,709,680 estimated cost). We
estimate annual costs for updating the
contracts for subsequent years to be
$32,236,560 ($134,319 estimated cost
per parent organization or sponsor × 240
parent organizations or sponsors with
Part D LTC residents = $32,236,560
estimated cost).
We expect Part D beneficiaries
meeting the target criteria for MTM
services will have improved access to
these services both through the use of
telehealth technologies and for those
beneficiaries who are also LTC residents
through the coordination of their MTM
services with the monthly drug regimen
reviews.
14. Changes To Close the Part D
Coverage Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
With the implementation of proposals
related to closing of the Part D coverage
gap, Medicare beneficiaries will have
improved access to the prescription
drugs in the coverage gap and enter the
catastrophic phase of the benefit earlier
in the benefit year as a result of our
proposed changes to close the Part D
coverage gap. Beneficiary cost sharing in
the coverage gap would be determined
on the basis of whether the covered Part
D drug is considered an applicable drug
under the Medicare coverage gap
discount program. Different cost sharing
levels will apply during the coverage
gap to the drugs that are applicable and
not applicable under the coverage gap
discount program. In addition to the
cost sharing changes, the rate of growth
of the annual Part D out-of-pocket
threshold would be reduced from FY
2014 to FY 2016. Further, in attesting to
the actuarial equivalence of qualified
retiree prescription drug plans to the
standard Medicare Part D coverage,
sponsors would not take into account
the value of any discount or coverage
provided during the coverage gap.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71260
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For changes associated with closing
the Part D coverage gap, we estimated a
one-time total cost of $50,400,000
(12,000 burden hours for each processor
× 40 processors × $105 for the average
labor cost of a senior programmer based
on data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics) in the first year for the 40
pharmacy claims processors to
implement systems changes. In
subsequent years, the estimated total
annual cost is $1,050,000 (250 burden
hours per processor × 40 processors ×
$105 for the full cost of labor of a senior
programmer) to identify changes to the
applicable drugs under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program and
update systems with this information
each month. The total estimated costs to
the Medicare program for the
adjustments to beneficiary cost sharing
in the coverage gap are $130,400,000 in
the first year (FY 2011), increasing in
subsequent years as the coverage gap
closes and the Part D enrollment
increases. The estimated annual cost to
the Medicare program associated with
decreasing the rate of annual growth in
the Part D out-of-pocket threshold is
$40,000,000 in FY 2014, increasing in
subsequent years as the Medicare Part D
enrollment increases and the coverage
gap closes.
15. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate
and Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.252, § 422.258, § 422.266, and
§ 422.308)
Prior to enactment of the ACA, MA
payment benchmarks (county rates)
were established only partially in
relationship to average fee-for-service
costs in a county. Section 1102 of
reconciliation amendments links all
county benchmarks to FFS costs,
effective 2012. As a transition, the ACA
sets the 2011 MA benchmarks equal to
the benchmarks for 2010; for subsequent
years it specifies that, ultimately, the
benchmarks will be equal to a
percentage (95, 100, 107.5, or 115
percent) of the fee-for-service rate in
each county. During a transition period,
the benchmarks will be based on a
blend of the pre-ACA and post-ACA
benchmarks. The phase-in schedule for
the new benchmarks will occur over
2 to 6 years, with the longer transitions
for counties with the larger benchmark
decreases under the new method.
The ACA, as amended, also
introduces MA bonuses and rebate
levels that are tied to the plans’ quality
ratings. Beginning in 2012, benchmarks
will be increased for plans that receive
a 4-star or higher rating on a 5-star
quality rating system. The bonuses will
be 1.5 percent in 2012, 3.0 percent in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
2013, and 5.0 percent in 2014 and later;
these bonuses increase the new
benchmark portion of the blended
benchmark until all transitions are
complete. An additional county bonus,
which is equal to the plan bonus, will
be provided on behalf of beneficiaries
residing in specified counties. The
percentage of the ‘‘benchmark minus
bid’’ savings provided as a rebate, which
historically has been 75 percent, will
also be tied to a plan’s quality rating. In
2014, when the provision is fully
phased in, the rebate share will be 50
percent for plans with a quality rating
of less than 3.5 stars; 65 percent for a
quality rating of 3.5 to 4.49; and 70
percent for a quality rating of 4.5 or
greater. This provision will provide
incentives for plan quality to increase.
Plans will be paid based on quality
performance rather than just the specific
services they provide. However, the
rules for determining quality bonus
payments for CY 2012 through 2014 will
be modified under the terms of the
national quality bonus payment
demonstration project.
The ACA amended the statutory
provision that requires us to make an
adjustment to MA risk scores for
differences in coding patterns between
MA and FFS. The ACA made four
modifications to this requirement: The
analysis must be conducted annually;
the data used in the analysis is to be
updated as appropriate; the results of
the analysis are to be incorporated into
risk scores on a timely basis; and the
application of an adjustment for
differences in coding patterns was
extended past 2010 indefinitely.
Further, the ACA provides for minimum
adjustments for MA coding in future
years.
Our proposed changes to § 422.252,
§ 422.258, and § 422.266 codify section
1102 of the ACA, which links county
benchmarks to FFS costs and provides
eligible plans with a quality bonus.
These provisions will lower payments
from us, bringing MA payments in line
with FFS payments. The new provisions
will also generally reduce MA rebates
and benchmarks for plans and thereby
result in less generous benefit packages.
We estimate that the Federal
government will save approximately
$40.56 billion from FY 2011 to FY 2014.
The Federal government will save
approximately $76.470 billion from FY
2011 to FY 2016. The year-by-year
savings in millions of dollars are shown
in Table 16. We estimate that in 2017,
when the MA provisions will be fully
phased in, enrollment in MA plans will
be lower by about 50 percent (from its
projected level of 14.8 million under the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prior law to 7.4 million under the new
law).
16. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
We estimate a minimal overall impact
as a result of this provision, as we
expect only a minority of MA
organizations to take advantage of the
opportunity to appeal CMS’ annual
quality rating. Of those organizations
that do appeal their rating, a minimal
number of professional staff working
over a short period of time would be
required to prepare and present an
organization’s appeal.
We estimate that the total annual
hourly burden for developing and
presenting a case to us for review is
equal to the number of organizations
likely to request an appeal multiplied by
the number of hours for the attorneys of
each appealing MA organization to
research, draft, and submit their
arguments to CMS. Based on the star
rating distributions of previous contract
years, out of the approximately 350 MA
contracts that are subject to star rating
analysis (that is, those not excluded
from analysis because of low
enrollment, contract type not required
to report data, or new contract with no
performance history), approximately
250 may receive less than a four-star
rating. We estimate that 10 percent of
those contracts (25) will request an
appeal of their rating under the
proposed rule. We further estimate that
one attorney working for eight hours
could complete the documentation to be
submitted to us for each contract,
resulting in a total burden estimate of
200 hours (8 hours × 25 contracts = 200
hours). The estimated annual cost to
MA organizations associated with this
provision (assuming an attorney billing
rate of $250 per hour) is $50,000 (200
hours × $250 = $50,000).
17. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
We anticipate minimal financial
impact from our proposal to require
terminated Part D plan sponsors to
effectuate a smooth transition by
providing CMS with Medicare
beneficiary data including information
to identify each affected beneficiary,
pharmacy claims files, true out-ofpocket (TrOOP) cost balances, and
information concerning pending
grievances and appeals.
We estimate that the total annual
burden for this proposal to be the cost
of maintaining sufficient staff to transfer
the data required under § 423.509. As a
result, we estimate the total annual
burden to be the number of Part D
sponsors we anticipate terminating in a
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
contract year (2) × the hourly rate of
staff to transfer the required data ($75/
hour) × the number of hours required to
provide data to us (20 hours). Therefore,
the estimated annual cost associated
with these requirements is $3,000.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
18. Review of Medical Necessity
Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the
Employment of a Medical Director
(§ 422.562, § 422.566, § 423.562, and
§ 423.566)
We estimate that 95 percent of MA
organizations and Part D sponsors
already have a medical director
overseeing decisions of medical
necessity. Therefore, we believe that
there will be no increase in cost for the
majority of MA organizations and Part D
sponsors. We anticipate that 5 percent
of MA organizations and Part D
sponsors will incur a financial impact as
a result of this proposed provision.
Of the 5 percent of MA organization
and Part D sponsors that do not
currently employ a medical director, we
estimate that the total annual burden for
employing a medical director is equal to
5 percent of the number of MA
organization and Part D sponsors (757),
which equals 38 organizations and
sponsors, at a salary of $250,000 per
year. Therefore, the estimated annual
cost associated with these requirements
is $9,500,000.
We believe our proposed provisions
to require review of medical necessity
decisions by a physician or other health
care professional and the employment
of a medical director will help to
prevent: (1) Failure to provide access to
drugs for enrollees who are stable on a
protected class drug; (2) application of
inappropriate prior authorization and
step therapy criteria when adjudicating
prescriptions; (3) issuance of denials
based on a lack of medically accepted
indications when medically accepted
indications are specified in at least one
of the applicable compendia; and (4)
failure to provide transition supplies for
existing members who experience
formulary changes across plan years.
19. Compliance Officer Training
(§ 422.503 and § 423.504)
Starting in 2013 for existing sponsors
and 2012 for new applicants, we would
require sponsors to annually pay for
travel expenses and training registration
fees for each compliance officer
associated with a MA or Part D contract
to attend compliance officer training
offered by an entity with expertise in
Part D. With expected travel costs of
$1,000 and registration fees of $700, the
increase in costs for a single contract
would be $1,700. In 2012, only new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
applicants would have to train their
compliance officers. The average
number of new applicants at the parent
organization level over the past 2 years
has been 8. We have reason to believe
there will be a similar number of new
applicants for 2012; therefore, we
estimate the cost for compliance officer
training in 2012 would be $13,600. For
2013 and subsequent years, based on the
current 316 compliance officers
associated with all 2010 contracts, we
estimate the annual cost associated with
this requirement would be $537,200.
The anticipated effect of requiring
annual compliance officer training is
that compliance officers will be more
knowledgeable about the MA and Part D
programs which should translate into
more efficient internal plan oversight.
As internal plan oversight increases, we
anticipate a decrease in the volume and
severity of compliance issues because
compliance officers will be able to
identify small problems before they
become large problems with significant
beneficiary impact. As a result,
beneficiaries will be more likely to
receive benefits consistent with plan
sponsors’ bids and CMS requirements.
20. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
Proposed § 422.2274(b) and (c) and
§ 423.2274(b) and (c) would require MA
organizations’ and Part D sponsors’
agents and brokers to receive training
and testing via a CMS endorsed or
approved training program. We are
considering implementing this
requirement through a Request for
Proposal (RFP) competitive process. The
burden associated with this proposed
requirement is the time and effort put
forth by plan sponsors and/or third
party vendors to develop and submit
their proposals for CMS review. We
estimate that about 12 entities (plan
sponsors and/or third party vendors)
will submit a proposal annually and
that the average estimated hours per
entity to complete the proposal is 100
hours. The total estimated hourly
burden associated with this requirement
is equal to the estimated number of
entities (12) × the estimated hours per
entity (100) = 1,200 hours. We estimate
the hourly labor cost for the preparer of
the proposal will be $59.20 (based on
the U.S. Department of Labor statistics
for hourly wages for management
analysts). The annual cost of proposal
preparation is estimated to be $71,040
($59.20 × 1200 hours).
The anticipated effect of our proposed
provision to require all agents and
brokers to receive training and testing
via a CMS-endorsed or approved
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71261
training program would be beneficiary
access to agents and brokers who are
thoroughly and consistently trained on
the fundamentals of Medicare
regulations. We believe that such
thorough and consistent training will
help ensure that beneficiaries receive
accurate information about their
Medicare health care options.
21. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
We estimate the cost for our proposed
call center requirements at the parent
organization level because most parent
organizations have one call center for all
of their contracts. For the parent
organizations that currently and
consistently provide interpreters, their
costs will not increase. Organizations
that provide interpreters, but not
consistently, will need to train their
CSRs on how to use the interpreter
service, which can be included in
regularly scheduled training meetings at
no increased cost. Lastly, we expect the
cost for each of the two parent
organizations that currently do not
provide interpreters to increase by
$9,933 per year. This estimated cost is
based on 1–800–MEDICARE foreign
language interpreter use, which is 4.5
percent of all calls. If 4.5 percent of calls
could require an interpreter over the
course of a standard 12-hour call center
day, this would translate into using
interpreter services for 33 minutes each
day. Over the course of a year for the
301 days a call center is required to be
open, and at a rate of $1.00 per minute,
based on CMS market research in for
interpreter costs, the cost for each of the
two parent organizations would increase
by $9,933 per year, which is $19,866 for
both in FY 2012.
22. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
Proposed § 422.111(b)(11) and
§ 423.128(b)(12) would require MA
organizations and PDP sponsors to
periodically provide each enrollee with
enrollee-specific data to use to compare
utilization and out-of-pocket costs in the
current plan year to projected utilization
and out-of-pocket costs for the following
plan year. Plans would disclose this
information to plan enrollees in each
year in which a minimum enrollment
period has been met, in conjunction
with the annual renewal materials
(currently the annual notice of change
and evidence of coverage documents).
Plan sponsors already collect enrollee
utilization and cost-sharing information
as part of their claims processing
operations and for calculating MOOP
limits. Therefore, we estimate the initial
year burden associated with this
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71262
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
proposed requirement is the time and
effort necessary for a plan sponsor to
complete program development and
testing, and to disclose (print and mail)
this information to each beneficiary. We
developed this burden estimate using
our experience with burden estimates
for the ANOC/EOC documents under
OCN 0928–1051as a baseline, then
expanding on that baseline, and
factoring in expected programming and
development costs to provide
beneficiary specific information. We
estimate the total annual burden hours
associated with this provision at 18,620
hours for the 564 MA organizations and
85 Part D sponsors that would be
affected annually by this requirement.
Using the same wage/cost estimate as
the ANOC/EOC documents, we applied
an hourly wage cost for GS–10, step 1
analyst at an estimated cost of $27.24
per hour. Therefore, the estimated total
initial year cost of this proposed
requirement is approximately
$507,208.00.
In subsequent years, the burden
associated with this proposed
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a plan sponsor to disclose
(print and mail) this information to each
beneficiary. We estimate the total
annual burden hours associated with
this provision at 12,555 hours for the
564 MA organizations and 85 Part D
sponsors that would be affected
annually by this requirement. At an
estimated cost of $27.24 per hour, the
estimated total initial year cost of this
proposed requirement is approximately
$342,000.
The anticipated effect of our proposed
provision to require MA organizations
and PDP sponsors to provide
customized enrollee data would be
greater access to individualized
information for beneficiaries to use in
making decisions about their enrollment
and their health care options. While this
proposed new requirement would result
in cost burden for MA organizations and
Part D sponsors to calculate, compile
and disclose beneficiary-specific data,
plans should already have the systems
in place to collect the required
information as part of their claims
processing operations and for
calculating MOOP limits; over time,
therefore, we anticipate that plans
would continue to refine and work to
make their processes for disclosing this
information as well as the annual notice
of change, evidence of coverage, and
other plan documents more efficient,
thereby mitigating the burden over time.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
23. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
Proposed § 422.100(f) and
§ 422.101(d) would extend the
mandatory MOOP and catastrophic
limit requirements to RPPO plans. Each
RPPO plan would establish an annual
MOOP limit on total enrollee cost
sharing liability for Parts A and B
services, the dollar amount of which
would be set annually by CMS. All cost
sharing (that is, deductibles,
coinsurance, and copayments) for Parts
A and B services would be included in
RPPO plans’ MOOPs. In the April 15,
2010 final rule implementing policy and
technical changes to the Medicare
Advantage and prescription drug benefit
programs (72 FR 19799 through 19800),
we discussed the anticipated effects of
our policy to require local MA plans to
have a MOOP limit on members’ out-ofpocket cost sharing. While this
proposed change is significant in that it
will help beneficiaries to understand
and anticipate their possible health care
expenditures, as with the requirement to
establish a mandatory MOOP for local
MA plans, we do not believe that this
proposed change would by itself have a
significant cost impact on RPPO plan
participation or plan costs.
We believe any impact on enrollee
premiums will be very limited for
several reasons. First, since
implementation of the MMA, RPPOs
have been required under section
1858(b)(2) of the Act to establish a
MOOP for in-network cost sharing and
a catastrophic limit inclusive of both inand out-of-network cost sharing for
Parts A and B services. The MOOP
amounts are currently at the discretion
of MA organizations offering RPPO
plans. For FY 2011, we encouraged
RPPO plans to adopt either the
mandatory or voluntary MOOPs
established in CMS guidance. For FY
2011, the voluntary MOOP limits for
local PPO plans were set at $3,400 innetwork and $5,100 catastrophic (inand out-of-network), and the mandatory
MOOP limits for local PPO plans were
set for FY 2011 at $6,700 in-network
and $10,000 catastrophic (in- and outof-network). In guidance following
publication of our April 15, 2010 final
rule, we stated that, to the extent an
RPPO sets its MOOP and catastrophic
limits above the mandatory amounts set
by us for other plan types, it may be
subject to additional CMS review of its
proposed Parts A and B services costsharing amounts. Based on data for FY
2011 submitted (but not yet approved)
bids, we have found that of the 78
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
regional PPO plans, 25 (32 percent) met
or exceeded the voluntary MOOP limits
set by us and 47 (60 percent) regional
PPO plans met or exceeded the
mandatory maximum limits. Therefore,
only five (8 percent) RPPO plans did not
submit an in-network or catastrophic
maximum out-of-pocket limit did not
meet either the voluntary or mandatory
limits for FY 2010. Based on this
information, it is our expectation that
the impact on RPPO plans would be
very small.
Second, as we described in our April
15, 2010 final rule, it is our intention to
continue setting both the MOOP and
Parts A and B cost-sharing thresholds at
levels that, while affording reasonable
financial protection for those
beneficiaries with high health care
needs, do not result in significant new
operating costs for MA plans or
increased out-of-pocket costs for
beneficiaries to the extent that MA plans
pass along any increased costs to their
enrollees in the form of premium
increases. Given a competitive
marketplace and Medicare beneficiary
sensitivity to premium amounts, we
believe that MA plans may choose
instead to modify their benefit packages
to reduce costs elsewhere. Furthermore,
we estimate that beneficiaries in
regional PPO plans that currently offer
the FY 2011 voluntary or mandatory
MOOP limits (about 92 percent of RPPO
plans) will experience no cost increases
as a result of these provisions. In our
April 15, 2010 final rule, we estimated
that the maximum impact of these
requirements on beneficiary premiums
for those plans that currently have no
MOOP limit of any kind (8 percent of
all prospective FY 2011 RPPO plans)
would average $5 in the absence of
other adjustments to benefit packages to
account for the annual MOOP
requirements. However, in this case, the
RPPO plans offer MOOP and
catastrophic limits, so we believe any
premium impact would be less than $5.
Finally, we believe that the many
advantages for beneficiaries as a result
of the new MOOP and cost-sharing
threshold requirements will outweigh
any small premium increases that may
result. All regional PPO plan enrollees
will be protected against high out of
pocket costs, and will be better able to
compare plans by focusing on
differences in premium and plan
quality. As we have explained
previously, our goal is to set costsharing limits at a level that should not
result in significant new costs for MA
plans or beneficiaries.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
Our proposed translated marketing
materials requirements codify existing
subregulatory guidance, so the impact to
plan sponsors (MA organizations and
PDP sponsors) depends upon whether
they are currently translating marketing
materials, and if so, to what extent. For
2010, there are 307 sponsors that need
to provide translated marketing
materials. Our translated marketing
material monitoring study, which only
has preliminary findings, revealed that
some sponsors have produced a few
materials, but we do not know the
numbers of sponsors that are and are not
providing all translated materials. In the
event sponsors are not translating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
materials, our research that indicates the
average translation cost is 20 cents per
word. We estimate that for a sponsor to
produce all of the required plan
materials in one language for the first
year would cost approximately $18,325
because there are approximately 17
documents containing 91,623 words for
translation. In subsequent years,
sponsors would only need to edit
existing documents with the new data
and any changes required by CMS,
which could result in approximately 5
percent of the documents being
changed. As a result, after the first year
of translating all required documents,
plan sponsors would need to spend
$916 updating translated materials.
Because we do not have final data from
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71263
our translated materials study, we do
not know what proportion of sponsors
would need to translate for the first year
and what proportion would only need
to update existing documents. Not all
required translated marketing materials
are plan benefit package (PBP) specific.
Therefore, if a plan sponsor translates
the document for one PBP, it could use
the document for all PBPs offered that
year. For the purpose of this analysis,
we assumed that all 307 sponsors would
have to translate all materials for the
first year at a total cost of $5,625,775. In
subsequent years, sponsors would only
need to edit existing translated
documents, which would be a total cost
of $281,212 annually for all sponsors.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.014
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71264
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71265
EP22NO10.015
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.016
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71266
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71267
EP22NO10.017
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.018
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71268
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71269
EP22NO10.019
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO10.020
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
beneficiary is switched from one plan to
another.
C. Expected Benefits
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
422.100)
We believe that the addition of home
health services to the list of service
categories for which MA plan cost
sharing may not exceed that required
under Original Medicare will provide
additional transparency and
predictability for beneficiaries as they
evaluate their health plan options, and
also will strengthen the beneficiary
protections against discriminatory cost
sharing and benefit designs. Even with
the additional restriction on cost sharing
for home health services, we believe MA
organizations will continue to have
adequate flexibility to design plan
benefits that are responsive to
beneficiary needs and preferences while
providing access to high quality and
affordable health care.
2. Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
This proposed rule would have an
effect on the number of reassignments,
and the number of zero-premium plans
available to full-subsidy eligible
individuals in each region. This
proposed rule would reduce the number
of reassignments and increase the
number of zero premium organizations
available to beneficiaries. This is
because, under the higher benchmarks,
more PDPs are likely to have premiums
that are equal to or less than the lowincome benchmark and, as a result, will
be fully covered by the premium
subsidy. Low-income subsidy
beneficiaries would be able to remain in
these PDPs and would not be reassigned
to other lower-premium PDPs. Under
the current framework we would expect
1.9 million reassignments. Under the
proposed formula for calculating
benchmarks we would expect 900,000
reassignments, or approximately one
million fewer reassignments. We expect
the proposed formula to increase the
number of zero premium organizations
available to beneficiaries in 21 of the 34
PDP regions.
Although there is no quantifiable
monetary value to CMS to reducing
reassignments, we believe this benefit is
important as it will increase program
stability and continuity of care. This
proposed rule supports pharmacy and
formulary consistency for the
beneficiary. Particularly in regions with
high MA–PD penetration, this proposed
rule would reduce the year-to-year
volatility in reassignments of LIS
beneficiaries and would help avoid the
disruption that is inherent anytime a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
3. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
The proposed voluntary de minimis
provisions would permit Part D plans to
volunteer to waive a de minimis amount
of the Part D premium above the low
income benchmark and, thus, avoid
losing LIS beneficiaries to reassignment.
We perform reassignments to ensure
that beneficiaries whom we originally
assigned to a zero premium plan will
not incur a new premium liability when
their current plan’s premium goes above
the LIS benchmark in the following
year. The number of reassignments has
ranged between 1 and 2 million over
each of the past 4 years. While
reassignments are effective at avoiding
new premium liabilities, they can create
confusion and disrupt continuity of
care. We expect reassignments will be
reduced by the de minimis provisions in
the regulation.
4. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to
the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D—IRMAA)
(§ 423.44, § 423.286, § 423.293)
Beginning in CY 2011, we estimate
that approximately 1.05 million of the
29.2 million Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in the Part D program will
exceed the minimum income threshold
amount and will be assessed an income
related monthly adjustment amount.
During coverage year 2011, we expect
that implementation of the Part D—
IRMAA provisions, as proposed at
§ 423.286(d)(4) and § 423.293(d), will
increase the Medicare Trust Fund by
$270 million, with a net increase to the
Medicare Trust Fund over a 5-year
period from FY 2011 through FY 2016
of $4.77 billion.
5. Elimination of Medicare Part D CostSharing for Individuals Receiving Home
and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
The expected benefit of the
elimination of the Medicare Part D costsharing for individuals receiving home
and community based services
provision is greater access to
prescription drug coverage for a
population that traditionally has high
medical needs. These individuals are
already eligible for the full low income
subsidy, and likely qualify for the $1.10/
$3.30 copayment level now. The
elimination of the copayment will
provide financial relief for those who
are able to pay at that level and greater
access for those who are not.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71271
6. Appropriate Dispensing of
Prescription Drugs in Long-Term Care
Facilities Under PDPs and MA–PD
Plans (§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
This provision is expected to lead to
a reduction in Part D program expense,
pharmaceutical waste, environmental
disposal costs impact, and the risk of
pharmaceutical diversion associated
with unused drugs in 30-day fills.
7. Complaint System for Medicare
Advantage Organizations and PDPs
(§ 422.504(a) and § 423.505(b))
This provision is expected to reduce
the volume of calls using 1–800–
MEDICARE as members will have
online access to the complaint tracking
system to file complaints regarding their
prescription benefit plan.
8. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128, and § 423.562)
We expect that as a result of
implementation of this provision,
beneficiaries and the healthcare
providers or representatives that assist
them will benefit from a more
streamlined approach to the exceptions
and appeals process than what is in
place currently. They will have access
to the appeals process via a Web site or
a customer call center, if their plan
sponsor has not already adopted this
approach. Furthermore, a standard
appeals form will be utilized by all Part
D sponsors.
9. Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and
the Indian Health Services (IHS) Toward
the Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket
Threshold (§ 423.100 and § 423.464)
This provision is expected to reduce
the costs to ADAPs and IHS, since
beneficiaries will be able to reach the
catastrophic limit and relieve the
ADAPs and IHS from incurring
excessive prescription costs because
beneficiaries in both programs had
difficulty reaching the catastrophic
phase of the Part D benefit.
10. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered
Preventive Service (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
We believe that our proposal to
require MA organizations and section
1876 cost plans to provide in-network
Medicare-covered preventive benefits at
zero cost sharing puts MA enrollees on
a level playing field with enrollees in
Original Medicare. Furthermore, we
believe that the increased emphasis on
provision of preventives services will
result in improved beneficiary wellbeing and subsequently decrease their
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
need for, and utilization of, more costly
medical and surgical interventions, and
possibly in decreased overall program
costs.
11. Elimination of the Stabilization
Fund (§ 422.458)
As discussed elsewhere in this RIA,
the elimination of the stabilization fund
is expected to result in savings to the
Federal government.
12. Improvements to Medication
Therapy Management Programs
(§ 423.153)
Under this proposed provision,
beneficiaries receiving the standardized
Comprehensive Medication Review
documents would have a better
understanding of the review findings
and recommendations. The opportunity
for sponsors to use telehealth
technology would improve access to
MTM services for beneficiaries,
particularly those in remote locations or
unable to travel. The proposed change
requiring coordination of MTM services
with LTC consultant pharmacist
services would enable beneficiaries to
receive the full benefits of the sponsor’s
MTM program and the coordinated
assessments would more likely uncover
evidence of adverse side effects and
medication overuse.
13. Changes To Close the Part D
Coverage Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
Under these proposed provisions to
close the Part D coverage gap,
beneficiaries would pay less for drugs in
the coverage gap, and would reach the
out-of-pocket threshold earlier in the
benefit year. We expect that, because
beneficiaries should find their
prescription drugs more affordable,
there would be greater adherence to
drug therapies and fewer instances of
adverse health outcomes arising from
failure to take medications as
prescribed.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14. Medicare Advantage Benchmark,
Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate
and Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.252, § 422.258 and § 422.266, and
§ 422.308)
Our proposed revisions will result in
government savings and will bring MA
payments in line with FFS payments.
The MA benchmarks, which are the
ceiling for per member per month MA
payment to a plan before risk
adjustment, will now be linked to FFS
costs. These provisions also provide
incentives for MA organizations to
maintain or increase the quality of their
plans, as organizations with 4 stars or
more will receive a quality bonus.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
15. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
Our intent in implementing this
provision is to ensure that MA
organizations are afforded the benefit of
reasonable opportunity to challenge
CMS determinations that ultimately
affect an organization’s payments from
the Medicare Trust Fund. Granting
organizations an avenue to challenge
CMS’ determinations will enhance the
transparency and credibility of the
process CMS uses to determine the
recipients of quality bonus payments.
16. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
Our intent in implementing this
provision is to ensure that terminated
Part D plan sponsors transfer to CMS the
necessary data to provide a smooth
transition for beneficiaries into a new
Part D plan similar to when the Part D
sponsor terminates the contract or CMS
and the Part D plan sponsor mutually
terminate the contract. We do not
anticipate a financial benefit to the
terminated Part D sponsor.
17. Review of Medical Necessity
Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the
Employment of a Medical Director
(§ 422.562, § 422.566, § 423.562, and
§ 423.566)
By requiring that all organization
determinations, coverage
determinations, and plan
reconsiderations and redeterminations
involving medical necessity be reviewed
by a medical professional with expertise
in the field of medicine appropriate for
the services at issue, enrolled
beneficiaries would be assured of
consistent and medically accurate
decisions by Part C organizations and
Part D sponsors. We believe that the
proposal to require plans to employ a
medical director to ensure the clinical
accuracy of such decisions strikes the
appropriate balance between our
interest in ensuring that plans are
properly administering the Part C and
Part D benefit, and the plans’ interest in
minimizing their administrative burden.
18. Compliance Officer Training
(§ 422.503 and § 423.503)
The benefit to requiring annual
compliance officer training is that
beneficiaries will be more likely to
receive benefits consistent with plan
sponsors’ bids and CMS requirements.
Compliance officers will be more
knowledgeable about the MA and Part D
programs which should translate into
more efficient internal plan oversight.
As internal plan oversight increases,
CMS anticipates a decrease in the
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
volume and severity of compliance
issues because compliance officers will
be able to identify small problems
before they become large problems with
significant beneficiary impact.
19. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
Requiring all agents and brokers to
receive training and testing via a CMS
endorsed or approved training program
will further ensure that beneficiaries are
educated about Medicare health plan
options by plan agents and brokers who
are thoroughly and consistently trained
on the fundamentals of Medicare
regulations. Furthermore, this proposal
would reduce or eliminate the
duplication of training and testing
requirements for agents and brokers
who contract with multiple plans with
different training and testing
requirements.
20. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
The expected benefit of our proposed
call center interpreter requirements is
that all beneficiaries, regardless of
language spoken, will have access to all
the information they need to make
appropriate decisions about their health
care to utilize their Medicare benefits
most effectively.
21. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
We believe that our proposed
requirement that plans provide
customized enrollee data to plan
enrollees at least annually after initial
enrollment in conjunction with the
annual renewal materials (currently the
annual notice of change and evidence of
coverage documents) would enable plan
members to better understand their
utilization and out-of-pocket costs
during a period of time, as well as how
the costs of their plan are changing in
the upcoming contract year and what
that means for them if they remain in
the plan and use similar services. We
intend for any EOB or customized outof-pocket cost statement to provide
personal information to beneficiaries
that would help them consider using
other tools and resources, including
MOC and the MPDPF, to determine
whether to select a new plan.
22. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
We believe extending the mandatory
MOOP requirement to RPPOs will
provide significant protection for MA
enrollees from out of pocket costs so
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that beneficiaries will better understand
and anticipate their out-of-pocket
expenditures. We set the parameters for
the annual mandatory MOOP limit, and
this should make it easier for plans to
compete on a level playing field, as well
as increase transparency for
beneficiaries. This proposed
requirement would ensure all regional
PPO plan enrollees are protected against
high out of pocket costs and are better
able to compare plans by focusing on
differences in premium and plan
quality.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
The expected benefit of our proposed
requirement to codify existing
subregulatory guidance with respect to
translated marketing materials is that all
beneficiaries, regardless of language
spoken and national origin, will have
access to all the information they need
to make appropriate decisions about
their health care to utilize their
Medicare benefits most effectively.
D. Alternatives Considered
We did not consider alternatives for
the following provisions, as their
implementation was mandated by the
ACA:
• Approval of SNPs by NCQA (§ 422.4,
§ 422.101, and § 422.152)
• Determination of Part D Low-Income
Benchmark Premium (§ 423.780)
• Voluntary De Minimis Policy for
Subsidy Eligible Individuals (§ 423.34
and § 423.780)
• Increase in Part D Premiums Due to
the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D—IRMAA)
(§ 423.44, § 423.286, and § 423.293)
• Elimination of Medicare Part D CostSharing for Individuals Receiving
Home and Community-Based Services
(§ 423.772 and § 423.782)
• Appropriate Dispensing of
Prescription Drugs in Long-Term Care
Facilities Under PDPs and MA–PD
plans (§ 423.154) and Dispensing Fees
(§ 423.100)
• Complaint System for MA
Organizations and PDPs (§ 422.504(a)
and § 423.505(b))
• Uniform Exceptions and Appeals
Process for Prescription Drug Plans
and MA–PD Plans (§ 423.128(b)(7)(i),
§ 423.128(d), and § 423.562(a)(3))
• Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and
the IHS Toward the Annual Part D
Out-of-Pocket Threshold (§ 423.100,
and § 423.464)
• Elimination of the Stabilization Fund
(§ 422.458)
• Improvements to Medication Therapy
Management Programs (153)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
71273
• Changes To Close the Part D Coverage
Gap (§ 423.104 and § 423.884)
• MA Benchmark, Quality Bonus
Payments, and Rebate and
Application of Coding Adjustment
(§ 422.252, § 422.258, § 422.266, and
§ 422.308)
Alternatives considered for other
proposals are summarized below.
each MA plan must provide to its
members all Parts A and B benefits
included under the Original Medicare
fee-for-service program as defined at
section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Act, that
requiring the same level of cost sharing
for enrollees of Medicare health plans as
required under Original Medicare
would be the more appropriate policy.
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
We considered implementing the
provisions of section 3202 to limit cost
sharing under MA plans to that required
under Original Medicare without using
our authority, granted by this same
section of the ACA, to also limit cost
sharing for any additional service
categories. We believe it is preferable to
restrict our implementation of section
3202 to the specified service categories,
allowing ourselves time to evaluate the
effects of those provisions, as well as
other recently-established policy
changes before adopting the cost sharing
limits on an expanded list of service
categories.
We believe that the addition of home
health services to the list of service
categories subject to cost sharing levels
that may not exceed those required
under Original Medicare was an
appropriate additional service category
as described in the ACA for the reasons
specified elsewhere in this preamble
and that adding those services would
enhance beneficiary protections and
would not impose a significant cost
burden on the MA program.
3. Quality Bonus Appeals (§ 422.260)
We considered not affording bonus
payment appeal rights to MA
organizations. We rejected this option
partly in recognition of the obligation
the law generally imposes on us to
afford entities affected by CMS
determinations concerning contract
performance or payment to have an
opportunity to challenge such
determinations. We also believe, as
noted above, that the appeals process
promotes fairness in and enhances the
credibility of the bonus payment
determination process.
2. Cost Sharing for Medicare-Covered
Preventive Services (§ 417.101 and
§ 422.100)
We are proposing to implement
regulations to require MA organizations
and 1876 cost plans to provide innetwork Medicare-covered preventive
benefits at zero cost sharing, consistent
with the new regulations for Original
Medicare-covered preventive benefits.
More specifically, we propose requiring
that all MA organizations provide
Medicare-covered preventive services,
as specified by CMS, without enrollee
cost sharing charges.
We considered allowing plans to
charge cost sharing for Medicarecovered preventive services or to
voluntarily adopt zero cost sharing for
preventive services. We determined that
in light of the importance of preventive
services in managed and coordinated
care, and the requirements at section
1852(a)(1)(A) of the Act (except as
provided in section 1859(b)(3) of the Act
for MSA plans and in section 1852(a)(6)
of the Act for MA regional plans) that
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files
When CMS Terminates a Contract With
a Part D Sponsor (§ 423.509)
We did not consider alternatives to
our proposal regarding the timely
transfer of data and files following the
CMS termination of a Part D sponsor’s
contract. These data are necessary for
the proper adjudication of all Part D
benefits when a beneficiary changes
plans, such as calculating the true outof-pocket cost and determining whether
the beneficiary has any outstanding
claims for which the terminating
contract is responsible. Because of these
important beneficiary protections we
did not consider alternatives to these
proposed requirements.
5. Review of Medical Necessity
Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the
Employment of a Medical Director
(§ 422.562, § 422.566, § 423.562, and
§ 423.566)
We did not consider alternatives to
our proposals regarding review of
medical necessity decisions by a
physician or other health care
professional and employment of a
medical director, as a majority of MA
organizations and Part D sponsors
already employ a medical director to
overseeing decisions of medical
necessity.
6. Compliance Officer Training
(§ 422.503 and § 423.504)
We considered requiring compliance
officers to become certified through an
existing or CMS-developed certification
process. However, because training
opportunities, especially the possibility
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of free training opportunities offered by
CMS, are available outside of a
certification process, we chose only to
propose requiring training. In the event
that requiring annual compliance officer
training does not result in the expected
increase in knowledge and decrease in
compliance issues, we will reevaluate
whether compliance officer certification
may be necessary. In contrast to
training, requiring compliance officer
certification would likely cost more;
therefore, we chose to test the less costly
option first.
7. Agent and Broker Training
Requirements (§ 422.2274 and
§ 423.2274)
Proposed § 422.2274(b) and (c) and
§ 423.2274(b) and (c) would require MA
organizations’ and Part D sponsors’
agents and brokers to receive training
and testing via a CMS-endorsed or
-approved training program. The
alternative we considered to this
proposal was to continue to allow plans
to conduct training and testing on their
own or through third party vendor(s)
and for CMS to continue to review some
of these training programs upon request
by third party vendors for
comprehensiveness and accuracy.
However, we believe that it is in the best
interest of beneficiaries who are
educated about Medicare health plan
options by plan agents and brokers that
those agents and brokers be consistently
and thoroughly trained on the
fundamentals of Medicare regulations.
We believe the best method to achieve
this end is to require agents and brokers
to receive training and testing through
one or more CMS-endorsed or
-approved training programs.
8. Call Center Interpreter Requirements
(§ 422.111 and § 423.128)
Compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to serve all
individuals regardless of national origin
is a contractual requirement for MA and
Part D sponsors; therefore, we did not
consider any other alternatives to our
proposed call center interpreter
requirements.
9. Customized Enrollee Data (§ 422.111
and § 423.128)
The alternative considered to our
proposed provision to require provision
of customized enrollee data was for MA
organizations and Part D sponsors to
continue to provide beneficiaries with
the information already required by
regulation through the ANOC and EOC
documents, which must be furnished to
all plan enrollees at least 15 days before
the annual open election period.
Beneficiaries would also continue to
have access to information through tools
such as Medicare Options Compare
(MOC) and the Medicare Prescription
Drug Plan Finder (MPDPF), which
provide more general information about
plan costs. We did not choose this
option because we are concerned that
the current available options alone may
not be enough to prompt enrollees to
actively evaluate their plans annually
with respect to plan costs, benefits, and
overall value. Therefore, we expect that
this customized enrollee data will be
another more specific tool for
beneficiaries to use, in addition to the
general tools already in place, for
enrollees to understand their utilization
and out-of-pocket costs during a period
of time, as well as how they may be
affected by specific plan changes, and to
assist them in evaluating their options
for the future.
10. Extending the Mandatory Maximum
Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs
(§ 422.100 and § 422.101)
The alternative we considered to this
proposal was not extending the
mandatory MOOP and catastrophic
limit requirements to RPPO plans, but
instead to permit plans to continue to
establish their own in-network MOOP
and catastrophic limits without a
maximum limit set by CMS while
encouraging them to adopt either the
mandatory or voluntary MOOPs
established in CMS guidance. However,
as we discussed in our April 15, 2010
final rule, (75 FR 19711), we believe
RPPOs should be subject to the same
requirements with respect to a MOOP as
local PPO plans. As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we believe
that the alternative chosen will make it
easier for beneficiaries to understand
and compare MA plans and will provide
significant protection for MA enrollees
from out of pocket costs.
11. Translated Marketing Materials
(§ 422.2264 and § 423.2264)
Compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to serve all
individuals regardless of national origin
is a contractual requirement for MA and
Part D sponsors. Therefore, we did not
consider any other alternatives to our
proposed translated marketing materials
requirements.
12. Increases to the Applicable
Percentage for Quality (§ 422.258(d))
The legislation requires a 5 star rating
system. We considered whether the 5
star rating system should be consistent
with the current 5 star rating system in
place for beneficiary choice or should be
a separate system. We believe that plans
should be rated the same for consumer
choice and payment. There should not
be two different systems to rate the
quality and performance of MA plans.
Thus, the plan ratings are the basis for
the star rating system for quality bonus
payments.
E. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf ), in Table 20, we have
prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the costs
and benefits associated with the
provisions of this proposed rule. The
accounting statement is based on
estimates provided in Tables 16, 17, 18,
and 19 (our best estimate of the costs
and savings as a result of the changes)
and discounted at 7 percent and 3
percent for the time period of FY 2011
through FY 2016.
TABLE 20—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND SAVINGS, FROM FY 2011 TO FY 2016
[$ in Millions]
Units discount rate
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Category
Year dollar
Period covered
7%
3%
Transfers
Annualized Monetized Tranfers ...................................................
2010
From Whom To Whom? ..............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
¥$12,544.46
¥$12,858.60
FYs 2011–2016
Federal Government to MA organizations and Part D Sponsors.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71275
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 20—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND SAVINGS, FROM FY 2011 TO FY
2016—Continued
[$ in Millions]
Units discount rate
Category
Year dollar
Period covered
7%
3%
Costs (All other provisions)
Annualized Costs to MA organizations and Part D Sponsors ....
Annualized Costs to States .........................................................
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this regulation
was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 417
Administrative practice and
procedure, Grant programs—health,
Health care, Health insurance, Health
maintenance organizations (HMO), Loan
programs—health, Medicare, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 422
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
maintenance organizations (HMO),
Medicare, Penalties, Privacy, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 423
Administrative practice and
procedure, Emergency medical services,
Health facilities, Health maintenance
organizations (HMO), Health
professionals, Medicare, Penalties,
Privacy, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
PART 417—HEALTH MAINTENANCE
ORGANIZATIONS, COMPETITIVE
MEDICAL PLANS, AND HEALTH CARE
PREPAYMENT PLANS
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. The authority citation for part 417
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh), secs. 1301, 1306, and 1310 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C., 300e,
300e–5, and 300e–9), and 31 U.S.C. 9701.
Subpart B—Qualified Health
Maintenance Organizations; Services
2. Section 417.101 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (f) and (g) to
read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
2010
2010
$72.88
$0.02
§ 417.101 Health benefits plan: Basic
health services.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) An HMO may not charge
deductibles, copayments, or
coinsurance for in-network Medicarecovered preventive services as specified
by CMS annually.
(g) Services for which cost sharing
may not exceed cost sharing under
Original Medicare. On an annual basis,
CMS will evaluate whether there are
service categories for which MA plan’s
cost sharing may not exceed that
required under Original Medicare and
specify in regulation which services are
subject to that cost sharing limit. The
following services are subject to this
limit on cost sharing:
(1) Chemotherapy administration
services to include chemotherapy drugs
and radiation therapy integral to the
treatment regimen.
(2) Renal dialysis services as defined
at section 1881(b)(14)(B) of the Act.
(3) Skilled nursing care defined as
services provided during a covered stay
in a skilled nursing facility during the
period for which cost sharing would
apply under Original Medicare.
(4) Home health services provided in
accordance with § 424.22.
$72.24
$0.02
FYs 2011–2016
FYs 2011–2016
Subpart K—Enrollment, Entitlement,
and Disenrollment Under Medicare
Contract
4. Section 417.430 is amended as
follows:
A. Revising the paragraph heading for
paragraph (a).
B. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(3),
and (b)(4).
§ 417.430
Application procedures.
(a) Application forms and other
enrollment mechanisms. (1) The
application form must comply with
CMS instructions regarding content and
format and be approved by CMS. The
application must be completed by an
HMO or CMP eligible (or soon to
become eligible) individual and include
authorization for disclosure between the
HHS and its designees and the HMO or
CMP.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) The HMO or CMP gives the
beneficiary prompt notice of acceptance
or denial in a format specified by CMS.
(4) The notice of acceptance. If the
HMO or CMP is currently enrolled to
capacity, explains the procedures that
will be followed when vacancies occur.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 422—MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
PROGRAM
Subpart J—Qualifying Conditions for
Medicare Contracts
5. The authority citation for part 422
continues to read as follows:
3. Section 417.402 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) introductory text
to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
§ 417.402 Effective date of initial
regulations.
Subpart A—General Provisions
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Mandatory HMO or CMP and
contract non-renewal or service area
reduction. CMS will non-renew all or a
portion of an HMO’s or CMP’s
contracted service area using procedures
in § 417.492(b) and § 417.494(a) for any
period beginning on or after January 1,
2013, where—
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6. Section 422.2 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ‘‘fiscally sound operation,’’
‘‘fully integrated dual-eligible special
needs plan,’’ and ‘‘senior housing facility
plan’’ in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
§ 422.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Fiscally sound operation means an
operation which at least maintains a
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities).
*
*
*
*
*
Fully integrated dual eligible special
needs plan means a CMS approved
MA–PD dual-eligible special needs plan
that—
(1) Provides dual-eligible beneficiaries
access to Medicare and Medicaid
benefits under a single managed care
organization;
(2) Has a capitated contract with a
State Medicaid agency that includes
coverage of specified primary, acute,
and long-term care benefits and
services, consistent with State policy;
(3) Coordinates the delivery of
covered Medicare and Medicaid health
and long-term care services using
aligned care management and specialty
care network methods for high-risk
beneficiaries; and
(4) Employs policies and procedures
approved by CMS and the State to
coordinate or integrate member
materials, including enrollment,
communications, grievance and appeals,
and quality assurance.
*
*
*
*
*
Senior housing facility plan means an
MA coordinated care plan that—
(1) Restricts enrollment to individuals
who reside in a continuing care
retirement community as defined in
§ 422.133(b)(2);
(2) Provides primary care services
onsite and has a ratio of accessible
physicians to beneficiaries that CMS
determines is adequate consistent with
prevailing patterns of community health
care referenced at § 422.112(a)(10);
(3) Provides transportation services
for beneficiaries to specialty providers
outside of the facility; and
(4) Was participating as of December
31, 2009 in a demonstration established
by CMS for not less than 1 year.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 422.4 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(a)(1)(iv).
B. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(vi).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 422.4
Types of MA plans.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Coordinated care plans include
plans offered by any of the following:
(A) Health maintenance organizations
(HMOs);
(B) Provider-sponsored organizations
(PSOs), subject to paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of
this section.
(C) Regional or local preferred
provider organizations (PPOs) as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this
section.
(D) Other network plans (except PFFS
plans).
(iv) A specialized MA plan for special
needs individuals (SNP) includes any
type of coordinated care plan that meets
CMS’s SNP requirements and
exclusively enrolls special needs
individuals as defined by § 422.2 of this
subpart. All MA plans wishing to offer
a SNP will be required to be approved
by the National Commission on Quality
Assurance (NCQA) effective January 1,
2012. This approval process applies to
existing SNPs as well as new SNPs
joining the program. All SNPs must
submit their overall quality
improvement (QI) program and the
model of care (MOC) to CMS for NCQA
evaluation and approval as per CMS
guidance.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) In accordance with § 422.370,
CMS does not waive the State licensure
requirement for organizations seeking to
offer a PSO.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Eligibility, Election, and
Enrollment
8. Add § 422.53 to read as follows:
§ 422.53 Eligibility to elect an MA plan for
senior housing facility residents.
(a) Basic eligibility requirements. To
be eligible to elect an MA senior
housing facility plan, the individual
must meet both of the following:
(1) Be a resident of an MA senior
housing facility defined in § 422.2; and
(2) Be eligible to elect an MA plan
under § 422.50.
(b) Restricting enrollment. An MA
senior housing facility plan must restrict
enrollment to only those individuals
who reside in a continuing care
retirement community as defined at
§ 422.133(b)(2).
(c) Establishing eligibility for
enrollment. An MA senior housing
facility plan must verify the eligibility of
each individual enrolling in its plan
using a CMS approved process.
9. Section 422.62 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (iii),
and (iv), and (a)(5).
B. Add new paragraph (a)(7).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 422.62
plan.
Election of coverage under an MA
(a) * * *
(2) Annual coordinated election
period. (i) For 2002 through 2010,
except for 2006, the annual coordinated
election period for the following
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calendar year is November 15 through
December 31.
(ii) * * *
(iii) Beginning in 2011, the annual
coordinated election period for the
following calendar year is October 15
through December 7.
(iv) During the annual coordinated
election period, an individual eligible to
enroll in an MA plan may change his or
her election from an MA plan to
Original Medicare or to a different MA
plan, or from Original Medicare to an
MA plan. If an individual changes his
or her election to Original Medicare, he
or she may also elect a PDP.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Open enrollment and
disenrollment from 2007 through 2010.
(i) Open enrollment period. For 2007
through 2010, except as provided in
paragraphs (a)(5)(ii), (a)(5)(iii), and (a)(6)
of this section, an individual who is not
enrolled in an MA plan but is eligible
to elect an MA plan may make an
election into an MA plan once during
the first 3 months of the year.
(ii) Newly eligible MA individual. An
individual who becomes MA eligible in
2007 through 2010 may elect an MA
plan or change his or her election once
during the period that begins the month
the individual is entitled to both Part A
and Part B and ends on the last day of
the third month of the entitlement, or on
December 31, whichever is earlier,
subject to the limitations in paragraphs
(a)(5)(i)(A) and (a)(5)(i)(B) of this
section.
(iii) Single election limitation. The
limitation to one election or change in
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(ii) of this
section does not apply to elections or
changes made during the annual
coordinated election period specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or
during a special election period
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Annual 45-day period for
disenrollment from MA plans to
Original Medicare. For 2011 and
subsequent years, at any time from
January 1 through February 14, an
individual who is enrolled in an MA
plan may elect Original Medicare once
during this 45-day period. An
individual who chooses to exercise this
election may also make a coordinating
election to enroll in a PDP as specified
in § 423.38(d).
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 422.68 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 422.68 Effective dates of coverage and
change from coverage.
*
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
*
*
22NOP2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(f) Annual 45-day period for
disenrollment from MA plans to
Original Medicare. Beginning in 2011,
an election made from January 1
through February 14 to disenroll from
an MA plan to Original Medicare, as
described in § 422.62(a)(7), is effective
the first day of the first month following
the month in which the election is
made.
11. Section 422.74 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (vi) to
read as follows:
§ 422.74 Disenrollment by the MA
organization.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Extension of grace period for good
cause and reinstatement. When an
individual is disenrolled for failure to
pay the plan premium, CMS may
reinstate enrollment in the MA plan,
without interruption of coverage, if the
individual shows good cause for failure
to pay within the initial grace period,
and pays all overdue premiums within
3 calendar months after the
disenrollment date. The individual must
establish by a credible statement that
failure to pay premiums within the
initial grace period was due to
circumstances for which the individual
had no control, or which the individual
could not reasonably have been
expected to foresee.
(vi) No extension of grace period. A
beneficiary’s enrollment in the MA plan
may not be reinstated if the only basis
for such reinstatement is a change in the
individual’s circumstances subsequent
to the involuntary disenrollment for
non-payment of premiums.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Benefits and Beneficiary
Protections
12. Section 422.100 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
B. Adding new paragraphs (j) and (k).
The revision and additions read as
follows.
§ 422.100
General requirements.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) At a uniform premium, with
uniform benefits and level of in-network
cost-sharing throughout the plan’s
service area, or segment of service area
as provided in § 422.262(c)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Services for which cost sharing may
not exceed cost sharing under Original
Medicare. On an annual basis, CMS will
evaluate whether there are service
categories for which MA plans’ cost
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
sharing may not exceed that required
under Original Medicare and specify in
regulation which services are subject to
that cost sharing limit. The following
services are subject to this limit on cost
sharing:
(1) Chemotherapy administration
services to include chemotherapy drugs
and radiation therapy integral to the
treatment regimen.
(2) Renal dialysis services as defined
at section 1881(b)(14)(B) of the Act.
(3) Skilled nursing care defined as
services provided during a covered stay
in a skilled nursing facility during the
period for which cost sharing would
apply under Original Medicare.
(4) Home health services provided in
accordance with § 424.22.
(k) Cost sharing for in-network
preventive services. MA organizations
may not charge deductibles,
copayments, or coinsurance for innetwork Medicare-covered preventive
services, as specified by CMS annually.
13. Section 422.101 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3).
B. Adding a new paragraph (f)(2)(vi).
The revisions and addition read as
follows.
§ 422.101
benefits.
Requirements relating to basic
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Catastrophic limit. MA regional
plans are required to provide for a
catastrophic limit on beneficiary out-ofpocket expenditures for in-network
benefits under the Original Medicare
fee-for-service program (Part A and Part
B benefits) that is no greater than the
annual limit set by CMS.
(3) Total catastrophic limit. MA
regional plans are required to provide a
total catastrophic limit on beneficiary
out-of-pocket expenditures for innetwork and out-of-network benefits
under the Original Medicare fee-forservice program. This total out-of-pocket
catastrophic limit, which would apply
to both in-network and out-of-network
benefits under Original Medicare, may
be higher than the in-network
catastrophic limit in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section, but may not increase the
limit described in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section and may be no greater than
the annual limit set by CMS.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) All MAOs wishing to offer or
continue to offer a SNP will be required
to be approved by the National
Committee for Quality Assurance
(NCQA) effective January 1, 2012 and
subsequent years. All SNPs must submit
their overall quality improvement (QI)
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71277
program and the model of care (MOC)
to CMS for NCQA evaluation and
approval in accordance with CMS
guidance.
14. Section 422.106 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
B. Adding paragraphs (d)(4) through
(6).
The revision and additions read as
follows.
§ 422.106 Coordination of benefits with
employer or union group health plans and
Medicaid.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) CMS may waive or modify any
requirement in this part or Part D that
hinders the design of, the offering of, or
the enrollment in, an employersponsored group MA plan (including an
MA–PD plan) offered by one or more
employers, labor organizations, or the
trustees of a fund established by one or
more employers or labor organizations
(or combination thereof), or that is
offered, sponsored or administered by
an entity on behalf of one or more
employers or labor organizations, to
furnish benefits to the employers’
employees, former employees (or
combination thereof) or members or
former members (or combination
thereof) of the labor organizations. Any
entity seeking to offer, sponsor, or
administer such an MA plan described
in this paragraph may request, in
writing, from CMS, a waiver or
modification of requirements in this
part that hinder the design of, the
offering of, or the enrollment in, such
MA plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) An employer-sponsored group MA
plan means MA coverage offered to
retirees who are Medicare eligible
individuals under employment-based
retiree health coverage, as defined in
paragraph (d)(5) of this section,
approved by CMS as an MA plan.
(5) Employment-based retiree
coverage means coverage of health care
costs under a group health plan, as
defined in paragraph (d)(6) of this
section, based on an individual’s status
as a retired participant in the plan, or as
the spouse or dependent of a retired
participant. The term includes coverage
provided by voluntary insurance
coverage, or coverage as a result of a
statutory or contractual obligation.
(6) Group health plans include plans
as defined in section 607(1) of ERISA,
(29 U.S.C. 1167(1)). They also include
the following plans:
(i) A Federal or State governmental
plan, which is a plan providing medical
care that is established or maintained
for its employees by the Government of
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71278
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the United States, by the government of
any State or political subdivision of a
State (including a county or local
government), or by any agency or
instrumentality or any of the foregoing,
including a health benefits plan offered
under 5 U.S.C. 89 (the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP)).
(ii) A collectively bargained plan,
which is a plan providing medical care
that is established or maintained under
or by one or more collective bargaining
agreements.
(iii) A church plan, which is a plan
providing medical care that is
established and maintained for its
employees or their beneficiaries by a
church or by a convention or association
of churches that is exempt from tax
under section 501 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501).
(iv) Any of the following plans:
(A) An account-based medical plan
such as a Health Reimbursement
Arrangement (HRA) as defined in
Internal Revenue Service Notice 2002–
45, 2002–28 I.R.B. 93.
(B) A health Flexible Spending
Arrangement (FSA) as defined in
Internal Revenue Code (Code) section
106(c)(2).
(C) A health savings account (HSA) as
defined in Code section 223.
(D) An Archer MSA as defined in
Code section 220, to the extent they are
subject to ERISA as employee welfare
benefit plans providing medical care (or
would be subject to ERISA but for the
exclusion in ERISA section 4(b), 29
U.S.C. 1003(b), for governmental plans
or church plans).
15. Section 422.107 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 422.107 Special needs plans and dualeligibles: Contract with State Medicaid
Agency.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Existing dual-eligible SNPs that do
not have a State Medicaid agency
contract—
(A) May continue to operate through
the 2012 contract year provided they
meet all other statutory and regulatory
requirements.
(B) May not expand their service areas
during contract years 2010 through
2012.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Amend § 422.111 by:
A. Adding a new paragraph (b)(12).
B. Removing paragraph (f)(12).
C. Adding paragraph (h).
The additions read as follows.
§ 422.111
Disclosure requirements.
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(b) * * *
(12) Customized out-of-pocket cost
statement. CMS may require an MA
organization to annually disclose to
each enrollee a customized statement of
the beneficiary’s potential future out-ofpocket costs. This notice will be
provided in each year, in which a
minimum enrollment period has been
met, in conjunction with the annual
plan description described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Provision of specific information.
Each MA organization must have
mechanisms for providing specific
information on a timely basis to current
and prospective enrollees upon request.
These mechanisms must include all of
the following:
(1) A toll-free customer service call
center that meets all of the following:
(i) Is open during usual business
hours.
(ii) Provides customer telephone
service in accordance with standard
business practices.
(iii) Provides interpreters for all nonEnglish speaking and limited English
proficient (LEP) individuals.
(2) An Internet Web site that includes,
at a minimum the following:
(i) The information required in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) Copies of its evidence of coverage,
summary of benefits, and information
(names, addresses, phone numbers, and
specialty) on the network of contracted
providers. Such posting does not relieve
the MA organization of its responsibility
under § 422.111(a) to provide hard
copies to enrollees.
(3) The provision of information in
writing, upon request.
17. Section 422.112 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(10) introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 422.113 Special rules for ambulance
services, emergency and urgently needed
services, and maintenance and poststabilization care services.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) With a limit on charges to
enrollees for emergency department
services that CMS will determine
annually, or what it would charge the
enrollee if he or she obtained the
services through the MA organization,
whichever is less.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Quality Improvement
19. Amend § 422.152 by revising
paragraph (g) introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 422.152
Quality improvement program.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Special requirements for
specialized MA plans for special needs
individuals. All special needs plans
(SNPs) must be approved by the
National Committee for Quality
Assurance (NCQA) effective January 1,
2012 and subsequent years. SNPs must
submit their overall quality
improvement (QI) program and model of
care (MOC) to CMS for NCQA
evaluation and approval, in accordance
with CMS guidance. A SNP must
conduct a quality improvement program
that—
*
*
*
*
*
20. Amend § 422.156 by revising
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 422.156 Compliance deemed on the
basis of accreditation.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Quality improvement. The
deeming process should focus on
evaluating and assessing the overall
quality improvement (QI) program.
§ 422.112 Access to services.
However, the quality improvement
projects (QIPs) and the chronic care
(a) * * *
(10) Prevailing patterns of community improvement programs (CCIPs) will be
health care delivery. MA plans that meet excluded from the deeming process.
Medicare access and availability
*
*
*
*
*
requirements through direct contracting
network providers must do so consistent Subpart E—Relationships With
Providers
with the prevailing community pattern
of health care delivery in the areas
21. Amend § 422.214 by adding
where the network is being offered.
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Factors making up community patterns
of health care delivery that CMS will
§ 422.214 Special rules for services
use as a benchmark in evaluating a
furnished by noncontract providers.
proposed MA plan health care delivery
*
*
*
*
*
network include, but are not limited to
(c) Deemed request for Medicare
the following:
payment rate. A noncontract section
*
*
*
*
*
1861(u) of the Act provider of services
18. Amend § 422.113 by revising
that furnishes services to MA enrollees
paragraph (b)(2)(v) as follows:
and submits the same information that
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
it would submit for payment under
Original Medicare is deemed to be
seeking to be paid the amount it would
be paid under Original Medicare unless
the provider expressly notifies the MA
organization in writing that it is billing
an amount less than such amount.
(d) Regional PPO payments in nonnetwork areas. An MA Regional PPO
must pay non-contract providers the
Original Medicare payment rate in those
portions of its service area where it is
providing access to services by nonnetwork means under § 422.111(b)(3)(ii)
of this part.
Subpart F—Submission of Bids,
Premiums, and Related Information
and Plan Approval
22. Section 422.252 is amended by:
A. Adding in alphabetical order the
definitions ‘‘low enrollment contract’’
and ‘‘new MA plan.’’
B. Revising the definition of
‘‘unadjusted MA area-specific non-drug
monthly benchmark amount.’’
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 422.252
Terminology.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
Low enrollment contract means a
contract that could not undertake
Healthcare Effectiveness Data and
Information Set (HEDIS) and Health
Outcome Survey (HOS) data collections
because of a lack of a sufficient number
of enrollees to reliably measure the
performance of the health plan.
*
*
*
*
*
New MA plan means a MA contract
offered by a parent organization that has
not had another MA contract in the
previous 3 years.
*
*
*
*
*
Unadjusted MA area-specific nondrug monthly benchmark amount
means, for local MA plans serving one
county, the county capitation rate CMS
publishes annually that reflects the
nationally average risk profile for the
risk factors CMS applies to payment
calculations as set forth at § 422.308(c)
of this part, (that is, a standardized
benchmark). For local MA plans serving
multiple counties it is the weighted
average of county rates in a plan’s
service area, weighted by the plan’s
projected enrollment per county. The
rules for determining county capitation
rates are specific to a time period, as set
forth at § 422.258(a). Effective 2012, the
MA area-specific non-drug monthly
benchmark amount is called the
blended benchmark amount, and is
determined according to the rules set
forth under § 422.258(d) of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
23. Section 422.254 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 422.254
Submission of bids.
(a) * * *
(5) CMS may decline to accept any or
every otherwise qualified bid submitted
by an MA organization or potential MA
organization.
*
*
*
*
*
24. Section 422.256 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 422.256 Review, negotiation, and
approval of bids.
(a) Authority. Subject to paragraphs
(a)(2), (d), and (e) of this section, CMS
has the authority to review the aggregate
bid amounts submitted under § 422.252
and conduct negotiations with MA
organizations regarding these bids
(including the supplemental benefits)
and the proportions of the aggregate bid
attributable to basic benefits,
supplemental benefits, and prescription
drug benefits and may decline to
approve a bid if the plan sponsor
proposes significant increases in cost
sharing or decreases in benefits offered
under the plan.
*
*
*
*
*
25. Section 422.258 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2).
B. In paragraph (c)(3)(i), removing the
phrase ‘‘county capitation rate’’ and
adding in its place the phrase ‘‘amount
determined under paragraph (a) of this
section for the year’’.
C. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 422.258
Calculation of benchmarks.
(a) * * *
(1) For MA local plans with service
areas entirely within a single MA local
area:
(i) For years before 2007, one-twelfth
of the annual MA capitation rate
(described at § 422.306) for the area,
adjusted as appropriate for the purpose
of risk adjustment.
(ii) For years 2007 through 2010, onetwelfth of the applicable amount
determined under section 1853(k)(1) of
the Act for the area for the year,
adjusted as appropriate for the purpose
of risk adjustment.
(iii) For 2011, one-twelfth of the
applicable amount determined under
1853(k)(1) for the area for 2010.
(iv) Beginning with 2012, one-twelfth
of the blended benchmark amount
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, subject to paragraph (d)(8) of
this section and adjusted as appropriate
for the purpose of risk adjustment.
(2) For MA local plans with service
areas including more than one MA local
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71279
area, an amount equal to the weighted
average of amounts described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the
year for each local area (county) in the
plan’s service area, using as weights the
projected number of enrollees in each
MA local area that the plan used to
calculate the bid amount, and adjusted
as appropriate for the purpose of risk
adjustment.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Determination of the blended
benchmark amount. (1) For the purpose
of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
the term blended benchmark amount for
an area for a year means the sum of two
components: The applicable amount
determined under section 1853(k)(1) of
the Act and the specified amount
determined under section 1853(n)(2) of
Act. The weights for each component
are based on the phase-in period
assigned each area, as described in
paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9) of this
section. At the conclusion of an area’s
phase-in period, the blended benchmark
for an area for a year equals the section
1853(n)(2) of the Act specified amount
described in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. However, blended benchmark
amount for an area for a year (which
takes into account paragraph (d)(8) of
this section), cannot exceed the
applicable amount described in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section that
would be in effect but for the
application of this paragraph.
(2) For the purpose of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section, the applicable
amount determined under section
1853(k)(1) of the Act for a year is—
(i) In a rebasing year (described at
§ 422.306(b)(2), an amount equal to the
greater of the average FFS expenditure
amount at § 422.306(b)(2) for an area
and the minimum percentage increase
rate at § 422.306(a) for an area.
(ii) In a year when the amounts at
§ 422.306(b)(2) are not rebased, the
minimum percentage increase rate at
§ 422.306(a) for the area for the year.
(iii) In no case the blended benchmark
amount for an area for a year,
determined taking into account
paragraph (d)(8) of this section, be
greater than the applicable amount at
paragraph (d)(2) of this section for an
area for a year.
(iv) Paragraph (d) of this section does
not apply to the PACE program under
section 1894 of Act.
(3) For the purpose of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section, the specified
amount under section 1853(n)(2) of the
Act is the product of the base payment
amount for an area for a year (adjusted
as required under § 422.306(c)
multiplied by the applicable percentage
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71280
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
described in paragraph (d)(5) of this
section for an area for a year.
(4) The base payment amount is as
follows:
(i) For 2012, the average FFS
expenditure amount specified in
§ 422.306(b)(2), determined for 2012.
(ii) For subsequent years, the average
FFS expenditure amount specified in
§ 422.306(b)(2).
(5) Applicable percentage. Subject to
paragraph (d)(7) of this section, the
applicable percentage is one of four
values assigned to an area based on
Secretary’s determination of the quartile
ranking of the area’s average FFS
expenditure amount (described at
§ 422.306(b)(2) and adjusted as required
at § 422.306(c)), relative to this amount
for all areas.
(i) For the 50 States or the District of
Columbia, a county with an average FFS
expenditure amount adjusted under
§ 422.306(c) that falls in the—
(A) Highest quartile of such rates for
all areas for the previous year receives
an applicable percentage of 95 percent.
(B) Second highest quartile of such
rates for all areas for the previous year
receives an applicable percentage of 100
percent.
(C) Third highest quartile of such
rates for all areas for the previous year
receives an applicable percentage of
107.5 percent.
(D) Lowest quartile of such rates for
all areas for the previous year receives
an applicable percentage of 115 percent.
(ii) To determine the applicable
percentages for a territory, the Secretary
ranks such areas for a year based on the
level of the area’s § 422.306(b)(2)
amount adjusted under § 422.306(c),
relative to the quartile rankings
computed under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of
this section.
(6) Additional rules for determining
the applicable percentage. (i) In a
contract year when the average FFS
expenditure amounts from the previous
year were rebased (according to the
periodic rebasing requirement at
§ 422.306(b)(2)), the Secretary must
determine an area’s applicable
percentage based on a quartile ranking
of the previous year’s rebased FFS
amounts adjusted under § 422.306(c).
(ii) If, for a year after 2012, there is a
change in the quartile in which an area
is ranked compared to the previous
year’s ranking, the applicable
percentage for the area in the year must
be the average of the applicable
percentage for the previous year and the
applicable percentage that would
otherwise apply for the area for the year
in the absence of this transitional
provision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(7) Increases to the applicable
percentage for quality. Beginning with
2012, the blended benchmark under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
will reflect the level of quality rating at
the plan or contract level, as determined
by the Secretary. The quality rating for
a plan is determined by the Secretary
according to a 5-star rating system
(based on the data collected under
section 1852(e) of the Act). Specifically,
the applicable percentage under
paragraph (d)(5) of this section must be
increased according to criteria in
paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section if the plan or contract is
determined to be a qualifying plan or a
qualifying plan in a qualifying county
for the year.
(i) Qualifying plan. Beginning with
2012, a qualifying plan means a plan
that had a quality rating of 4 stars or
higher based on the most recent data
available for such year. For a qualifying
plan, the applicable percentage at
paragraph (d)(5) of this section must be
increased as follows:
(A) For 2012, by 1.5 percentage
points.
(B) For 2013, by 3.0 percentage points.
(C) For 2014 and subsequent years, by
5.0 percentage points.
(ii) Qualifying county. (A) A
qualifying county means a county that
meets the following three criteria:
(1) Has an MA capitation rate that, in
2004, was based on the amount
specified in section 1853(c)(1)(B) of the
Act for a Metropolitan Statistical Area
with a population of more than 250,000.
(2) Of the MA-eligible individuals
residing in the county, at least 25
percent of such individuals were
enrolled in MA plans as of December
2009.
(3) Has per capita fee-for-service
spending that is lower than the national
monthly per capita cost for expenditures
for individuals enrolled under the
Original Medicare fee-for-service
program for the year.
(B) Beginning with 2012, for a
qualifying plan serving a qualifying
county, the increase to the applicable
percentage described at paragraph
(d)(7)(i) of this section must be doubled
for the qualifying county.
(iii) MA organizations that fail to
report data as required by the Secretary
must be counted as having a rating of
fewer than 3.5 stars at the plan or
contract level, as determined by the
Secretary.
(iv) Application of applicable
percentage increases to low enrollment
plans. (A) For 2012, for an MA plan that
the Secretary determines is unable to
have a quality rating because of low
enrollment, the Secretary treats this
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plan as a qualifying plan under
paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section.
(B) For 2013 and subsequent years,
the Secretary develops a methodology to
apply to MA plans with low enrollment
(as defined by the Secretary) to
determine whether a low enrollment
plan is a qualifying plan.
(v) Application of increases in
applicable percentage to new MA plans.
A new MA plan (as defined at
§ 422.252) that meets criteria specified
by the Secretary must be treated as a
qualifying plan under paragraph (d)(7)(i)
of this section, except that the
applicable percentage must be increased
as follows:
(A) For 2012, by 1.5 percentage
points.
(B) For 2013, by 2.5 percentage points.
(C) For 2014 and subsequent years, by
3.5 percentage points.
(8) Determination of phase-in period
for the blended benchmark amount. For
2012 through 2016, the blended
benchmark amount for an area for a year
depends on the phase-in period
assigned to that area. The Secretary
assigns one of three phase-in periods to
each area: 2-year, 4-year, or 6-year. The
phase-in period assigned to an area is
based on the size of the difference
between the 2010 applicable amount at
paragraph (d)(2) of this section and the
projected 2010 benchmark amount
defined at paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this
section.
(i) The projected 2010 benchmark
amount is calculated once for the
purpose of determining the phase-in
period for an area. It is equal to one-half
of the 2010 applicable amount at
paragraph (d)(2) of this section and onehalf of the specified amount at
paragraph (d)(3) modified to apply to
2010 (as described in (d)(8)(ii) of this
section).
(ii) To assign a phase-in period to an
area, the specified amount is modified
as if it applies to 2010, and is the
product of—
(A) The 2010 base payment amount
adjusted as required under § 422.306(c)
of this part; and
(B) The applicable percentage
determined as if the reference to the
‘‘previous year’’ at paragraph (d)(5) of
this section were deemed a reference to
2010 and increased as follows:
(1) The increase at paragraph (d)(7)(i)
of this section for a qualifying plan in
the area is applied as if the reference to
a qualifying plan for 2012 were deemed
a reference for 2010; and
(2) The increase at paragraph (d)(7)(ii)
of this section is applied as if the
determination of a qualifying county
were made for 2010.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Two-year phase-in. An area is
assigned the 2-year phase-in period if
the difference between the applicable
amount at paragraph (d)(2) of this
section and the projected 2010
benchmark amount at paragraph (d)(8)(i)
of this section is less than $30.
(iv) Four-year phase-in. An area is
assigned the 4-year phase-in period if
the difference between the applicable
amount at paragraph (d)(2) of this
section and the projected 2010
benchmark amount at paragraph (d)(8)(i)
of this section is at least $30 but less
than $50.
(v) Six-year phase-in. An area is
assigned the 6-year phase-in period if
the difference between the applicable
amount at paragraph (d)(2) of this
section and the projected 2010
benchmark amount at paragraph (d)(8)(i)
of this section is at least $50.
(9) Impact of phase-in period on
calculation of the blended benchmark
amount. (i) Weighting for the 2-year
phase-in. (A) For 2012, the blended
benchmark is the sum of one-half of the
applicable amount at paragraph (d)(2) of
this section and one-half of the specified
amount at paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(B) For 2013 and subsequent years,
the blended benchmark equals the
specified amount.
(ii) Weighting for the 4-year phase-in.
The blended benchmark is the sum of
the applicable amount at paragraph
(d)(2) of this section and the specified
amount at paragraph (d)(2) of this
section in the following proportions:
(A) For 2012, three-fourths of the
applicable amount for the area for the
year and one-fourth of the specified
amount for the area and year.
(B) For 2013, one-half of the
applicable amount for the area for the
year and one-half of the specified
amount for the area and year.
(C) For 2014, one-fourth of the
applicable amount for the area for the
year and three-fourths of the specified
amount for the area and year.
(D) For 2015 and subsequent years,
the blended benchmark equals the
specified amount for the area and year.
(iii) Weighting for the 6-year phase-in.
The blended benchmark is the sum of
the applicable amount at paragraph
(d)(2) and the specified amount at
paragraph (d)(3) of this section in the
following proportions:
(A) For 2012, five-sixths of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and one-sixth of the specified amount
for the area and year.
(B) For 2013, two-thirds of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and one-third of the specified amount
for the area and year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(C) For 2014, one-half of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and one-half of the specified amount for
the area and year.
(D) For 2015, one-third of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and two-thirds of the specified amount
for the area and year.
(E) For 2016, one-sixth of the
applicable amount for the area and year
and five-sixths of the specified amount
for the area and year.
(F) For 2017 and subsequent years,
the blended benchmark equals the
specified amount for the area and year.
25. Add § 422.260 to read as follows:
§ 422.260 Appeals of quality bonus
payment determinations.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this
section pertain to appeals of quality
bonus payment status determinations
based on section 1853(o) of the Act.
(b) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
Quality bonus payment (QBP)
means—(i) Enhanced CMS payments to
MA organizations based on the
organization’s demonstrated quality of
its Medicare contract operations; or
(ii) Increased beneficiary rebate
retention allowances based on the
organization’s demonstrated quality of
its Medicare contract operations.
Quality bonus payment (QBP)
determination methodology means the
formula CMS adopts for evaluating
whether MA organizations qualify for an
QBP.
Quality bonus payment (QBP) status
means an MA organization’s standing
with respect to its qualification to—
(i) Receive a quality bonus payment,
as determined by CMS; or
(ii) Retain a portion of its beneficiary
rebates based on its quality rating, as
determined by CMS.
(c) Technical report on QBP status.
An MA organization may request a
technical report from CMS which
details the performance data and
performance measures that CMS relied
on in applying the quality bonus
payment determination methodology
and how CMS applied the methodology
to such performance data.
(1) The MA organization must request
a technical report concerning its QBP
status within 5 days of CMS’ issuance
of notice of the QBP status
determination.
(2) The technical report must be
prepared by an independent contractor
engaged by CMS to review the
application of CMS’ QBP payment
determination methodology to the
organization’s performance for the most
recent evaluation period.
(3) Within 30 days of CMS’ receipt of
the MA organization request, the
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71281
independent contractor must issue the
technical report to the MA organization
and CMS in writing and by electronic
mail.
(4) The independent contractor will
not accept or consider materials
submitted by the MA organization in
advance of the technical report.
(d) QBP status appeal process. (1)
Hearing request. An MA organization
may request an appeal of its QBP status.
(i) The MA organization seeking an
appeal of their QBP status must do so
by providing written notice to CMS
within 7 days of the issuance of the QBP
technical report. The notice must
specify the errors the MA organization
asserts that CMS made in making the
QBP determination and how correction
of those errors would result in the
organization’s qualification for a QBP.
(ii) The MA organization may not
request an appeal of its QBP status
unless it has already requested and
received a technical report in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section.
(2) Designation of a hearing officer.
CMS designates a hearing officer to
conduct the appeal of the QBP status.
The officer must be an individual who
did not directly participate in the initial
QBP determination.
(3) Hearing officer’s review. The
hearing officer reviews the application
of CMS’ QBP determination
methodology to the determination of the
MA organization’s QBP status.
(i) The hearing officer must consider
whether CMS correctly applied its QBP
determination methodology to the MA
organization’s performance, but may not
consider the validity of the
determination methodology itself.
(ii) The hearing officer may also
consider the accuracy of the data related
to individual performance measures
used to arrive at a QBP determination
where those performance measures have
not been subject to an independent
audit.
(iii) The hearing officer may not
consider the accuracy of data related to
individual performance measures which
were subject to an independent audit
prior to their use in arriving at the QBP
determination.
(iv) The hearing is conducted by a
CMS hearing officer on the record,
unless the parties requested, subject to
the hearing officer’s discretion, a live or
telephonic hearing.
(v) The hearing officer receives no
testimony, but may accept written
statements with exhibits from each
party in support of their position in the
matter.
(4) Hearing officer’s decision. The
hearing officer issues a decision on or
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71282
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
before May 15 of the year preceding the
year in which the plans for which the
QBP is to be applied will be offered. The
hearing officer issues the decision by
electronic mail to the MA organization
and to CMS.
(5) Effect of the hearing officer’s
decision. The hearing officer’s decision
is final and binding.
(e) Reopening of QBP determinations.
CMS may, on its own initiative, revise
an MA organization’s QBP status at any
time after the initial release of the QBP
determinations through April 1 of each
year. CMS may take this action on the
basis of any credible information,
including the technical report issued in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section that demonstrates that the initial
QBP determination was incorrect.
26. Amend § 422.262 by revising
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 422.262
Beneficiary premiums.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) General rule. (i) Except as
permitted for supplemental premiums
under § 422.106(d), for MA contracts
with employers and labor organizations,
the MA monthly bid amount submitted
under § 422.254, the MA monthly basic
beneficiary premium, the MA monthly
supplemental beneficiary premium, the
MA monthly prescription drug
premium, and the monthly MSA
premium of an MA organization may
not vary among individuals enrolled in
an MA plan (or segment of the plan as
provided for local MA plans under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section).
(ii) The MA organization cannot vary
the level of cost-sharing charged for
basic benefits or supplemental benefits
(if any) among individuals enrolled in
an MA plan (or segment of the plan).
Cost sharing cannot vary across
enrollees of a plan for any reason,
including that based upon primary care
provider group, specialist, hospital
network or an enrollee’s utilization of
health care services.
*
*
*
*
*
27. Amend § 422.266 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 422.266
Beneficiary rebates.
(a) Calculation of rebate. (1) For 2006
through 2011, an MA organization must
provide to the enrollee a monthly rebate
equal to 75 percent of the average per
capita savings (if any) described in
§ 422.264(b) for MA local plans and
§ 422.264(d) for MA regional plans.
(2) For 2012 and subsequent years, an
MA organization must provide to the
enrollee a monthly rebate equal to a
specified percentage of the average per
capita savings (if any) at § 422.264(b) for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
MA local plans and § 422.264(d) for MA
regional plans. For 2012 and 2013, this
percentage is based on a combination of
the (a)(1) rule of 75 percent and the
(a)(2)(ii) rules that set the percentage
based on the plan’s quality rating under
a 5 star rating system, as determined by
the Secretary under § 422.258(d)(6). For
2014 and subsequent years, this
percentage is determined based only on
the paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section
rules.
(i) Applicable rebate percentage for
2012 and 2013. Subject to paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section, the
transitional applicable rebate percentage
is, for a year, the sum of two amounts
as follows:
(A) For 2012. Two-thirds of the old
proportion of 75 percent of the average
per capita savings; and one-third of the
new proportion assigned the plan under
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, based
on the quality rating specified in
§ 422.258(d)(7).
(B) For 2013. One-third of the old
proportion of 75 percent of the average
per capita savings; and two-thirds of the
new proportion assigned the plan under
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, based
on the quality rating at § 422.258(d)(7).
(ii) Final applicable rebate
percentage. For 2014 and subsequent
years, and subject to paragraphs
(d)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section, the
final applicable rebate percentage is as
follows:
(A) In the case of a plan with a quality
rating under such system of at least 4.5
stars, 70 percent of the average per
capita savings;
(B) In the case of a plan with a quality
rating under such system of at least 3.5
stars and less than 4.5 stars, 65 percent
of the average per capita savings.
(C) In the case of a plan with a quality
rating under such system of less than
3.5 stars, 50 percent of the average per
capita savings.
(iii) Treatment of low enrollment
plans. For 2012, in the case of a plan
described at § 422.258(d)(7)(iv), the plan
must be treated as having a rating of 4.5
stars for the purpose of determining the
beneficiary rebate amount.
(iv) Treatment of new MA plans. For
2012 or a subsequent year, a new MA
plan defined at § 422.252 that meets the
criteria specified by the Secretary for
purposes of § 422.258(d)(7)(v) must be
treated as a qualifying plan under
§ 422.258(d)(7)(i), except that plan must
be treated as having a rating of 3.5 stars
for purposes of determining the
beneficiary rebate amount.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subpart G—Payments to Medicare
Advantage Organizations
28. Amend § 422.308 by adding
paragraphs (c)(4) through (6) to read as
follows:
§ 422.308 Adjustments to capitation rates,
benchmarks, bids, and payments.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Authority to apply frailty
adjustment under PACE payment rules
for certain specialized MA plans for
special needs individuals. (i) For plan
year 2011 and subsequent plan years, in
the case of a plan described in
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary may apply the payment rules
under section 1894(d) of the Act (other
than paragraph (3) of such section)
rather than the payment rules that
would otherwise apply under this part,
but only to the extent necessary to
reflect the costs of treating high
concentrations of frail individuals.
(ii) Plan described. A plan described
in this paragraph is a fully integrated
dual-eligible special needs plan, as
defined at § 422.2, and has a similar
average level of frailty (as determined by
the Secretary) as the PACE program.
(5) Application of coding adjustment.
(i) In applying the adjustment under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section for
health status to payment amounts, the
Secretary ensures that such adjustment
reflects changes in treatment and coding
practices in the fee-for-service sector
and reflects differences in coding
patterns between MA plans and
providers under Part A and B to the
extent that the Secretary has identified
such differences.
(ii) In order to ensure payment
accuracy, the Secretary annually
conducts an analysis of the differences
described in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section.
(A) The Secretary completes such
analysis by a date necessary to ensure
that the results of such analysis are
incorporated on a timely basis into the
risk scores for 2008 and subsequent
years.
(B) In conducting such analysis, the
Secretary uses data submitted with
respect to 2004 and subsequent years, as
available and updated as appropriate.
(iii) In calculating each year’s
adjustment, the adjustment factor is as
follows:
(A) For 2014, not less than the
adjustment factor applied for 2010, plus
1.3 percentage points.
(B) For each of the years 2015 through
2018, not less than the adjustment factor
applied for the previous year, plus 0.25
percentage points.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(C) For 2019 and each subsequent
year, not less than 5.7 percent.
(iv) Such adjustment is applied to risk
scores until the Secretary implements
risk adjustment using MA diagnostic,
cost, and use data.
(6) Improvements to risk adjustment
for special needs individuals with
chronic health conditions. (i) General
rule. For 2011 and subsequent years, for
purposes of the adjustment under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section with
respect to individuals described in
paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of the section, the
Secretary uses a risk score that reflects
the known underlying risk profile and
chronic health status of similar
individuals. Such risk score is used
instead of the default risk score for new
enrollees in MA plans that are not
specialized MA plans for special needs
individuals (as defined in section
1859(b)(6) of the Act).
(ii) Individuals described. An
individual described in this clause is a
special needs individual described in
section 1859(b)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act who
enrolls in a specialized MA plan for
special needs individuals on or after
January 1, 2011.
(iii) Evaluation. For 2011 and
periodically thereafter, the Secretary
evaluates and revises the risk
adjustment system under this paragraph
in order to, as accurately as possible,
account for—
(A) Higher medical and care
coordination costs associated with
frailty, individuals with multiple,
comorbid chronic conditions, and
individuals with a diagnosis of mental
illness; and
(B) Costs that may be associated with
higher concentrations of beneficiaries
with the conditions specified in
paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
(iv) Publication of evaluation and
revisions. The Secretary publishes, as
part of an announcement under section
1853(b) of the Act, a description of any
evaluation conducted under paragraph
(c)(6)(iii) of this section during the
preceding year and any revisions made
under paragraph (c)(6)(iii) of this section
as a result of such evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart J—Special Rules for MA
Regional Plans
§ 422.458
[Amended]
29. In § 422.458, paragraph (f) is
removed.
Subpart K—Application Procedures
and Contracts for Medicare Advantage
Organizations
30. Amend § 422.502 by:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
A. Redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (b)(1).
B. Adding paragraph (b)(2).
C. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
71283
§ 422.502 Evaluation and determination
procedures.
(16) An MA organization’s
compliance with paragraphs (a)(1)
through (15) and (c) of this section is
material to performance of the contract.
*
*
*
*
*
33. Amend § 422.506 by adding
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
*
§ 422.506
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) In the absence of 14 months of
performance history, CMS may deny an
application based on a lack of
information available to determine an
applicant’s capacity to comply with the
requirements of the MA program.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If CMS finds that the applicant
does not appear to be able to meet the
requirements for an MA organization,
CMS gives the applicant notice of intent
to deny the application and a summary
of the basis for this preliminary finding.
*
*
*
*
*
31. Amend § 422.503 by:
A. Redesignating paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1) as paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(i).
B. Adding paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(ii).
The addition reads as follows.
§ 422.503
General provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) * * *
(ii) Beginning in 2013, the compliance
officer will complete annual MA
compliance training offered by an entity
with expertise in MA. New applicants
must complete training by the last
Friday in August prior to the start of the
contract year.
*
*
*
*
*
32. Amend § 422.504 by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (a)(14) as
paragraph (a)(16) and revising it.
B. Adding new paragraphs (a)(14) and
(a)(15).
The additions and revision read as
follows.
§ 422.504
Contract provisions.
(a) * * *
(14) Maintain a fiscally sound
operation by at least maintaining a
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities).
(15) Address complaints received by
CMS against the MAO by—
(i) Addressing and resolving
complaints in the CMS complaint
tracking system.
(ii) Displaying a link to the electronic
complaint form on the Medicare.gov
Internet Web site on the MA plan’s main
Web page.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Nonrenewal of contract.
(a) * * *
(5) During the same 2-year period as
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section, CMS will not contract with an
organization whose covered persons
also served as covered persons for the
non-renewing sponsor. A ‘‘covered
person’’ as used in this paragraph means
one of the following:
(i) All owners of nonrenewed or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(A) Have an ownership interest of
more than 5 percent; and
(B) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(ii) An owner in whole or part interest
in any mortgage, deed of trust, note or
other obligation secured (in whole or in
part) by the organization, or any of the
property assists thereof, which whole or
part interest is equal to or exceeds 5
percent of the total property, and assets
of the organization.
(iii) An officer or member of the board
of directors or board of trustees of the
entity, if the organization is organized as
a corporation.
*
*
*
*
*
34. Amend § 422.508 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 422.508 Modification or termination of
contract by mutual consent.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Prohibition against Part C program
participation by organizations whose
owners, directors, or management
employees served in a similar capacity
with another organization that mutually
terminated its Medicare contract within
the previous 2 years. During the same 2year period, CMS will not contract with
an organization whose covered persons
also served as covered persons for the
mutually terminating sponsor. A
‘‘covered person’’ as used in this
paragraph means one of the following:
(1) All owners of nonrenewal or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(i) Have an ownership interest of more
than 5 percent; and
(ii) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(2) An owner in whole or part interest
in any mortgage, deed of trust, note or
other obligation secured (in whole or in
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71284
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
part) by the organization, or any of the
property assists thereof, which whole or
part interest is equal to or exceeds 5
percent of the total property, and assets
of the organization.
(3) An officer or member of the board
of directors of the entity, if the
organization is organized as a
corporation.
35. Amend § 422.512(e) by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (e) as
(e)(1).
B. Adding paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 422.512 Termination of contract by the
MA organization.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) During the same 2-year period
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, CMS will not contract with an
organization whose covered persons
also served as covered persons for the
terminating sponsor. A ‘‘covered person’’
as used in this paragraph means one of
the following:
(i) All owners of nonrenewal or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(A) Have an ownership interest of
more than 5 percent; and
(B) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(ii) An owner in whole or part interest
in any mortgage, deed of trust, note or
other obligation secured (in whole or in
part) by the organization, or any of the
property assists thereof, which whole or
part interest is equal to or exceeds 5
percent of the total property, and assets
of the organization.
(iii) An officer or member of the board
of directors of the entity, if the
organization is organized as a
corporation.
Subpart M—Grievances, Organization
Determinations, and Appeals
36. Amend § 422.562 by adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 422.562
General provisions.
(a) * * *
(4) An MA organization must employ
a medical director who is responsible
for ensuring the clinical accuracy of all
organization determinations and
reconsiderations involving medical
necessity. The medical director must be
a physician with a current and
unrestricted license to practice
medicine in a State, Territory,
Commonwealth of the United States
(that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of
Columbia.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
37. Amend § 422.566 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 422.566
Organization determinations.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Who must review organization
determinations. When the issue
involves medical necessity (or any
substantively equivalent term used to
describe the concept of medical
necessity), the organization
determination must be reviewed by a
physician or other appropriate health
care professional with sufficient
medical and other expertise, including
knowledge of the Medicare program.
The physician or other health care
professional must have a current and
unrestricted license to practice within
the scope of his or her profession in a
State, Territory, Commonwealth of the
United States (that is, Puerto Rico), or
the District of Columbia.
38. Amend § 422.626 by revising
paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:
§ 422.626 Fast-track appeals of service
terminations to independent review entities
(IREs).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(3) If the IRE reaffirms its decision, in
whole or in part, the enrollee may
appeal the IRE’s reconsidered
determination to an ALJ, the MAC, or a
Federal court, as provided for under this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart V—Medicare Advantage
Marketing Requirements
39. Amend § 422.2264 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 422.2264
Guidelines for CMS review.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For markets with a significant nonEnglish speaking population, provide
materials in the language of these
individuals. Specifically, MA
organizations must provide translated
marketing materials in any language that
is spoken by more than 10 percent of the
general population in a plan benefit
package (PBP) service area.
40. Amend § 422.2272 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 422.2272 Licensing of marketing
representatives and confirmation of
marketing resources.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Terminate upon discovery any
unlicensed agent or broker employed as
a marketing representative and notify
any beneficiaries enrolled by the
unlicensed agent or broker of the agent’s
or broker’s unlicensed status and of
their options to confirm enrollment or
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
make a plan change (including a special
election period, as described in
§ 422.62(b)(3)(ii)).
41. Amend § 422.2274 by revising the
introductory text and paragraphs (b) and
(c) to read as follows:
§ 422.2274
Broker and agent requirements.
For purposes of this section
‘‘compensation’’ includes pecuniary or
nonpecuniary remuneration of any kind
relating to the sale or renewal of a
policy including, but not limited to,
commissions, bonuses, gifts, prizes,
awards, and finder’s fees.
‘‘Compensation’’ does not include the
payment of fees to comply with State
appointment laws, training,
certification, and testing costs;
reimbursement for mileage to, and from,
appointments with beneficiaries; or
reimbursement for actual costs
associated with beneficiary sales
appointments such as venue rent,
snacks, and materials. If a Medicare
Advantage organization markets through
independent (that is, non-employee)
brokers or agents, the requirements in
paragraph (a) of this section must be
met. The requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section must be met
if a MA organization markets through
any broker or agent, whether
independent (that is, non-employee) or
employed.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) It must ensure that all agents
selling Medicare products are trained
annually through a CMS endorsed or
approved training program or as
specified by CMS, on Medicare rules
and regulations specific to the plan
products they intend to sell.
(c) It must ensure agents selling
Medicare products are tested annually
by CMS endorsed or approved training
program or as specified by CMS.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 423—MEDICARE PROGRAM;
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PROGRAM
42. The authority citation for part 423
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1860D–1 through
1860D–42, and 1871 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395w–101 through
1395w–152, and 1395hh).
Subpart A—General Provisions
43. Amend § 423.4 by adding in
alphabetical order the definitions of
‘‘fiscally sound operation’’ and
‘‘pharmacist’’ to read as follows:
§ 423.4
*
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
Definitions.
*
*
22NOP2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Fiscally sound operation means an
operation which at least maintains a
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities).
*
*
*
*
*
Pharmacist means any individual
who holds a current valid license to
practice pharmacy in a State or territory
of the United States or the District of
Columbia.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Eligibility and Enrollment
44. Amend § 423.34 by:
A. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d)(1).
B. Adding paragraph (d)(4).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
beneficiary premium at or below the
low income premium subsidy amount,
individuals are enrolled in such PDPs
on a random basis.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Enrollment in PDP plans that
voluntarily waive a de minimis
premium amount. CMS may include in
the process specified in paragraph (d)(1)
MA–PDs and PDPs that voluntarily
waive a de minimis amount as specified
in § 423.780, if CMS determines that
such inclusion is warranted.
*
*
*
*
*
45. Amend § 423.38 by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 423.38
*
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 423.34 Enrollment of low income subsidy
eligible individuals.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Reassigning low income subsidy
eligible individuals. (1) General rule.
Notwithstanding § 423.32(e) of this
subpart, during the annual coordinated
election period, CMS may reassign
certain low income subsidy eligible
individuals in another PDP if CMS
determines that the further enrollment
is warranted, except as specified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Part D prescription drug plans that
waive a de minimis premium amount. If
a Part D plan offering basic prescription
drug coverage in the area where the
beneficiary resides has a monthly
beneficiary premium amount that
exceeds the low-income subsidy amount
by a de minimis amount, and the Part
D plan volunteers to waive that de
minimis amount in accordance with
§ 423.780, then CMS does not reassign
low income subsidy individuals who
would otherwise be enrolled under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. A Part
D plan that volunteers to waive such a
de minimis amount agrees to do so for
each month during the contract year for
which a beneficiary qualifies for 100
percent low-income premium subsidy
as provided in § 423.780(f).
(d) Automatic enrollment rules.
(1) General rule. Except for low income
subsidy eligible individuals who are
qualifying covered retirees with a group
health plan sponsor, as specified in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, CMS
enrolls those individuals who fail to
enroll in a Part D plan into a PDP
offering basic prescription drug
coverage in the area where the
beneficiary resides that has a monthly
beneficiary premium amount that does
not exceed the low income subsidy
amount (as defined in § 423.780(b) of
this part). In the event that there is more
than one PDP in an area with a monthly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Enrollment periods.
*
*
*
*
(b) Annual coordinated election
period. (1) For 2006. This period begins
on November 15, 2005 and ends on May
15, 2006.
(2) For 2007 through 2010. The
annual coordinated election period for
the following calendar year is November
15 through December 31.
(3) For 2011 and subsequent years.
Beginning with 2011, the annual
coordinated election period for the
following calendar year is October 15
through December 7.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Enrollment period to coordinate
with MA annual 45-day disenrollment
period. Beginning in 2011, an
individual enrolled in an MA plan who
elects Original Medicare from January 1
through February 14, as described in
§ 422.62(a)(7), may also elect a PDP
during this time.
46. Amend § 423.40 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 423.40
Effective dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) PDP enrollment period to
coordinate with the MA annual
disenrollment period. Beginning in
2011, an enrollment made from January
1 through February 14 by an individual
who has disenrolled from an MA plan
as described in § 422.62(a)(7) will be
effective the first day of the month
following the month in which the
enrollment in the PDP is made.
47. Amend § 423.44 by revising the
section heading and adding paragraphs
(d)(1)(vi), (d)(1)(vii), and (e) to read as
follows:
§ 423.44 Involuntary disenrollment from
Part D coverage.
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00097
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
71285
(iv) Extension of grace period for good
cause and reinstatement. When an
individual is disenrolled for failure to
pay the plan premium, CMS may
reinstate enrollment in the PDP, without
interruption of coverage, if the
individual shows good cause for failure
to pay within the initial grace period,
and pays all overdue premiums within
3 calendar months after the
disenrollment date. The individual must
establish by a credible statement that
failure to pay premiums within the
initial grace period was due to
circumstances for which the individual
had no control, or which the individual
could not reasonably have been
expected to foresee.
(v) No extension of grace period. A
beneficiary’s enrollment in the PDP may
not be reinstated if the only basis for
such reinstatement is a change in the
individual’s circumstances subsequent
to the involuntary disenrollment for
non-payment of premiums.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Involuntary disenrollment by CMS.
(1) General rule. CMS will disenroll
individuals who fail to pay the Part D
income related monthly adjustment
amount (Part D—IRMAA) specified in
§ 423.286(d)(4) and § 423.293(d) of this
part.
(2) Initial grace period. For all Part
D—IRMAA amounts directly billed to
an enrollee in accordance with
§ 423.293(d)(2), the grace period ends
with the last day of the third month
after the billing month.
(3) Extension of grace period for good
cause and reinstatement. When an
individual is disenrolled for failing to
pay the Part D—IRMAA within the
initial grace period specified in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, CMS (or
an entity acting on behalf of CMS) may
reinstate enrollment in the PDP, without
interruption of coverage, if the
individual shows good cause as
specified in § 423.44(d)(1)(iv), pays all
Part D—income related monthly
adjustment amount arrearages, and any
overdue premiums due the Part D plan
sponsor within three calendar months
after the disenrollment date.
(4) Notice of termination. Where CMS
has disenrolled an individual in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the Part D plan sponsor must
provide notice of termination in a form
and manner determined by CMS.
(5) Effective date of disenrollment.
After a grace period and notice of
termination has been provided in
accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) and
(4) of this section, the effective date of
disenrollment is the first day following
the last day of the initial grace period.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71286
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Subpart C—Benefits and Beneficiary
Protections
48. Amend § 423.100 by:
A. Adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ‘‘Applicable beneficiary,’’
‘‘Applicable drug under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program,’’ and
‘‘Coverage gap.’’
B. Revising ‘‘paragraph (2) of the
definition of Dispensing fees’’ and
paragraph (2)(ii) of the definition of
‘‘incurred costs.’’
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 423.100
Definitions.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
Applicable beneficiary means an
individual who, on the date of
dispensing a covered Part D drug—
(1) Is enrolled in a prescription drug
plan or an MA–PD plan;
(2) Is not enrolled in a qualified
retiree prescription drug plan;
(3) Is not entitled to an income-related
subsidy under section 1860D–14(a) of
the Act;
(4) Has reached or exceeded the initial
coverage limit under section 1860D–
2(b)(3) of the Act during the year; and
(5) Has not incurred costs for covered
part D drugs in the year equal to the
annual out-of-pocket threshold specified
in section 1860D–2(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
(6) Has a claim that—
(i) Straddles the initial coverage
period and the coverage gap;
(ii) Straddles the coverage gap and the
annual out-of-pocket threshold; or
(iii) Spans the coverage gap from the
initial coverage period and exceeds the
annual out-of-pocket threshold.
Applicable drug means a Part D drug
that is—
(1)(i) Approved under a new drug
application under section 505(b) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA), including authorized generics
(as defined in 100.5 of this guidance); or
(ii) In the case of a biological product,
licensed under section 351 of the Public
Health Service Act (other than a product
licensed under subsection (k) of such
section 351); and
(2)(i) If the PDP sponsor of the
prescription drug plan or the MA
organization offering the MA–PD plan
uses a formulary, which is on the
formulary of the prescription drug plan
or MA–PD plan that the applicable
beneficiary is enrolled in;
(ii) If the PDP sponsor of the
prescription drug plan or the MA
organization offering the MA–PD plan
does not use a formulary, for which
benefits are available under the
prescription drug plan or MA–PD plan
that the applicable beneficiary is
enrolled in; or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(iii) Is provided through an exception
or appeal.
*
*
*
*
*
Coverage gap means the period in
prescription drug coverage that occurs
between the initial coverage limit and
the out-of-pocket threshold. For
purposes of applying the initial
coverage limit, Part D sponsors must
apply their plan specific initial coverage
limit under basic alternative or
actuarially equivalent Part D benefit
designs.
*
*
*
*
*
Dispensing fees * * *
(2) Include only pharmacy costs
associated with ensuring that possession
of the appropriate covered Part D drug
is transferred to a Part D enrollee.
Pharmacy costs include, but are not
limited to, any reasonable costs
associated with a pharmacist’s time in
checking the computer for information
about an individual’s coverage,
performing quality assurance activities
consistent with § 423.153(c)(2),
measurement or mixing of the covered
Part D drug, filling the container,
physically providing the completed
prescription to the Part D enrollee,
delivery, special packaging, and salaries
of pharmacists and other pharmacy
workers as well as the costs associated
with maintaining the pharmacy facility
and acquiring and maintaining
technology and equipment necessary to
operate the pharmacy. Dispensing fees
should take into consideration the
number of dispensing events in a billing
cycle, the incremental costs associated
with the type of dispensing
methodology, and with respect to Part D
drugs dispensed in LTC facilities, the
techniques to minimize the dispensing
of unused drugs. Dispensing fees may
also take into account restocking fees
associated with return for credit and
reuse in long-term care pharmacies,
when return for credit and reuse is
permitted under the state in law and is
allowed under the contract between the
Part D sponsor and the pharmacy.
*
*
*
*
*
Incurred costs * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Under a State Pharmaceutical
Assistance Program (as defined in
§ 423.464); by the Indian Health Service
(as defined in section 4 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act), an
Indian tribe or tribal organization, or an
urban Indian organization (referred to as
I/T/U pharmacy in § 423.464) or under
an AIDS Drug Assistance Program (as
defined in part B of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service); or
*
*
*
*
*
49. Amend § 423.104 by:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)
introductory text, and (d)(4).
B. Redesignating paragraph
(d)(5)(iii)(B) as (d)(5)(iii)(F).
C. Adding new paragraphs (d)
(5)(iii)(B) through (d)(5)(iii)(E).
D. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (d)(5)(iii)(F).
E. Adding a new paragraph (d)(5)(v).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 423.104 Requirements related to
qualified prescription drug coverage.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Subject to paragraph (d)(4) of this
section, coinsurance for actual costs for
covered Part D drugs covered under the
Part D plan above the annual deductible
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, and up to the initial coverage
limit under paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, that is—
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) Tiered copayments. A Part D plan
providing actuarially equivalent
standard coverage may apply tiered
copayments, provided that any tiered
copayments are consistent with
paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(B) and (d)(4) of this
section and are approved as described
in § 423.272(b)(2).
(3) Initial coverage limit. Except as
provided in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5)
of this section, the initial coverage limit
is equal to—
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Cost-sharing in the coverage gap.
(i) Coinsurance in the coverage gap (as
defined in § 423.100) for costs for
covered Part D drugs that are not
applicable drugs (as defined in
§ 423.100) under the Medicare coverage
gap discount program that is—
(A) Equal to the generic gap
coinsurance percentage described in
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section; or
(B) Actuarially equivalent to an
average expected coinsurance for
covered Part D drugs that are not
applicable drugs under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program, as
determined through processes and
methods established under § 423.265(c)
and (d).
(ii) Coinsurance in the coverage gap
for the actual cost minus dispensing fee
for covered Part D drugs that are
applicable drugs under the Medicare
coverage gap discount program that is—
(A) Equal to the difference between
the applicable gap coinsurance
percentage described in paragraph
(d)(4)(iv) of this section and the
discount percentage determined under
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the Medicare coverage gap discount
program; or
(B) Actuarially equivalent to an
average expected coinsurance for
covered Part D drugs that are applicable
drugs under the Medicare coverage gap
discount program, as determined
through processes and methods
established under § 423.265(c) and (d).
(iii) Generic gap coinsurance
percentage. The generic gap coinsurance
percentage is equal to—
(A) For 2011, 93 percent.
(B) For years 2012 through 2019, the
amount specified in this paragraph for
the previous year, decreased by 7
percentage points.
(C) For 2020 and each subsequent
year, 25 percent.
(iv) Applicable gap coinsurance
percentage. The applicable gap
coinsurance percentage is equal to—
(A) For 2013 and 2014, 97.5 percent.
(B) For 2015 and 2016, 95 percent.
(C) For 2017, 90 percent.
(D) For 2018, 85 percent.
(E) For 2019, 80 percent.
(F) For 2020 and subsequent years, 75
percent.
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) For each year 2007 through 2013.
The amount specified in this paragraph
for the previous year, increased by the
annual percentage increase specified in
paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, and
rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
(C) For years 2014 and 2015. The
amount specified in this paragraph for
the previous year, increased by the
annual percentage increase specified in
paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section,
minus 0.25 percentage point.
(D) For each year 2016 through 2019.
The amount specified in this paragraph
for the previous year, increased by the
lesser of—
(1) The annual percentage increase
specified in (d)(5)(v) of this section plus
2 percentage points; or
(2) The annual percentage increase
specified in (d)(5)(iv) of this section.
(E) For 2020. The amount specified in
this paragraph for 2013 increased by the
annual percentage increases specified in
paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section for
2014 through 2020, and rounded to the
nearest $50.
(F) For 2021 and subsequent years.
The amount specified in this paragraph
for the previous year, increased by the
annual percentage increase specified in
paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, and
rounded to the nearest $50.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Additional annual percentage
increase. The annual percentage
increase for each year is equal to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
annual percentage increase in the
consumer price index for all urban
consumers (United States city average)
for the 12-month period ending in July
of the previous year.
*
*
*
*
*
50. Section 423.120 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B)
and (b)(3)(iv).
B. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as
follows.
§ 423.120
Access to covered Part D drugs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) In the long-term care setting, the
temporary supply of nonformulary Part
D drugs (including Part D drugs that are
on a sponsor’s formulary but require
prior authorization or step therapy
under a sponsor’s utilization
management rules) must be for up to 91
days in 7-day-or-less supply increments
whenever § 423.154(a) applies and up to
93 days in 31 day supply increments
whenever § 423.154(a) does not apply,
with refills provided, if needed, unless
a lesser amount is actually prescribed by
the prescriber.
(iv) Ensure written notice is provided
to each affected enrollee within 3
business days after adjudication of the
temporary fill. For LTC residents
dispensed multiple supplies of a Part D
drug, in increments of 7 days or less,
consistent with the requirements under
§ 423.154, the written notice must be
provided within 3 business days after
adjudication of the first temporary fill.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Treatment of compounded drug
products. With respect to multiingredient compounds, a Part D sponsor
must—
(1) Make a determination as to
whether the compound is covered under
Part D.
(i) A compound that contains at least
one ingredient covered under Part B is
considered a Part B compound,
regardless of whether other ingredients
in the compound are covered under Part
B.
(ii) Only compounds that contain at
least one ingredient that independently
meets the definition of a Part D drug,
and that do not meet the criteria under
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may be
covered under Part D. For purposes of
this section these compounds are
referred to as Part D compounds.
(iii) For a Part D compound that is
considered to be on-formulary, all
ingredients that independently meet the
definition of a Part D drug must be
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71287
considered on-formulary (even if the
particular Part D drug would be
considered non-formulary if it were
provided separately—that is, not as part
of the Part D compound).
(iv) For a compound that is
considered off-formulary—
(A) Transition rules apply such that
all ingredients in the Part D compound
that independently meet the definition
of a Part D drug must become payable
in the event of a transition fill under
§ 423.120(b)(3); and
(B) All ingredients that independently
meet the definition of a Part D drug
must be covered if an exception under
§ 423.578(b) is approved for coverage of
the compound.
(2) Establish consistent rules for
beneficiary payment liabilities for both
ingredients of the Part D compound that
independently meet the definition of a
Part D drug and non-Part D ingredients.
(i) For ingredients of the Part D
compound that independently meet the
definition of a Part D drug, the
copayment amount submitted and
approved under § 423.104(d) must equal
the copayment for the tier of the most
expensive of such ingredients, except in
the case of low income subsidy
beneficiaries where the copayment
amount is based on whether the most
expensive ingredient that independently
meets the definition of a Part D drug in
the Part D compound is a generic or
brand drug (as described under
§ 423.782).
(ii) For ingredients of the Part D
compound that independently meet the
definition of a Part D drug, the
coinsurance submitted and approved
under § 423.104(d) must be applied to
the cost of all such ingredients, except
in the case of full subsidy eligible
individuals (as defined in § 423.783(b))
where the copayment amount is based
on whether the most expensive
ingredient that independently meets the
definition of a Part D drug in the Part
D compound is a generic or brand drug
(as described under § 423.782).
(iii) For any non-Part D ingredient of
the Part D compound (including drugs
described under § 423.104(f)(1)(ii)(A)),
the Part D sponsor may either contract
with the pharmacy to—
(A) Make payment without charging
the beneficiary for these amounts or
reporting these costs to CMS;
(B) Deny payment, but allow the
pharmacy to balance bill the beneficiary
for the cost of these ingredients; or
(C) Deny payment and prohibit the
pharmacy to balance bill the beneficiary
for the cost of these ingredients.
51. Amend § 423.128 by:
A. Revising paragraph (b)(7).
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71288
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 423.150
B. Adding new paragraphs (b)(11),
(d)(1)(iii), and (d)(1)(iv).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 423.128 Dissemination of Part D plan
information.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Grievance, coverage
determination, and appeal procedures.
All grievance, coverage determination,
and appeal rights and procedures
required under § 423.562 et seq.,
including—
(i) Access to a standard form used to
request a coverage determination under
§ 423.568 or § 423.570, and a standard
form used to request a redetermination
under § 423.582 or § 423.584, to the
extent such standard coverage
determination and redetermination
request forms have been approved for
use by CMS;
(ii) Immediate access to the coverage
determination and redetermination
processes via an Internet Web site; and
(iii) A system that transmits codes to
network pharmacies so that the network
pharmacy is notified to populate and/or
provide a printed notice at the point-ofsale to an enrollee explaining how the
enrollee can request a coverage
determination by contacting the plan
sponsor’s toll free customer service line
or by accessing the plan sponsor’s
internet Web site.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Customized out-of-pocket cost
statement. CMS may require a Part D
sponsor to annually disclose to each
enrollee a customized statement of the
beneficiary’s potential future out-ofpocket costs. This notice will be
provided in each year in which a
minimum enrollment period has been
met, in conjunction with the annual
plan description described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Provides interpreters for all nonEnglish speaking and limited English
proficient (LEP) individuals.
(iv) Provides immediate access to the
coverage determination and
redetermination processes.
*
*
*
*
*
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
Subpart D—Cost Control and Quality
Improvement Requirements
52. Amend § 423.150 by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (g) as paragraphs (c) through
(h).
B. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Scope.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Appropriate dispensing of
outpatient prescription drugs in longterm care facilities under PDPs and
MA–PD plans.
*
*
*
*
*
53. Amending § 423.153 by:
A. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(vii)(B).
B. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(vii)(D).
C. Redesignating paragraph (d)(5) as
(d)(7).
D. Adding a new paragraph (d)(5).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 423.153 Drug utilization management,
quality assurance, and medication therapy
management programs (MTMPs).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) * * *
(B) Annual comprehensive
medication reviews with written
summaries. The comprehensive
medication review must include an
interactive, person-to-person, or
telehealth consultation performed by a
pharmacist or other qualified provider
unless the beneficiary is in a long-term
care setting and may result in a
recommended medication action plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(D) Standardized action plans and
summaries that comply with
requirements as specified by CMS for
the standardized format.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Coordination with long term care
consultant pharmacist monitoring. Part
D sponsors must contract with all long
term care facilities in which their Part
D enrollees reside to provide
appropriate MTM services in
coordination with consultant
pharmacist evaluation and monitoring.
*
*
*
*
*
54. Add § 423.154 to read as follows:
§ 423.154 Appropriate dispensing of
prescription drugs in long-term care
facilities under PDPs and MA–PD plans.
(a) In general. Except as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section,
when dispensing covered Part D drugs
to enrollees who reside in long-term
care facilities, a Part D sponsor must—
(1) Require all pharmacies servicing
long-term care facilities as defined in
§ 423.100 to—
(i) Dispense brand-name medications,
as defined in § 423.4, to enrollees in
such facilities in no greater than 7-day
increments at a time;
(ii) Permit the use of uniform
dispensing techniques for Part D drugs
dispensed to enrollees in long-term care
facilities under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section as defined by each of the longterm care facilities in which such
enrollees reside; and
(2) Collect and report information, in
a form and manner specified by CMS,
on the dispensing methodology used for
each dispensing event described by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and on
the nature and quantity of unused drugs
returned to the pharmacy as required
under paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) Exclusions. CMS excludes from
the requirements under paragraph (a) of
this section:
(1) Drugs difficult to dispense in
supply increments of 7-day or less, such
as drugs that must be dispensed in the
original packaging including, but not
limited to eye drops, nasal sprays,
inhalational products, ear drops,
reconstituted antibiotics and, in general,
drugs with a parenteral route of
administration, and topical
preparations; or
(2) Drugs dispensed for acute illnesses
including, but not limited to a 10- or
14-day course of antibiotics.
(c) Waivers. CMS waives the
requirements under paragraph (a) of this
section for pharmacies when they
service intermediate care facilities for
the mental retarded and
developmentally disabled (ICFMRDD)
and institutes for mental disease (IMDs)
as defined in § 435.1010.
(d) Effective date. Except as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, the
effective date for this section is January
1, 2012. Nothing precludes a Part D
sponsor and network long-term care
pharmacy from mutually agreeing to an
earlier implementation date.
(e) Extension. A Part D sponsor may
allow an independent community
pharmacy that also contracts as a longterm care pharmacy to dispense up to a
14-day supply through December 31,
2012 if the following conditions are met:
(1) The independent community
pharmacy is the primary provider of
Part D drugs to one or more long-term
care facilities with less than 80 beds;
and
(2) The independent community
pharmacy in its capacity as a long-term
care pharmacy primarily services longterm care facilities in rural areas as
defined by the Bureau of the Census.
(f) Unused drugs returned to the
pharmacy. A Part D sponsor must
include terms in its long-term care
pharmacy contracts that—
(1) Require any unused drugs
originally dispensed to its enrollees to
be returned to the pharmacy and
reported to the sponsor.
(2) Address contractual obligations for
disposal in accordance with Federal and
State regulations, as well as whether
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
return for credit and reuse is authorized
where permitted under State law.
Subpart F—Submission of Bids and
Monthly Beneficiary Premiums; Plan
Approval
55. Amend § 423.265 by adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 423.265 Submission of bids and related
information.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) CMS may decline to accept any or
every bid submitted by a Part D sponsor
or potential Part D sponsor.
*
*
*
*
*
56. Amend § 423.272 by adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 423.272 Review and negotiation of bid
and approval of plans submitted by
potential Part D sponsors.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) CMS may decline to approve a bid
if the Part D sponsor proposes
significant increases in cost sharing or
decreases in benefits offered under the
plan.
*
*
*
*
*
57. Amend § 423.286 by:
A. Revising paragraph (a).
B. Adding paragraph (d)(4).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 423.286
Rules regarding premiums.
(a) General rule. Except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) of this
section, and with regard to employer
group waivers, the monthly beneficiary
premium for a Part D plan in a PDP
region is the same for all Part D eligible
individuals enrolled in the plan. The
monthly beneficiary premium for a Part
D plan is the base beneficiary premium,
as determined in paragraph (c) of this
section, adjusted as described in
paragraph (d) of this section for the
difference between the bid and the
national average monthly bid amount,
any supplemental benefits and for any
late enrollment penalties.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) Increase for income-related
monthly adjustment amount (Part D—
IRMAA). Beginning January 1, 2011,
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a
Medicare prescription drug plan must
pay an income-related monthly
adjustment amount in addition to the
Part D premium as determined under
paragraph (c) of this section and
adjusted under paragraph (d) of this
section, if the enrollee’s modified
adjusted gross income exceeds the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
threshold amounts specified in 20 CFR
418.1115.
(i) Social Security Administration
determination. (A) SSA determines
which Part D enrollees are subject to the
Part D—IRMAA and the amount each
enrollee will have to pay.
(B) If an individual disagrees with
SSA’s determination that such
individual is subject to the Part D—
IRMAA, or about the amount the
individual must pay, an individual may
file an appeal or request a new initial
determination consistent with 20 CFR
part 418.
(ii) Calculating the income-related
monthly adjustment amount. The
income related monthly adjustment is
equal to the product of the quotient
obtained by dividing the applicable
premium percentage specified in
§ 418.1120 (35, 50, 65, or 80 percent)
that is based on the level of the Part D
enrollee’s modified adjusted gross
income for the calendar year reduced by
25.5 percent; by 25.5 percent; and the
base beneficiary premium as determined
under paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
58. Amend § 423.293 by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and
(e) as (e) and (f), respectively.
B. Adding new paragraph (d).
§ 423.293 Collection of monthly
beneficiary premium.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Collection of the income related
monthly adjustment amount (Part D—
IRMAA). (1) Collection through
withholding. Where the Social Security
Administration has determined the
income-related monthly adjustment
amount for an individual whose income
exceeds the income threshold amounts
specified at 20 CFR 418.1115, the Part
D—IRMAA must be paid through
withholding from the enrollee’s Social
Security benefit payments, or benefit
payments by the Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) or the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) in the manner that
the Part B premium is withheld.
(2) Collection through direct billing. In
cases where an enrollee’s benefit
payment check is not sufficient to have
the Part D—IRMAA withheld, or if an
enrollee is not receiving such benefits,
the beneficiary must be billed directly
for the Part D—IRMAA. The beneficiary
will have the option of paying the
amount through an electronic funds
transfer mechanism (such as automatic
charges of an account at a financial
institution or a credit or debit card
account) or according to other means
that CMS may specify.
(3) Failure to pay the income-related
monthly adjustment amount: General
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71289
rule. CMS will terminate Part D
coverage for any individual who fails to
pay the Part D—IRMAA as determined
by the Social Security Administration.
CMS will terminate an enrollee’s Part D
coverage as specified in § 423.44(e).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—Coordination Under Part D
Plan With Other Prescription Drug
Coverage
59. Amend § 423.464 by revising
paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:
§ 423.464 Coordination of benefits with
other providers of prescription drug
coverage.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) Treatment under out-of-pocket
rule. (i) For purposes of determining
whether a Part D plan enrollee has
satisfied the out-of-pocket threshold
provided under § 423.104(d)(5)(iii), a
Part D plan must—
(A) Include the enrollee’s incurred
costs (as defined in § 423.100); and
(B) Exclude expenditures for covered
Part D drugs made by insurance or
otherwise, a group health plan, or other
third party payment arrangements,
including expenditures by plans
offering other prescription drug
coverage. Excluded expenditures do not
include payments made by the Indian
Health Service (as defined in section 4
of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act), an Indian tribe or tribal
organization, or an urban Indian
organization (referred to as I/T/U
pharmacy in § 423.464) or an AIDS Drug
Assistance Program (as defined in part
B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service).
(ii) A Part D enrollee must disclose all
these expenditures to a Part D plan in
accordance with requirements under
§ 423.32(b)(ii).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart K—Application Procedures
and Contracts With PDP Sponsors
60. Amend § 423.503 by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (b)(1).
B. Adding paragraph (b)(2).
C. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 423.503 Evaluation and determination
procedures for applications to be
determined qualified to act as a sponsor.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) In the absence of 14 months of
performance history, CMS may deny an
application based on a lack of
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71290
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
information available to determine an
applicant’s capacity to comply with the
requirements of the Part D program.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If CMS finds that the applicant
does not appear qualified to contract as
a Part D sponsor, it gives the applicant
notice of intent to deny the application
and a summary of the basis for this
preliminary finding.
*
*
*
*
*
61. Amend § 423.504 as follows:
A. Redesignating paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1) as paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(i).
B. Adding paragraph
(b)(4)(vi)(B)(1)(ii).
The revisions read as follows.
§ 423.504
General provisions.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) * * *
(ii) Beginning in 2013, the compliance
officer will complete annual Part D
compliance training offered by an entity
with expertise in Part D. New applicants
must complete training by the last
Friday in August prior to the start of the
contract year.
*
*
*
*
*
62. Amend § 423.505 by adding
paragraphs (b)(22) and (23) to read as
follows:
§ 423.505
Contract provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(22) Address complaints received by
CMS against the Part D sponsor by—
(i) Addressing and resolving
complaints in the CMS complaint
tracking system.
(ii) Displaying a link to the electronic
complaint form on the Medicare.gov
Internet Web site on the Part D plan’s
main Web page.
(23) Maintain a fiscally sound
operation by at least maintaining a
positive net worth (total assets exceed
total liabilities).
*
*
*
*
*
63. Amend § 423.507(a) by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as
paragraph (a)(5).
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to
read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 423.507
Nonrenewal of contract.
(a) * * *
(4) During the same 2-year period
specified under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, CMS will not contract with an
organization whose covered persons
also served as covered persons for the
non-renewing sponsor. A ‘‘covered
person’’ as used in this paragraph means
one of the following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(i) All owners of nonrenewed or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(A) Have an ownership interest of less
than 5 percent; and
(B) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(ii) An owner of a whole or part
interest in a mortgage, deed of trust,
note or other obligation secured (in
whole or in part) by the organization, or
by any of the property or assets thereof,
which whole or part interest is equal to
or exceeds 5 percent of the total
property and assets of the organization.
(iii) An officer or member of the board
of directors or board of trustees of the
entity, if the organization is organized as
a corporation;
*
*
*
*
*
64. Amend § 423.508 by adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 423.508 Modification or termination of
contract by mutual consent.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Prohibition against Part D program
participation by organizations whose
owners, directors, or management
employees served in a similar capacity
with another organization that mutually
terminated its Medicare contract within
the previous 2 years. During the 2-year
period specified in paragraph (e) of this
section, CMS will not contract with an
organization whose covered persons
also served as covered persons for the
mutually terminating sponsor. A
‘‘covered person’’ as used in this
paragraph means one of the following:
(1) All owners of nonrenewed or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(i) Have an ownership interest of less
than 5 percent; and
(ii) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(2) An owner of a whole or part
interest in a mortgage, deed of trust,
note or other obligation secured (in
whole or in part) by the organization, or
any of the property or assets thereof,
which whole or part interest is equal to
or exceeds 5 percent of the total
property, and assets of the organization.
(3) An officer or member of the board
of directors or board of trustees of the
entity, if the organization is organized as
a corporation;
65. Amend § 423.509 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 423.509
Termination of contract by CMS.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Timely transfer of data and files.
If a contract is terminated under
paragraph (a) of this section, the Part D
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plan sponsor must ensure the timely
transfer of any data or files.
66. Amend § 423.510 by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (e) as
(e)(1).
B. Adding paragraph (e)(2).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 423.510 Termination of contract by Part
D sponsor.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) During the same 2-year period
specified in (e)(1) of this section, CMS
will not contract with an organization
whose covered persons also served as
covered persons for the terminating
sponsor. A ‘‘covered person’’ as used in
this paragraph means one of the
following:
(i) All owners of nonrenewed or
terminated organizations who are
natural persons, other than shareholders
who—
(A) Have an ownership interest of less
than 5 percent; and
(B) Acquired the ownership through
public trading.
(ii) An owner of a whole or part
interest in a mortgage, deed of trust,
note or other obligation secured (in
whole or in part) by the organization, or
any of the property or assets thereof,
which whole or part interest is equal to
or exceeds 5 percent of the total
property, and assets of the organization.
(iii) An officer or member of the board
of directors or board of trustees of the
entity, if the organization is organized as
a corporation.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart M—Grievances, Coverage
Determinations, and Appeals
67. Amend § 423.562 by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)
and (iii) as paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv),
respectively.
B. Adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
C. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
D. Adding a new paragraph (a)(5).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 423.562
General provisions.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Use a single, uniform exceptions
and appeals process which includes,
procedures for accepting oral and
written requests for coverage
determinations and redeterminations
that are in accordance with § 423.128
(b)(7) and (d)(1)(iii).
*
*
*
*
*
(3) A Part D plan sponsor must
arrange with its network pharmacies to
distribute notices instructing enrollees
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
how to contact their plans to obtain a
coverage determination or request an
exception if they disagree with the
information provided by the pharmacist.
These notices must comply with the
standards established in
§ 423.128(b)(7)(iii).
*
*
*
*
*
(5) A Part D plan sponsor must
employ a Medical Director who is
responsible for ensuring the clinical
accuracy of all coverage determinations
and redeterminations involving medical
necessity. The Medical Director must be
a physician with a current and
unrestricted license to practice
medicine in a State, Territory,
Commonwealth of the United States
(that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of
Columbia.
*
*
*
*
*
68. Amend § 423.566 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 423.566
Coverage determinations.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Who must review coverage
determinations. When the issue
involves medical necessity (or any
substantively equivalent term used to
describe the concept of medical
necessity), the coverage determination
must be reviewed by a physician or
other appropriate health care
professional with sufficient medical and
other expertise, including knowledge of
the Medicare program. The physician or
other health care professional must have
a current and unrestricted license to
practice within the scope of his or her
profession in a State, Territory,
Commonwealth of the United States
(that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of
Columbia.
69. Amend § 423.568 by revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 423.568 Standard timeframe and notice
requirements for coverage determinations.
*
*
*
*
(f) Written notice for denials by a Part
D plan sponsor. If a Part D plan sponsor
decides to deny a drug benefit, in whole
or in part, it must give the enrollee
written notice of the determination. The
initial notice may be provided orally, so
long as a written follow-up notice is
mailed to the enrollee within 3 calendar
days of the oral notification.
*
*
*
*
*
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
Subpart P—Premium and Cost-Sharing
Subsidies for Low-Income Individuals
70. Section 423.772 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order the
definition of ‘‘Individual receiving home
and community-based services’’ to read
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 423.772
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Individual receiving home and
community-based services means a fullbenefit dual-eligible individual who is
receiving services under a home and
community-based program authorized
for a State in accordance with one of the
following:
(1) Section 1115 of the Act.
(2) Section 1915(c) or (d) of the Act.
(3) State plan amendment under
section 1915(i) of the Act.
(4) Services are provided through
enrollment in a Medicaid managed care
organization with a contract under
section 1903(m) of the Act or section
1932 of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
71. Amend § 423.780 by:
A. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C).
B. Adding paragraph (f).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 423.780
Premium subsidy.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The MA monthly prescription
drug beneficiary premium (as defined
under section 1854(b)(2)(B) of the Act)
for a MA–PD plan and determined
before the application of the monthly
rebate computed under section
1854(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act for that plan
and year involved.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Waiver of de minimis premium
amounts. CMS will permit a Part D plan
to waive a de minimis amount that is
above the monthly beneficiary premium
defined in § 423.780(b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B)
for full subsidy individuals as defined
in § 423.780(a) or § 423.780(d)(1),
provided waiving the de minimis
amount results in a monthly beneficiary
premium that is equal to the established
low income benchmark as defined in
§ 423.780(b)(2).
72. Amend § 423.782 by revising
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 423.782
Cost-sharing subsidy.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Full-benefit dual-eligible
individuals who are institutionalized or
who are receiving home and
community-based services have no costsharing for Part D drugs covered under
their PDP or MA–PD plans.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71291
Subpart R—Payments to Sponsors of
Retiree Prescription Drug Plans
73. Amend § 423.884 by revising
paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), and
(d)(5)(iii)(C) to read as follows:
§ 423.884 Requirements for qualified
retiree prescription drug plans.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Actuarial attestation-general. The
sponsor of the plan must provide to
CMS an attestation in a form and
manner specified by CMS that the
actuarial value of the retiree
prescription drug coverage under the
plan is at least equal to the actuarial
value of the defined standard
prescription coverage (as defined at
§ 423.100), not taking into account the
value of any discount or coverage
provided during the coverage gap (as
defined at § 423.100). The attestation
must meet all of the following
standards:
(1) * * *
(i) The actuarial gross value of the
retiree prescription drug coverage under
the plan for the plan year is at least
equal to the actuarial gross value of the
defined standard prescription drug
coverage under Part D for the plan year
in question, not taking into account the
value of any discount or coverage
provided during the coverage gap.
(ii) The actuarial net value of the
retiree prescription drug coverage under
the plan for that plan year is at least
equal to the actuarial net value of the
defined standard prescription drug
coverage under Part D for that plan year
in question, not taking into account the
value of any discount or coverage
provided during the coverage gap.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) The valuation of defined standard
prescription drug coverage for a given
plan year is based on the initial
coverage limit cost-sharing and out-ofpocket threshold for defined standard
prescription drug coverage under Part D
in effect at the start of such plan year,
not taking into account the value of any
discount or coverage provided during
the coverage gap.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart V—Part D Marketing
Requirements
74. Amend § 423.2264 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 423.2264
Guidelines for CMS review.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For markets with a significant nonEnglish speaking population, provide
materials in the language of these
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71292
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
individuals. Specifically, Part D plan
sponsors must provide translated
marketing materials in any language that
is spoken by more than 10 percent of the
general population in a plan benefit
package (PBP) service area.
75. Amend § 423.2272 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 423.2272 Licensing of marketing
representatives and confirmation of
marketing resources.
*
*
*
*
(e) Terminate upon discovery any
unlicensed agent or broker employed as
a marketing representative and notify
any beneficiaries enrolled by the
unlicensed agent or broker of the agent’s
or broker’s unlicensed status and of
their options to confirm enrollment or
make a plan change (including a special
election period, as described in
§ 423.38(c)(8)(i)(C)).
76. Amend § 423.2274 by revising the
introductory text and paragraphs (b) and
(c) to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 423.2274
Broker and agent requirements.
For purposes of this section
‘‘compensation’’ includes pecuniary or
nonpecuniary remuneration of any kind
relating to the sale or renewal of a
policy including, but not limited to,
commissions, bonuses, gifts, prizes,
awards, and finder’s fees.
‘‘Compensation’’ does not include the
payment of fees to comply with State
appointment laws, training,
certification, and testing costs;
reimbursement for mileage to, and from,
appointments with beneficiaries; or
reimbursement for actual costs
associated with beneficiary sales
appointments such as venue rent,
snacks, and materials. If a Part D
sponsor markets through independent
(that is, non-employee) brokers or
agents, the requirements in paragraph
(a) of this section must be met. The
requirements in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section must be met if a Part
D sponsor markets through any broker
or agent, whether independent (that is,
non-employee) or employed.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
(b) It must ensure that all agents
selling Medicare products are trained
annually, through a CMS endorsed or
approved training program or as
specified by CMS, on Medicare rules
and regulations specific to the plan
products they intend to sell.
(c) It must ensure agents selling
Medicare products are tested annually
by CMS endorsed or approved training
program or as specified by CMS.
*
*
*
*
*
Authority: (Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—
Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program).
Dated: July 29, 2010.
Donald M. Berwick,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Approved: November 9, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–28774 Filed 11–10–10; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71190-71292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28774]
[[Page 71189]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423
Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2012 and
Other Proposed Changes; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71190]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423
[CMS-4144-P]
RIN 0938-AQ00
Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the Medicare Advantage and
the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2012
and Other Proposed Changes
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing revisions to the Medicare Advantage (MA)
program (Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D) to
implement provisions specified in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act) (ACA) and make
other changes to the regulations based on our continued experience in
the administration of the Part C and D programs. These latter proposed
revisions would clarify various program participation requirements;
make changes to strengthen beneficiary protections; strengthen our
ability to identify strong applicants for Parts C and D program
participation and remove consistently poor performers; and make other
clarifications and technical changes.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time (EST) on January 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-4144-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four
ways (no duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific
issues in this regulation to https://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click
on the link ``Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an
open comment period.'' (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word,
WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and
two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS-4144-P, 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 (one
original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services,
Attention: CMS-4144-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the
close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you
intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call
telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival
with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building,
200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily
available to persons without Federal Government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is
available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping
in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
Submission of comments on paperwork requirements. You may submit
comments on this document's paperwork requirements by mailing your
comments to the addresses provided at the end of the ``Collection of
Information Requirements'' section in this document.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Duran, (410) 786-8697 and Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786-7499,
General information.
Christopher McClintick, (410) 786-4682, Part C issues.
Deborah Larwood, (410) 786-9500, Part D issues.
Kristy Nishimoto, (410) 786-8517, Part C and D enrollment and appeals
issues.
Deondra Moseley, (410) 786-4577, Part C payment issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments: We welcome comments
from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in
fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by
referencing the file code CMS-4144-P.
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 at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click on the link ``Electronic Comments on
CMS Regulations'' on that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will also be available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Overview of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003
B. History and Overview
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
A. Overview of the Proposed Changes
B. Changes To Implement the Provisions of the Affordable Care
Act of 2010
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (Sec. 417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
2. Simplification of Beneficiary Election Periods (Sec. 422.62,
Sec. 422.68, Sec. 423.38, and Sec. 423.40)
3. Special Needs Plan (SNP) Provisions (Sec. 422.2, Sec.
422.4, Sec. 422.101, Sec. 422.107, and Sec. 422.152)
a. Adding a Definition of Fully Integrated Dual Eligible SNP
(Sec. 422.2)
b. Extending SNP Authority
c. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With State Medicaid Agencies
(Sec. 422.107)
d. Approval of Special Needs Plans by the National Committee for
Quality Assurance (Sec. 422.4, Sec. 422.101, and Sec. 422.152)
4. Section 1876 Cost Contractor Competition Requirements (Sec.
417.402)
5. Making Senior Housing Facility Demonstration Plans Permanent
(Sec. 422.2 and Sec. 422.53)
6. Authority To Deny Bids (Sec. 422.254, Sec. 422.256, Sec.
423.265, and Sec. 423.272)
[[Page 71191]]
7. Determination of Part D Low-Income Benchmark Premium (Sec.
423.780)
8. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for Subsidy Eligible Individuals
(Sec. 423.34 and Sec. 423.780)
a. Reassigning LIS Individuals (Sec. 423.34)
b. Enrollment of LIS-Eligible Individuals (Sec. 423.34)
c. Premium Subsidy (Sec. 423.780)
9. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D--IRMAA) (Sec. 423.44, Sec. 423.286, and Sec.
423.293)
a. Rules Regarding Premiums (Sec. 423.286)
b. Collection of Monthly Beneficiary Premium (Sec. 423.293)
c. Involuntary Disenrollment by CMS (Sec. 423.44)
10. Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost-Sharing for Individuals
Receiving Home and Community-Based Services (Sec. 423.772 and Sec.
423.782)
11. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription Drugs in Long-Term
Care Facilities Under PDPs and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.154)
12. Complaint System for Medicare Advantage Organizations and
PDPs (Sec. 422.504 and Sec. 423.505)
13. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals Process for Prescription Drug
Plans and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.128 and Sec. 423.562)
14. Including Costs Incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
and the Indian Health Service Toward the Annual Part D Out-of-Pocket
Threshold (Sec. 423.100 and Sec. 423.464)
15. Cost Sharing for Medicare-Covered Preventive Services (Sec.
417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
16. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund (Sec. 422.458)
17. Improvements to Medication Therapy Management Programs
(Sec. 423.153)
18. Changes To Close the Part D Coverage Gap (Sec. 423.104 and
Sec. 423.884)
19. Payments to Medicare Advantage Organizations (Sec. 422.308)
a. Authority To Apply Frailty Adjustment Under PACE Payment
Rules for Certain Specialized MA Plans for Special Needs Individuals
(Sec. 422.308)
b. Application of Coding Adjustment (Sec. 422.308)
c. Improvements to Risk Adjustment for Special Needs Individuals
With Chronic Health Conditions (Sec. 422.308)
20. Medicare Advantage Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments, and
Rebate (Sec. 422.252, Sec. 422.258, and Sec. 422.266)
a. Terminology (Sec. 422.252)
b. Calculation of Benchmarks (Sec. 422.258)
c. Increases to the Applicable Percentage for Quality (Sec.
422.258(d))
d. Beneficiary Rebates (Sec. 422.266)
21. Quality Bonus Payment and Rebate Retention Appeals (Sec.
422.260)
C. Clarify Various Program Participation Requirements
1. Clarify Payment Rules for Non-Contract Providers (Sec.
422.214)
2. Pharmacist Definition (Sec. 423.4)
3. Prohibition on Part C and D Program Participation by
Organizations Whose Owners, Directors, or Management Employees
Served in a Similar Capacity With Another Organization That
Terminated Its Medicare Contract Within the Previous 2 Years (Sec.
422.506, Sec. 422.508, Sec. 422.512, Sec. 423.508, Sec. 423.507,
and Sec. 423.510)
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When CMS Terminates a
Contract With a Part D Sponsor (Sec. 423.509)
5. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the Employment of a Medical Director
(Sec. 422.562, Sec. 422.566, Sec. 423.562, and Sec. 423.566)
6. Compliance Officer Training (Sec. 422.503 and Sec. 423.504)
7. Removing Quality Improvement Projects and Chronic Care
Improvement Programs From CMS Deeming Process (Sec. 422.156)
8. Definitions of Employment-Based Retiree Health Coverage and
Group Health Plan for MA Employer/Union-Only Group Waiver Plans
(Sec. 422.106)
D. Strengthening Beneficiary Protections
1. Agent and Broker Training Requirements (Sec. 422.2274 and
Sec. 423.2274)
a. CMS-Approved or Endorsed Agent and Broker Training and
Testing (Sec. 422.2274 and Sec. 423.2274)
b. Extending Annual Training Requirements to All Agents and
Brokers (Sec. 422.2274 and Sec. 423.2274)
2. Call Center and Internet Web Site Requirements (Sec. 422.111
and Sec. 423.128)
a. Extension of Customer Call Center and Internet Web site
Requirements to MA Organizations (Sec. 422.111)
b. Call Center Interpreter Requirements (Sec. 422.111 and Sec.
423.128)
3. Require Plan Sponsors To Contact Beneficiaries To Explain
Enrollment by an Unqualified Agent/Broker (Sec. 422.2272 and Sec.
423.2272)
4. Customized Enrollee Data (Sec. 422.111 and Sec. 423.128)
5. Extending the Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs (Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 422.101)
6. Prohibition on Use of Tiered Cost Sharing by MA Organizations
(Sec. 422.262)
7. Delivery of Adverse Coverage Determinations (Sec. 423.568)
8. Extension of Grace Period for Good Cause and Reinstatement
(Sec. 422.74 and Sec. 423.44)
9. Translated Marketing Materials (Sec. 422.2264 and Sec.
423.2264)
E. Strengthening Our Ability To Distinguish for Approval
Stronger Applicants for Part C and Part D Program Participation and
To Remove Consistently Poor Performers
1. Expand Network Adequacy Requirements to Additional MA Plan
Types (Sec. 422.112)
2. Maintaining a Fiscally Sound Operation (Sec. 422.2, Sec.
422.504, Sec. 423.4, and Sec. 423.505)
3. Release of Part C and Part D Payment Data
4. Required Use of Electronic Transaction Standards for Multi-
Ingredient Drug Compounds; Payment for Multi-Ingredient Drug
Compounds (Sec. 423.120)
5. Denial of Applications Submitted by Part C and D Sponsors
With Less Than 14 Months Experience Operating Their Medicare
Contracts (Sec. 422.502 and Sec. 423.503)
F. Other Clarifications and Technical Changes
1. Clarification of the Expiration of the Authority To Waive the
State Licensure Requirement for Provider-Sponsored Organizations
(Sec. 422.4)
2. Cost Plan Enrollment Mechanisms (Sec. 417.430)
3. Fast-Track Appeals of Service Terminations to Independent
Review Entities (IREs) (Sec. 422.626)
4. Part D Transition Requirements (Sec. 423.120)
5. Revision to Limitation on Charges to Enrollees for Emergency
Department Services (Sec. 422.113)
6. Clarify Language Related to Submission of a Valid Application
(Sec. 422.502 and Sec. 423.503)
7. Modifying the Definition of Dispensing Fees (Sec. 423.100)
III. Collection of Information Requirements
A. ICRs Regarding Cost Sharing for Specified Services at
Original Medicare Levels (Sec. 417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
B. ICRs Regarding SNP Provisions (Sec. 422.101, Sec. 422.107,
and Sec. 422.152)
1. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With State Medicaid Agencies
(Sec. 422.107)
2. ICRs Regarding NCQA Approval of SNPs (Sec. 422.101 and Sec.
422.152)
C. ICRs Regarding Voluntary De Minimis Policy for Subsidy
Eligible Individuals (Sec. 423.34 and Sec. 423.780)
D. ICRs Regarding Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the Income
Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (D--IRMAA) (Sec. 423.44)
E. ICRs Regarding Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost Sharing
for Individuals Receiving Home and Community-Based Services (Sec.
423.772 and Sec. 423.782)
F. ICRs Regarding Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription Drugs
in Long-Term Care Facilities Under PDPs and MA-PD plans (Sec.
423.154) and Dispensing Fees (Sec. 423.100)
G. ICRs Regarding Complaint System for Medicare Advantage
Organizations and PDPs (Sec. 422.504 and Sec. 423.505)
H. ICRs Regarding Uniform Exceptions and Appeals Process for
Prescription Drug Plans and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.128(b)(7)(i),
Sec. 423.128(d), and Sec. 423.562(a)(3))
I. ICRs Regarding Including Costs Incurred by AIDS Drug
Assistance Programs and the Indian Health Service Toward the Annual
Part D Out-of-Pocket Threshold (Sec. 423.100 and Sec. 423.464)
J. ICRs Regarding Improvements to Medication Therapy Management
Programs (Sec. 423.153(vii))
K. ICRs Regarding Changes To Close the Part D Coverage Gap
(Sec. 423.104 and Sec. 423.884)
L. ICRs Regarding Medicare Advantage Benchmark, Quality Bonus
Payments, and Rebate (Sec. 422.252, Sec. 422.258 and Sec.
422.266)
M. ICRs Regarding Quality Bonus Appeals (Sec. 422.260)
N. ICRs Regarding Timely Transfer of Data and Files When CMS
Terminates a
[[Page 71192]]
Contract With a Part D Sponsor (Sec. 423.509)
O. ICRs Regarding Compliance Officer Training (Sec. 422.503 and
Sec. 423.504)
P. ICRs Regarding Agent and Broker Training Requirements (Sec.
422.2274 and Sec. 423.2274)
Q. ICRs Regarding Call Center and Internet Web Site Requirements
(Sec. 422.111 and Sec. 423.128)
R. ICRs Regarding Requiring Plan Sponsors To Contact
Beneficiaries To Explain Enrollment by an Unqualified Agent/Broker
(Sec. 422.2272 and Sec. 423.2272)
S. ICRs Regarding Customized Enrollee Data (Sec. 422.111 and
Sec. 423.128)
T. ICRs Regarding Extending the Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket
(MOOP) Amount Requirements to Regional PPOs (Sec. 422.100(f) and
Sec. 422.101(d))
U. ICRs Regarding Prohibition on Use of Tiered Cost Sharing by
MA Organizations (Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 422.262)
V. ICRs Regarding Translated Marketing Materials (Sec. 422.2264
and Sec. 423.2264)
W. ICRs Regarding Expanding Network Adequacy Requirements to
Additional MA Plan Types (Sec. 422.112)
X. ICRs Regarding Maintaining a Fiscally Sound Operation (Sec.
422.2, Sec. 422.504, Sec. 423.4, and Sec. 423.505)
Y. ICRs Regarding Release of Part C and Part D Payment Data
Z. ICRs Regarding Revision to Limitation on Charges to Enrollees
for Emergency Department Services (Sec. 422.113)
IV. Response to Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
B. Costs, Savings, and Anticipated Effects Associated With This
Proposed Rule
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (Sec. 417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
2. Approval of Special Needs Plans (SNPs) by National Committee
for Quality Assurance (NCQA) (Sec. 422.4, Sec. 422.101, and Sec.
422.152)
3. Determination of Part D Low-Income Benchmark Premium (Sec.
423.780)
4. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for Subsidy Eligible Individuals
(Sec. 423.34 and Sec. 423.780)
5. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the Income-Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D--IRMAA) (Sec. 423.44)
6. Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost Sharing for Individuals
Receiving Home and Community-Based Services (Sec. 423.772 and Sec.
423.782)
7. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription Drugs in Long-Term
Care Facilities Under PDPs and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.154) and
Dispensing Fees (Sec. 423.100)
8. Complaint System for Medicare Advantage Organizations and
PDPs (Sec. 422.504 and Sec. 423.505)
9. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals Process for Prescription Drug
Plans and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.128 and Sec. 423.562)
10. Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS Drug Assistance Program
(ADAP) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) Toward the Annual Part D
Out-of-Pocket Threshold (Sec. 423.100 and Sec. 423.464)
11. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered Preventive Services (Sec.
417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
12. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund (Sec. 422.458)
13. Improvements to Medication Therapy Management Programs
(Sec. 423.153)
14. Changes To Close the Part D Coverage Gap (Sec. 423.104 and
Sec. 423.884)
15. Medicare Advantage Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments, and
Rebate and Application of Coding Adjustment (Sec. 422.252, Sec.
422.258, Sec. 422.266, and Sec. 422.308)
16. Quality Bonus Appeals (Sec. 422.260)
17. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When CMS Terminates a
Contract With a Part D Sponsor (Sec. 423.509)
18. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions by a Physician or
Other Health Care Professional and the Employment of a Medical
Director (Sec. 422.562, Sec. 422.566, Sec. 423.562, and Sec.
423.566)
19. Compliance Officer Training (Sec. 422.503 and Sec.
423.504)
20. Agent and Broker Training Requirements (Sec. 422.2274 and
Sec. 423.2274)
21. Call Center Interpreter Requirements (Sec. 422.111 and
Sec. 423.128)
22. Customized Enrollee Data (Sec. 422.111 and Sec. 423.128)
23. Extending the Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs (Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 422.101)
24. Translated Marketing Materials (Sec. 422.2264 and Sec.
423.2264)
C. Expected Benefits
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (Sec. 417.101 and 422.100)
2. Determination of Part D Low-Income Benchmark Premium (Sec.
423.780)
3. Voluntary De Minimis Policy for Subsidy Eligible Individuals
(Sec. 423.34 and Sec. 423.780)
4. Increase in Part D Premiums Due to the Income Related Monthly
Adjustment Amount (D--IRMAA) (Sec. 423.44)
5. Elimination of Medicare Part D Cost Sharing for Individuals
Receiving Home and Community-Based Services (Sec. 423.772 and Sec.
423.782)
6. Appropriate Dispensing of Prescription Drugs in Long-Term
Care Facilities Under PDPs and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.154) and
Dispensing Fees (Sec. 423.100)
7. Complaint System for Medicare Advantage Organizations and
PDPs (Sec. 422.504 and Sec. 423.505)
8. Uniform Exceptions and Appeals Process for Prescription Drug
Plans and MA-PD Plans (Sec. 423.128 and Sec. 423.562)
9. Including Costs Incurred by the AIDS Drug Assistance Program
(ADAP) and the Indian Health Services (IHS) Toward the Annual Part D
Out-of-Pocket Threshold (Sec. 423.100 and Sec. 423.464)
10. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered Preventive Service (Sec.
417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
11. Elimination of the Stabilization Fund (Sec. 422.458)
12. Improvements to Medication Therapy Management Programs
(Sec. 423.153)
13. Changes to Close the Part D Coverage Gap (Sec. 423.104 and
Sec. 423.884)
14. Medicare Advantage Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments, and
Rebate and Application of Coding Adjustment (Sec. 422.252, Sec.
422.258 and Sec. 422.266, and Sec. 422.308)
15. Quality Bonus Appeals (Sec. 422.260)
16. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When CMS Terminates a
Contract With a Part D Sponsor (Sec. 423.509)
17. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions by a Physician or
Other Health Care Professional and the Employment of a Medical
Director (Sec. 422.562, Sec. 422.566, Sec. 423.562, and Sec.
423.566)
18. Compliance Officer Training (Sec. 422.503 and Sec.
423.503)
19. Agent and Broker Training Requirements (Sec. 422.2274 and
Sec. 423.2274)
20. Call Center Interpreter Requirements (Sec. 422.111 and
Sec. 423.128)
21. Customized Enrollee Data (Sec. 422.111 and Sec. 423.128)
22. Extending the Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs (Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 422.101)
23. Translated Marketing Materials (Sec. 422.2264 and Sec.
423.2264)
D. Alternatives Considered
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at Original Medicare
Levels (Sec. 417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
2. Cost Sharing for Medicare Covered Preventive Services (Sec.
417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
3. Quality Bonus Appeals (Sec. 422.260)
4. Timely Transfer of Data and Files When CMS Terminates a
Contract With a Part D Sponsor (Sec. 423.509)
5. Review of Medical Necessity Decisions by a Physician or Other
Health Care Professional and the Employment of a Medical Director
(Sec. 422.562, Sec. 422.566, Sec. 423.562, and Sec. 423.566)
6. Compliance Officer Training (Sec. 422.503 and Sec. 423.504)
7. Agent and Broker Training Requirements (Sec. 422.2274 and
Sec. 423.2274)
8. Call Center Interpreter Requirements (Sec. 422.111 and Sec.
423.128)
9. Customized Enrollee Data (Sec. 422.111 and Sec. 423.128)
10. Extending the Mandatory Maximum Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Amount
Requirements to Regional PPOs (Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 422.101)
11. Translated Marketing Materials (Sec. 422.2264 and Sec.
423.2264)
12. Increases to the Applicable Percentage for Quality (Sec.
422.258(d))
E. Accounting Statement
Regulations Text
Acronyms
ACA The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (which is the collective term
for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)
and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111-
152))
AO Accrediting Organization
ADS Automatic Dispensing System
[[Page 71193]]
AEP Annual Enrollment Period
AHFS American Hospital Formulary Service
AHFS-DI American Hospital Formulary Service-Drug Information
AHRQ Agency for Health Care Research and Quality
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
ANOC Annual Notice of Change
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)
CAHPS Consumer Assessment Health Providers Survey
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CCIP Chronic Care Improvement Program
CCS Certified Coding Specialist
CHIP Children's Health Insurance Programs
CMP Civil Money Penalties
CMR Comprehensive Medical Review
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CMS-HCC CMS Hierarchal Condition Category
CTM Complaints Tracking Module
COB Coordination of Benefits
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility
CPC Certified Professional Coder
CY Calendar Year
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171)
DUM Drug Utilization Management
EGWP Employer Group/Union-Sponsored Waiver Plan
EOB Explanation of Benefits
EOC Evidence of Coverage
ESRD End-Stage Renal Disease
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FEHBP Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan
FFS Fee-for-Service
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
HCPP Health Care Prepayment Plans
HEDIS HealthCare Effectiveness Data and Information Set
HHS [U.S. Department of] Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-191)
HMO Health Maintenance Organization
HOS Health Outcome Survey
HPMS Health Plan Management System
ICD-9-CM Internal Classification of Disease, 9th, Clinical
Modification Guidelines
ICEP Initial Coverage Enrollment Period
ICL Initial Coverage Limit
ICR Information Collection Requirement
IRMAA Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount
IVC Initial Validation Contractor
LEP Late Enrollment Penalty
LIS Low Income Subsidy
LTC Long Term Care
MA Medicare Advantage
MAAA Member of the American Academy of Actuaries
MA-PD Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug Plans
M+C Medicare +Choice Program
MOC Medicare Options Compare
MPDPF Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Finder
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSAs Medical Savings Accounts
MSP Medicare Secondary Payer
MTM Medication Therapy Management
MTMP Medication Therapy Management Programs
NAIC National Association Insurance Commissioners
NCPDP National Council for Prescription Drug Programs
NCQA National Committee for Quality Assurance
NGC National Guideline Clearinghouse
NIH National Institutes of Health
NOMNC Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage
OEP Open Enrollment Period
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
OTC Over the Counter
PART C Medicare Advantage
PART D Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs
PBM Pharmacy Benefit Manager
PDE Prescription Drug Event
PDP Prescription Drug Plan
PFFS Private Fee For Service Plan
POS Point of Service
PPO Preferred Provider Organization
PPS Prospective Payment System
P&T Pharmacy & Therapeutics
QIO Quality Improvement Organization
QRS Quality Review Study
PACE Programs of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly
RADV Risk Adjustment Data Validation
RAPS Risk Adjustment Payment System
RHIA Registered Health Information Administrator
RHIT Registered Health Information Technician
SEP Special Enrollment Periods
SHIP State Health Insurance Assistance Programs
SNF Skilled Nursing Facility
SNP Special Needs Plan
SPAP State Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Supplemental Security Income
TrOOP True Out-Of-Pocket
U&C Usual and Customary
USP U.S. Pharmacopoeia
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Overview of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) established the Part D program and made
significant revisions to Part C provisions governing the Medicare
Advantage (MA) program. The MMA directed that important aspects of the
Part D program be similar to, and coordinated with, regulations for the
MA program. Generally, the provisions enacted in the MMA took effect
January 1, 2006. The final rules implementing the MMA for the MA and
Part D prescription drug programs appeared in the Federal Register on
January 28, 2005 (70 FR 4588 through 4741 and 70 FR 4194 through 4585,
respectively).
As we have gained experience with the MA program and the
prescription drug benefit program, we periodically have revised the
Part C and D regulations to continue to improve or clarify existing
policies and/or codify current guidance for both programs. For example,
in December 2007, we published a final rule with comment on contract
determinations involving Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations and
Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors (72 FR 68700). In April
2008, we published a final rule to address policy and technical changes
to the Part D program (73 FR 20486). In September 2008 and January
2009, we finalized revisions to both the Medicare Advantage and
Medicare prescription drug benefit programs (73 FR 54226 and 74 FR
1494, respectively) to implement provisions in the Medicare Improvement
for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) (Pub. L. 110-275), which
contained provisions affecting both the Medicare Part C and D programs,
and to make other policy changes and clarifications based on experience
with both programs (73 FR 54208, 73 FR 54226, and 74 FR 2881). In April
2010, we finalized new policies for both the MA and Part D prescription
drug programs as part of our continuing efforts to protect
beneficiaries from excessive out-of-pocket costs, ensure transparency
in plan costs and benefits, and strengthen plan compliance with our
requirements (75 FR 19678 through 19826).
B. History and Overview
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) established
a new ``Part C'' in the Medicare statute (sections 1851 through 1859 of
the Social Security Act (the Act)) which established the current MA
program. As discussed above, the MMA, enacted on December 8, 2003,
added a new ``Part D'' to the Medicare statute (sections 1860D-1
through 42 of the Act) creating the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Program, and made significant changes to the M+C program.
[[Page 71194]]
Also as noted previously, MIPPA, enacted on July 15, 2008, further
amended provisions in Part C and D, including adding extensive new
provisions governing marketing under both programs, which were
implemented in a final rule that paralleled provisions in MIPPA that
was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2008 (73 FR
54208), and in the same issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 54226) we
published a separate interim final rule that addressed the other
provisions of MIPPA affecting the MA and Part D programs. We also
clarified the MIPPA marketing provisions in a November 2008 interim
final rule (73 FR 67407) and issued a separate interim final rule in
January 2009 to address MIPPA provisions related to Part D plan
formularies (74 FR 2881).
The proposed and final rules addressing additional policy
clarifications under the Part C and D programs appeared in the October
22, 2009 (74 FR 54634) and April 15, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 19678
through 19826), respectively. (These rules are hereinafter referred to
as the October 2009 proposed rule and the April 2010 final rule,
respectively.) As noted when issuing these rules, we believed that
additional programmatic and operational changes were needed in order to
further improve our oversight and management of the Part C and D
programs, and to further improve a beneficiary's experience under MA or
Part D plans.
Indeed, one of the primary reasons set forth in support of issuing
our April 2010 final rule was to address beneficiary concerns
associated with the annual task of selecting a Part C or Part D plan
from so many options. We noted that while it was clear that the
Medicare Part C and D programs have been successful in providing
additional health care options for beneficiaries, a significant number
of beneficiaries have been confused by the array of choices provided
and have found it difficult to make enrollment decisions that are best
for them. Moreover, experience had shown that organizations submitting
multiple bids under Part C and D had not consistently submitted benefit
designs significantly different from each other, which we believed
added to beneficiary confusion. For this reason, the April 2010 rule
required that multiple plan submissions in the same area have
significant differences from each other. Other changes set forth in the
April 2010 final rule were aimed at strengthening existing beneficiary
protections, improving payment rules and processes, enhancing our
ability to pursue data collection for oversight and quality assessment,
strengthening formulary policy, and finalizing a number of
clarifications and technical corrections to existing policy.
In this new proposed rule, we are continuing our process of
implementing improvements in policy consistent with those included in
the April 2010 final rule, while also implementing changes to the Part
C and Part D programs made by recent legislative changes. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted on
March 23, 2010, as passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009, and the
House on March 21, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act (Pub. L. 111-152), which was enacted on March 30, 2010, modified a
number of Medicare provisions in Pub. L. 111-148 and added several new
provisions. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L.
111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L.
111-152) are collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The ACA includes significant reforms to both the private health
insurance industry and the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Provisions
in the ACA concerning the Part C and D programs largely focus on
beneficiary protections, MA payments, and simplification of MA and Part
D program processes. These provisions affect the way we implement our
policies concerning beneficiary cost-sharing, assessing bids for
meaningful differences, and ensuring that cost-sharing structures in a
plan are transparent to beneficiaries and not excessive. Some of the
other provisions for which we are proposing revisions to the MA and
Part D programs, based on the ACA and our experiences in administering
the MA and Part D programs, concern MA and Part D marketing, including
agent/broker training; payments to MA organizations based on quality
ratings; standards for determining if organizations are fiscally sound;
low income subsidy policy under the Part D program; payment rules for
non-contract health care providers; extending current network adequacy
standards to Medicare medical savings account (MSA) plans that employ a
network of providers; establishing limits on out-of-pocket expenses for
MA enrollees; and several revisions to the special needs plan
requirements, including changes concerning SNP approvals and deeming.
In general, our proposals are intended to strengthen the way we
administer the Part C and D programs, and help beneficiaries make the
best plan choices for their health care needs.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
A. Overview of Proposed Changes
In the sections that follow, we discuss the proposed changes to the
regulations in 42 CFR parts 417, 422, and 423 governing the MA and
prescription drug benefit programs. To better frame the discussion of
the specific regulatory provisions we are proposing, we have structured
the preamble narrative by topic area rather than in subpart order.
Accordingly, our proposals address the following five specific goals:
Implementing the provisions of the ACA.
Clarifying various program participation requirements.
Strengthening beneficiary protections.
Strengthening our ability to distinguish for approval
stronger applicants for Parts C and D program participation and to
remove consistently poor performers.
Implementing other clarifications and technical changes.
A number of the proposed revisions and clarifications affect both
the MA and prescription drug programs, while some affect section 1876
cost contracts. Within each section, we have provided a chart listing
all subject areas containing provisions affecting the Part C, Part D,
and section 1876 cost contract programs, and the associated regulatory
citations that would be revised.
We note that these regulations would be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule that will finalize the proposed changes
discussed in this proposed rule, except where otherwise noted in the
preamble. Table 1 lists the proposed changes that have an effective
date other than 60 days after the publication of the final rule. The
proposed effective dates are discussed in the preamble for each of
these items.
We are proposing several changes to the regulations to reflect
provisions in the ACA which either are already in effect, or have an
effective date that will likely be earlier than 60 days after the
publication of the final rule. Table 2 lists these proposed changes.
While these ACA provisions are effective on the statutory effective
date, we propose that the regulations implementing these provisions be
effective 60 days after the publication of the final rule.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 71195]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO10.000
[[Page 71196]]
B. Changes to Implement the Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
The ACA includes significant reforms of both the private health
insurance industry and the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Provisions
in the Act concern the Part C and D programs and largely focus on
beneficiary protections, MA payments, and simplification of MA and Part
D program processes. The changes based on provisions in the ACA are
detailed in Table 3.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO10.001
[[Page 71197]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO10.002
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
1. Cost Sharing for Specified Services at Original Medicare Levels
(Sec. 417.101 and Sec. 422.100)
Section 3202 of the ACA amended section 1852 of the Act to
establish new standards for MA plans' cost sharing. Specifically,
section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Act was amended by the addition of a new
clause (iii) that limits cost sharing under MA plans so that it cannot
exceed the cost sharing imposed under Original Medicare for specific
services identified in a new clause (iv). New section 1852(a)(1)(B)(iv)
of the Act lists the three services for which cost sharing in MA plans
may not exceed that required in Original Medicare (chemotherapy
administration services, renal dialysis services, skilled nursing care)
and at section 1852(a)(1)(B)(iv)(IV) of the Act specifies that this
limit on cost sharing also applies to such other services that the
Secretary determines appropriate, including services that the Secretary
determines require a high level of predictability and transparency for
beneficiaries. The limits on cost sharing in clause (iii) are ``subject
to'' an exception in clause (v) which provides that, ``[i]n the case of
services described in clause (iv) for which there is no cost sharing
required under Parts A and B, cost sharing may be required for those
services'' under the clause (i) standard in place prior to the
amendments made by section 3202 of the ACA. This section requires that
overall cost sharing for Medicare Part A and B services be actuarially
equivalent to that imposed under Original Medicare. As noted in the
final rule that appeared in the April 15, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR
19712) and clarified in our April 16, 2010 policy guidance, the
provisions of section 3202 of the ACA apply to MA plans offered in CY
2011. To codify these provisions, we are proposing to amend Sec.
422.100 by adding a new paragraph (g). In addition, under our authority
in section 1876(i)(3)(D) of the Act to impose ``other terms and
conditions'' deemed ``necessary and appropriate,'' we are proposing in
a proposed new paragraph (g) in Sec. 417.100 that the requirements in
section 3202 of the ACA be extended by regulation to section 1876 cost
contracts. We believe that this extension is necessary in order to
ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have the benefit of the cost
sharing protections enacted in the ACA, regardless of whether they
receive their Part A and B benefits through Original Medicare, an MA
plan, or under a section 1876 cost contract.
We believe that the measures to protect beneficiaries from high
out-of-pocket costs in section 3202 of the ACA complement the steps we
already have taken in our April 2010 final rule to protect
beneficiaries from health plans with high out-of-pocket costs,
discriminatory cost sharing and benefit designs that interfere with
beneficiaries' access to affordable high quality health care, and
create confusion that is attributable to having too many MA plan
choices in an area that are not ``meaningfully different.'' In fact,
for CY 2011, MA organizations already were expected to comply with new
standards for cost sharing and to submit meaningfully different plans
in order to reduce beneficiary confusion, and were strongly encouraged
to provide Medicare-covered preventive services without cost sharing.
Organizations also were expected to limit the number of plans offered
in a service area by identifying for non-renewal plans with sustained
low enrollment.
In our April 16, 2010 guidance issued via the Health Plan
Management System (HPMS) (``Benefits Policy and Operations Guidance
Regarding Bid Submissions; Duplicative and Low Enrollment Plans; Cost
Sharing Standards; General Benefits Policy Issues; and Plan Benefits
Package (PBP) Reminders for Contract Year (CY) 2011''), we included
clarifying information related to implementation of the required cost
sharing for chemotherapy administration services, renal dialysis
services, and skilled nursing care for CY 2011 and we defined
chemotherapy administration services to include chemotherapy drugs,
radiation therapy services and other related chemotherapeutic agents,
as well as administration, and skilled nursing care to mean skilled
nursing facility services. We also clarified that, since there is no
cost sharing under Original Medicare for the first 20 days of skilled
nursing services, under section 1852(a)(1)(B)(v) of the Act, the new
restrictions in section 3202 of the ACA
[[Page 71198]]
do not apply to such services during this period.
In our proposed addition to Sec. 422.100 and Sec. 417.101, we
would incorporate these definitions for the two service categories. We
welcome comments on these proposed cost sharing standards.
We also are proposing to limit cost sharing for home health
services under MA plans to that charged under Original Medicare. We
note that, although we can generally rely on our authority at
1852(a)(1)(B)(iv)(IV) of the Act to apply Original Medicare cost
sharing limits to other services that the Secretary determines
appropriate, because there is no cost sharing under Original Medicare
for home health services, as in the case of the first 20 days of
skilled nursing facility services, the exception in clause (v) of
section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Act would apply, and the limit on cost
sharing under section 1852(a)(1)(B)(iii) of the Act would not apply.
Thus, in proposing to apply Original Medicare cost sharing amounts to
home health services or any other service with zero cost sharing, we
would rely instead on our authority in section 1856(b)(1) of the Act to
establish MA standards by regulation, and in section 1857(e)(1) of the
Act to impose additional ``terms and conditions'' found ``necessary and
appropriate'' to require that cost sharing for these services under MA
plans conform to that under Original Medicare, meaning that no cost
sharing could be imposed for these services.
We believe that even with the additional restriction on cost
sharing for home health services, MA organizations will continue to
have adequate flexibility to design plan benefits that are responsive
to beneficiary needs and preferences while providing access to high
quality and affordable health care. We are soliciting public comment on
our proposal to limit cost sharing for home health services to that
charged for those services under Original Medicare.
2. Simplification of Beneficiary Election Periods (Sec. 422.62, Sec.
422.68, Sec. 423.38, and Sec. 423.40)
Section 3204 of the ACA modified section 1851(e)(3)(B) of the Act
such that, beginning with plan year 2012, the annual coordinated
election period (AEP) under Parts C and D will be held from October 15
to December 7. We propose to amend Sec. 422.62(a)(2) and Sec.
423.38(b) to codify this change, which will be effective October 15,
2011 for elections effective January 1, 2012.
Section 3204 of the ACA also revised section 1851(e)(2)(C) of the
Act to establish, beginning in 2011, a 45-day period at the beginning
of the year (January 1 through February 14) that allows beneficiaries
enrolled in MA plans the opportunity to disenroll and join Original
Medicare, with the option to enroll in a Medicare prescription drug
plan. This 45-day period replaces the MA open enrollment period that
previously occurred annually from January 1 to March 31, and eliminates
the requirements in section 1851(e)(2)(c)(iii) of the previous open
enrollment provision that required that Part D status be maintained
when an election is made (under the previous rule, an individual
disenrolling from an MA-PD plan to Original Medicare was required to
enroll in a Part D plan, where it is optional under the new provision).
We propose to amend Sec. 422.62(a) to provide for this new
disenrollment opportunity, and modify Sec. 423.38(d) to allow for
enrollment into a standalone PDP.
We also would amend Sec. 422.62(a) to clarify that the open
enrollment opportunities for those beneficiaries who are newly eligible
for MA would continue only through the end of 2010. Additionally, we
would modify Sec. 422.68(f) to specify the effective date for
disenrollment requests submitted during the new 45-day disenrollment
period. Finally, in Sec. 423.40(d), we would specify the enrollment
effective dates for individuals who enroll in a standalone Medicare
prescription drug plan after disenrolling from MA during the 45-day
period. These changes would be effective January 1, 2011.
As indicated in section II.A. of this proposed rule, we propose
that the regulations implementing these provisions be effective 60 days
after the publication of the final rule.
3. Special Needs Plan (SNP) Provisions (Sec. 422.2, Sec. 422.4, Sec.
422.101, Sec. 422.107, and Sec. 422.152)
This section proposes a definition of a fully integrated dual-
eligible special needs plan (SNP) for purposes of section
3205(b)(iv)(II) of the ACA, and regulations implementing changes made
by the ACA which extend the SNP program, extend provisions permitting
existing DE-SNPs that were not seeking to expand their service areas to
continue operating through 2012, and establish a required NCQA approval
process for SNPs.
a. Adding a Definition of Fully Integrated Dual Eligible SNP (Sec.
422.2)
Section 3205 of the ACA revised section 1853(a)(1)(B) of the Act
provides authority to apply a frailty payment under PACE payment rules
for certain individuals under fully integrated dual-eligible special
needs plans described in section 3205(b)(iv)(II) of the ACA. We are
adding a definition of fully integrated dual-eligible SNPs to Sec.
422.2 that would apply for these purposes. Under this definition, a
plan--
Is a SNP enrolling special needs individuals entitled to
medical assistance under a State plan under Medicaid, as defined under
section 1859(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act and Sec. 422.2;
Provides dually-eligible beneficiaries access to Medicare
and Medicaid benefits under a single managed care organization (MCO);
Has a capitated contract with a state Medicaid agency that
includes coverage of specified primary, acute and, long-term care
benefits and services, consistent with State policy;
Coordinates the delivery of covered Medicare and Medicaid
health and long-term care services, using aligned care management and
specialty care network methods for high-risk beneficiaries; and
Employs policies and procedures approved by CMS and the
State to coordinate or integrate member materials, including
enrollment, communications, grievance and appeals, and quality
assurance.
b. Extending SNP Authority
Section 3205 of the ACA revised section 1859(f)(1) of the Act to
extend the authority for SNPs to restrict enrollment to special needs
individuals, thereby permitting SNPs to continue to limit enrollment to
special needs individuals through the 2013 contract year. This
extension applies to all SNP categories, with the exception of dual
eligible SNPs that do not have a contract with the State in which they
operate as described in section II.B.1.c. of this proposed rule. This
provision is effective upon enactment of the ACA. However, as indicated
in section II.A. of this proposed rule, we propose that the regulations
implementing this provision be effective 60 days after the publication
of the final rule.
c. Dual-Eligible SNP Contracts With State Medicaid Agencies (Sec.
422.107)
Section 164 of MIPPA provided that all new dual-eligible SNPs (DE
SNPs) must have contracts with the State Medicaid Agencies in the
States in which the SNP plans operate. The provision also allowed
existing DE SNPs that were not seeking to expand their service areas to
continue to operate without a State contract through the 2010 contract
year as long as all other MIPPA established requirements were met. This
authority was codified at Sec. 422.107. Section 3205 of the ACA
extended this provision for existing DE SNPs through December 31, 2012
such
[[Page 71199]]
that all new DE SNPs must have contracts with State Medicaid agencies,
while all renewing DE SNPs that do not have contracts with State
Medicaid agencies and are not seeking to expand their service areas may
continue to offer DE SNPs through the 2012 contract. For contract year
2013, all DE SNPs--new and renewing--must have contracts with State
Medicaid agencies. Accordingly, we propose revising Sec.
422.107(d)(ii) to codify this provision. This provision is effective
upon enactment of the ACA. However, as indicated in section II.A. of
this proposed rule, we propose that the regulations implementing this
provision be effective 60 days after the publication of the final rule.
d. Approval of Special Needs Plans by the National Committee for
Quality Assurance (Sec. 422.4, Sec. 422.101, and Sec. 422.152)
The ACA amended section 1859(f) of the Act to require that SNPs be
approved by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
effective January 1, 2012 and subsequent years. Under this section, the
NCQA approval process shall be based on the standards established by
the Secretary.
The NCQA SNP approval process should provide a foundation for
selecting Medicare Advantage organizations that comprehend the unique
requirements of the SNP program and are capable of implementing these
requirements. Both the overall quality improvement (QI) program
description and the model of care (MOC) are critical clinical elements
that represent the potential for the SNP to provide integrated care for
Medicare enrollees.
New SNPs or SNPs that are expanding their service areas are already
required to submit a QI Program Plan and a MOC as part of the
application process. For 2012, we will also require existing SNPs to
submit their QI Program and MOC during the same application timeframe.
NCQA will review the QI program and the MOC elements during the
application process using the standards that are currently being
developed by CMS. NCQA would assume responsibility for the review and
scoring of the overall QI program plan and the MOC based on the
standards developed by CMS. While we will coordinate with NCQA in
developing these standards, CMS will not participate in the scoring and
review of the MOC and QI program plans.
Shortly, we will release specific instructions and guidance to
organizations about how to submit their QI program and MOCs. This
guidance will include the specific criteria that NCQA will use to
evaluate the QI program and the MOC. Also included in the guidance will
be information about technical assistance that will be available to the
SNPs as they prepare their QI Program and MOC submissions as well as
details on the frequency of the SNP approval process. We are concerned
that an annual approval process could be burdensome for plans.
Therefore, we are considering an approval cycle that would occur
between 1 to 5 years. This approval cycle would be designed so that the
plans that have a higher score on the initial approval of their QI
program and MOC would be granted a longer period before being required
to be re-approved. While plans that scored at the lower end of the
acceptable spectrum would be granted a shorter period before the next
approval was required. We are also considering using other quality
improvement measures to help determine the length of time a plan may
have before reapproval. For example, plans that score well during their
annual quality improvement audits may be eligible for extensions to the
time period for the approval process. We would like to use the public
comment period to help to determine the appropriate frequency for the
SNP approval process.
We are conducting a review of the MOCs from a sample of the SNPs.
Data are not yet available from these audits. However, it is
anticipated that the audits will be completed by the end of the
calendar year. Information received from the audits will be used to
assist CMS in revising and improving the MOC. In addition, we intend to
use this information to modify and refine the required evaluation
criteria over time to improve the QI program and the MOC.
Accordingly, we propose adding a new paragraph (iv) to Sec.
422.4(a) to require MA plans wishing to offer a SNP, whether new or
current, to be approved by NCQA, effective January 1, 2012, by
submitting their overall quality QI program and MOC to CMS for NCQA
evaluation and approval, per CMS guidance. We also propose codifying
the new requirement at Sec. 422.101(f), which specifies MOC
requirements, by adding a new paragraph (vi). Finally we propose
codifying the new requirement by revising Sec. 422.152(g), which
specifies QI program requirements.
4. Section 1876 Cost Contractor Competition Requirements (Sec.
417.402)
Section 3206 of the ACA revised section 1876(h)(5)(C) of the Act to
extend implementation of the section 1876 cost contract competition
provisions until January 1, 2013. Previously, MIPPA had specified that
section 1876 cost contractors operating in service areas or portions of
service areas with two or more local or two or more regional Medicare
coordinated care plans meeting minimum enrollment requirements (5,000
enrollees for urban areas and 1,500 enrollees for non urban areas) be
non-renewed beginning in 2010. In addition, MIPPA specified that MA
plan enrollment be assessed over a full contract year.
As a result of the ACA revision, we will evaluate enrollment of
competing MA coordinated care plans beginning 2012, and affected
section 1876 cost contractors will receive non-renewal notices
beginning 2013. Beginning in 2014, section 1876 cost contractors will
no longer be able to offer health care services in affected service
areas. We propose to revise Sec. 417.402(c) to specify the statutory
change in the implementation date of the section 1876 cost plan
competition requirements from 2010 to 2013.
This provision is effective upon enactment of the ACA. However, as
indicated in section II.A. of this proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule.
5. Making Senior Housing Facility Demonstration Plans Permanent (Sec.
422.2 and Sec. 422.53)
Section 3208 of the ACA establishes (at section 1859(g) of the Act)
that as of January 1, 2010, senior housing facility plans participating
as of December 31, 2009 ``in a demonstration project established by the
Secretary under which such a plan was offered for not less than 1
year'' may continue participation as Medicare Advantage senior housing
facility plans. MA senior housing facility plans must:
Limit enrollment to residents of continuing care
retirement communities as defined in section 1852(l)(4)(B) and codified
at Sec. 422.133(b)(2)--that is, an arrangement under which housing and
health-related services are provided (or arranged) through an
organization for the enrollee under an agreement that is effective for
the life of the enrollee or for a specified period;
Provide primary care services onsite and have a ratio of
accessible physicians to beneficiaries that the Secretary determines is
adequate; and
Provide transportation services for beneficiaries to
specialty providers outside of the facility.
We propose to amend the definitions section at Sec. 422.2 to
include ``senior
[[Page 71200]]
housing facility plan'' as a new coordinated care plan type. Our
proposed definition of the term senior housing facility plan would be
consistent with the statutory requirements for such plans at section
1859(g) of the Act--that is, that such plan restrict enrollment to
individuals who reside in a continuing care retirement community as
defined in Sec. 422.133(b)(2); provide primary care services onsite
and have a ratio of accessible physicians to beneficiaries that we
determine is adequate consistent with prevailing patterns of community
health care as provided under Sec. 422.112(a)(10); provide
transportation services for beneficiaries to specialty providers
outside of the facility; and was participating as of December 31, 2009
in a demonstration established by us for not less than 1 year. We note
that a senior housing facility plan must otherwise meet all
requirements applicable to MA organizations under this part.
In addition, we propose to add a new Sec. 422.53 to subpart B of
Part 422 to address the eligibility and enrollment policies applicable
to senior housing facility plans. We propose specifying at Sec. 422.53
that MA senior housing facility plans must restrict enrollment in these
plans to residents of continuing care retirement communities, and that
individuals enrolled in such plans must meet all other MA eligibility
requirements in order to be eligible to enroll. In addition, we propose
specifying at Sec. 422.53(c) that an MA senior housing facility plan
must verify the eligibility of each individual enrolling in its plan
using a CMS approved process. As indicated in section II.A. of this
proposed rule, we propose that the regulations implementing this
provision be effective 60 days after the publication of the final rule.
6. Authority To Deny Bids (Sec. 422.254, Sec. 422.256, Sec. 423.265,
and Sec. 423.272)
Section 3209 of the ACA amends section 1854(a)(5) of the Act by
adding subsections (C)(i) and (ii) to provide that nothing in section
1854 of the Act shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept
any or every bid submitted by an MA organization, and expressly
provides that the Secretary may deny a bid submitted by an MA
organization for an MA plan if it proposes significant increases in
cost sharing or decreases in benefits offered under the plan. Section
3209 also extends these provisions to apply to the review of bids from
Part D sponsors by amending section 1860D-11(d) of the Act to add a new
paragraph (3). This statutory authority applies to bids submitted for
contract years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. However, as
indicated in section II.A. of this proposed rule, we propose that the
regulations implementing this provision be effective 60 days after the
publication of the final rule.
We believe that these amendments clarify the Secretary's authority
to deny bids submitted by MA organizations and PDP sponsors and provide
support for our current policies intended to encourage plans that are
high quality, meaningfully different from each other, and
nondiscriminatory with respect to cost sharing. In our final rule
entitled ``Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and
the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs'' (75 FR 19678), we
established authority to impose limits on cost sharing and to deny bids
submitted by plans with sustained low enrollment, and for plans not
meaningfully different from other plans offered by the same MA
organization or PDP sponsor in a service area. We provided further
guidance related to these policies via the Health Plan Management
System (HPMS) on April 16, 2010 (``Benefits Policy and Operations
Guidance Regarding Bid Submissions; Duplicative and Low Enrollment
Plans; Cost Sharing Standards; General Benefits Policy Issues; and Plan
Benefits Package (PBP) Reminders for Contract Year (CY) 2011''and
``2011 Part D Plan Benefit Package (PBP) Submission and Review
Instructions'').
Using our authority under sections 1857(c)(2)(B) and 1860D-
12(b)(3)(D) of the Act, we codified requirements in Sec.
422.506(b)(1)(iv) and Sec. 423.507(b)(1)(iii) for Part C and Part D,
respectively, to non-renew a health plan or prescription drug plan (at
the benefit-package level) if the plan does not have sufficient number
of enrollees to establish that it is a viable independent plan option.
Consistent with that authority, we scrutinized low-enrollment plans
during the bid review period this year and encouraged sponsors to
withdraw or consolidate low-enrollment plans prior to submitting bids
for CY 2011. We revised Sec. 422.256(b)(4)(i) and Sec.
423.272(b)(3)(i) to stipulate that we would only approve a bid
submitted by a MA organization or Part D sponsor if its benefit package
or plan cost structure is substantially different from those of other
plan offerings by the organization or sponsor in the service area with
respect to key characteristics such as premiums, cost-sharing,
formulary structure, or benefits offered. Related changes to Sec.
422.254(a)(4) and Sec. 423.265(b)(2) provide that MA organizations and
Part D sponsors may submit multiple bids in the same area only if the
offerings are substantially different from each other. In the above-
mentioned April 16, 2010 guidance for PDP sponsors, for the CY 2011
plan year, we defined meaningful differences between health plans as a
$20 per member per month difference (PMPM) in cost sharing and for PDPs
as a $22 PMPM difference in cost sharing (not including premiums) as
reflected in the out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) data.
We further indicated that we do not believe sponsors can
demonstrate meaningful differences based on expected out-of-pocket
costs between two stand-alone basic Part D benefit designs and maintain
both statutory actuarial equivalence requirements and fulfill the
requirement (in Sec. 423.153(b)) to maintain cost-effective drug
utilization review programs. Therefore, we indicated that PDP sponsors
should submit only one basic offering (where basic offering includes
defined standard, actuarial equivalent or basic alternative drug
benefit types) for a stand-alone prescription drug plan in a service
area. We also are increasing our scrutiny of the expected cost sharing
amounts incurred by beneficiaries under coinsurance tiers, in order to
more consistently com